<p>I know this is the SAT forum but the ACT forum is always....dead.</p>
<p>Here it is:</p>
<p>In 2002, Minnesota writer and editor Mai Neng Moua created a new literary (tradition, with the publication of the first-ever anthology,) of Hmong American writers.</p>
<p>I was stuck b/t these two choices:</p>
<p>B) tradition, with the publication of the first-ever anthology
C) tradition with the publication of the first-ever anthology</p>
<p>I thought the answer would be (B) because "with..." is an adverbial phrase, which would need a comma before it. </p>
<p>Answer is C. Why C AND why NOT B?</p>
<p>“with the publication of the first-ever anthology, of Hmong American writers.”</p>
<p>Read this bit again. That wouldn’t make sense, right?</p>
<p>^that’s not what i am saying. I know that doesn’t make sense. </p>
<p>I am telling you to look at the CHOICE B AND C AS I HAVE WRITTEN IT UP THERE AND TELL ME WHY IT IS C AND NOT B. I know the original is wrong as written.</p>
<p>Oh, sorry. >.<</p>
<p>You’re still getting too comma-happy. It’s not an inductory/dependent clause that would need the comma because it’s at the end of the sentence. Consider: “After I brushed my teeth, I went to school” vs “I went to school after I brushed my teeth.” We’re dealing with the second scenario. Hopefully that makes <em>more</em> sense?</p>
<p>But i thought of “with the publication of the first-ever anthology” as a dependent clause, which would need a comma. Why is the aformentioned quote not dependent?</p>
<p>Also aren’t most dependent clauses AT THE END OF THE SENTENCE and therefore REQUIRE COMMAS?
I still don’t understand</p>
<p>nevermind. The explanation just came to me! thanks anyways.</p>
<p>Sorry for such sucky explanations! Well, a dependent clause typically starts with words like “after, although, as, as if, because, before, even if, even though, if, in order to, since, though, unless, until, whatever, when, whenever, whether, while” etc. “With the publication” doesn’t have a verb, but a dependent clause needs to have a subject <em>and</em> a verb without expressing a complete thought to be, well, a dependent clause.</p>
<p><em>edit</em>
Awesome! Sorry for making you endure my painful “explanation” attempts XD</p>