<p>I have a sentence that says</p>
<p>Should it be:</p>
<p>I want to to take courses in Philosophy, like "Intro to Kant".</p>
<p>or</p>
<p>I want to to take courses in Philosophy like "Intro to Kant".</p>
<p>I don't think you need a comma there. You aren't connecting independant clauses, and you aren't giving a series of examples...no comma, I'd think.</p>
<p>I see... so if it was 2 examples it would be comma, but just one equals no comma?</p>
<p>No, you still wouldn't use a comma there. I'm not sure why I said that, haha. Even if there were several examples, you still wouldn't use a comma before like.</p>
<p>well thanks... i'll go with no comma unless anyone else opposes?</p>
<p>I would rephrase it to </p>
<p>I want to to take courses in Philosophy *such as * "Intro to Kant"</p>
<p>Sounds more sophisticated and avoids the problem altogether.</p>
<p>I also noticed a typo in your sentence: "I want to to"</p>
<p>sfgiants is correct; it's not so much the comma as it is that the word "like" is incorrect.</p>
<p>I hope I can elucidate this clearly:</p>
<p>I depends on what you want to say. For example, if you put "I want to take courses in Philosophy, like 'Intro to Kant'", then you are comparing the course you want to take to the course "Intro to Kant". Think of a comma as a pause, so what you would be saying is "I want to take courses in Philosophy <em>pause</em> like 'Intro to Kant'". You are not saying you want to take "Intro to Kant" necessarily, just similar courses. </p>
<p>However, if you say "I want to take courses in Philosophy like 'Intro to Kant'", (well, first you're just wrong, it should be such as in this case without the comma), you are saying you want to take "Intro to Kant", in addition to other similar courses. </p>
<p>Those are purely what I get out of reading that. It's different with spoken word, since English is such a stress-timed language, and it doesn't always transcribe to writing very well. Also, since English has to regulatory body like l'Academie fran</p>
<p>Commas are often the difference between restrictive and nonrestrictive. See this:</p>
<p>"I went to Berkeley, because I found it better."
"I went to Berkeley because I found it better."</p>
<p>Contrary to popular belief, there is a big difference there. In the second example, the focus of the sentence is on the dependent clause. The first sentence might be a response to "Did you go to Berkeley or Stanford?", as though it's just an added tidbit, further information--nonrestrictive. The second sentence might be a response to "Why do you go to Berkeley?", and in that case, the comma shouldn't be there because the whole point of the sentence is to state why you went--restrictive.</p>
<p>In your case, whether or not to put a comma has nothing to do with dependent clauses or series. :P I would opt for the comma, because [seeseesee xD] in this case, the adjective phrase "like 'Intro to Kant'" is modifying "courses," not "Philosophy," so a comma is needed to say, "This phrase ain't modifying the previous word"; in speech, of course, you communicate that with a very slight pause.</p>
<p>In addition, I think "such as" is better than "like," but even then, I'd put in a comma. You want a degree of smoothness--a flow, with little speedbumps--to your sentences, but sometimes, too much smoothness seems clumsy (compare "I like to walk my dog it's relaxing" with "I like to walk my dog, it's relaxing" and "I like to walk my dog. It's relaxing").</p>
<p>Also: I don't think philosophy is capitalized there. I'm pretty sure you didn't mean to say "to to," either. :P Further, it might be nice to write out "introduction."</p>
<p>why shouldn't "philosophy" be capitalized?</p>
<p>You should also note that the the period that you have at the end of your sentence would go inside the quotation mark in the US, so it would be "Intro to Kant."</p>
<p>^^ good catch. I didn't see that. :P</p>