English is one of the most complicated languages there is, in my view. It has a gazillion rules. Being a non-native speaker, I highly suspect that I make a fair bit of mistakes in my writings without knowing it. I hope my readers keep this in mind when they come across any syntax and other types of grammatical errors in something I have written.
I recently read something about “spousal” and “friendship” commas in the Chicago Manual of Style (CMOS). To illustrate the proper use of friendship commas, the manual provided the following examples: “He wanted to see his friend John Smith before going out” and “He wanted to see his friend, John Smith, before going out.” According to the CMOS, the first sentence is the appropriate structure. The CMOS goes on to explain that because people usually have multiple friends, the name (John Smith) is necessary. Without it, the listener wouldn’t know which friend the speaker is referring to.
To demonstrate the correct use of spousal commas, the CMOS used this variation of the earlier sentence: “She wanted to see her husband, John Smith, before going out.” In this case, the CMOS says that because people generally have one spouse at a time, the name (John Smith) is nonessential and should therefore be set off by commas. In essence, the sentence is perfectly understood without the name, which is superfluous information in this instance.
It occurred to me right away that the spousal comma rule as outlined in the CMOS cannot be universally correct. There are places around the world, particularly in West Africa and Muslim countries, where some men have multiple wives at a time. If a polygynist in such a place were speaking about one of his wives, he would have to use the friendship comma rule. In those same places, the women can only have one husband at a time. Therefore, if any of the wives of a polygynist were mentioning her husband in a conversation, she would need to employ the spousal rule.
Polyandrous societies, where a woman can have multiple husbands at a time, are said to exist in parts of Nepal, Tibet and India. Globally, this practice is extremely rare. If a polyandrist in one of those atypical places speaks to someone about one of her husbands, information about who specifically she is referring to will be necessary, making the friendship rule applicable.
By adding “generally” to the sentence about people having one spouse at a time, the CMOS seems to acknowledge that monogamy is not a universal cultural practice. It is quite possible therefore that a native English speaker might see something in my writing that looks like a syntax error but is actually technically correct. The “mistake” they encounter might just be a result of my application of the proper cultural context to the subject at hand.
In light of this, I am beginning to wonder: How many of the gazillion English rules can I start bending?