Comma with

[yo4561]

Let's say I have this made-up example to think about my friend "comma with":

"The bakery had a new item, a cupcake made from cereal, with chocolate syrup, that people were going crazy over, leading to lines out the door."

In this sentence, the use of comma with means that the cupcake was made from cereal AND the cupcake had chocolate syrup?

However, if I move things around to:

"The bakery had a new item, a cupcake made from cereal with chocolate syrup, that people were going crazy over, leading to lines out the door."
This example means that the cupcake was made from cereal... cereal that had chocolate syrup?

I understand that comma with is an adverbial modifier and modifies the main action taking place in the sentence. However, this structure is a bit funky given that "a cupcake" explains the 'new item"--> seems to be a noun modifier? Many thanks in advance as always

Another question on the topic... let's say I have this made-up example "Retailers, with ten to fifteen locations, are being severely impacted by the pandemic." How is this comma with example correct when it is not an adverbial modifier nor modifying the main action taking place in the sentence?

[esledge]

First, please accept our apologies for the late response. A tech glitch hid this folder from all logged-in Manhattan Prep staff for the first quarter of the year, and I’m still digging through the backlog.

Let's say I have this made-up example to think about my friend "comma with":

"The bakery had a new item, a cupcake made from cereal, with chocolate syrup, that people were going crazy over, leading to lines out the door."

In this sentence, the use of comma with means that the cupcake was made from cereal AND the cupcake had chocolate syrup?

However, if I move things around to:

"The bakery had a new item, a cupcake made from cereal with chocolate syrup, that people were going crazy over, leading to lines out the door."
This example means that the cupcake was made from cereal... cereal that had chocolate syrup?

I understand that comma with is an adverbial modifier and modifies the main action taking place in the sentence. However, this structure is a bit funky given that "a cupcake" explains the 'new item"--> seems to be a noun modifier? Many thanks in advance as always

This is a tough example because I can’t tell what the intended meaning is. The idea of cereal that has chocolate syrup is fairly ridiculous… yet that’s where we are as a society, ha ha.

Because either the cupcake or the cereal in the cupcake could have chocolate syrup, which one of them has syrup would have to be made super clear by the placement of the “with” phrase. I’d argue that placement is more important than commas or no commas.

If I’m free to change anything/everything, I’d probably go with this:

People were going crazy over the bakery’s new item, a cupcake covered with chocolate syrup and made from cereal, leading to lines out the door.

Putting “with chocolate syrup” first helps it clearly modify cupcake, not cereal. The chocolate and cereal are further separated by the parallelism between “covered with” and “made from” that both follow “a cupcake.”

Another question on the topic... let's say I have this made-up example "Retailers, with ten to fifteen locations, are being severely impacted by the pandemic." How is this comma with example correct when it is not an adverbial modifier nor modifying the main action taking place in the sentence?

This example is not correct, because the “with ten to fifteen locations” seems to be essential to identify exactly which retailers are affected: no commas because it’s an essential noun modifier.

Correct: Retailers with ten to fifteen locations are being severely impacted by the pandemic.