Necroing this bit, but I've been off-net for a few days. Nice to see (so far, as I am still reading onwards, shift-on/shift-off with writing this, and am still eight pages behind) more on-topic debate, and I don't want this to derail things if there's something useful still being talked about.
Like, i can`t handle commas in english at all.
There are rules to follow (and to ignore), but in speech-like writing they're used where a natural breaks occur.
You
can use commas before an "and". A bit like I used one before the "but", in the sentence above. "I am travelling alone, and without a mobile phone" with a the subsiduary phrase regarding the mobile phone being tacked on as an incidental fact. This has a different meaning from "I am travelling alone and without a mobile phone", where there's obviously an equally high importance betweeb the two states of travelling. Another version might be "I am travelling, alone, and without a mobile phone" where the 'aloneness' is the tack-on (or tack-in) to the travelling
sans mobile. Although there's an additional level of fact-subduing in doing so, I would be tempted to put it into parentheses. Though that might also invite reemphesis by adding in something you couldn't do in a commaed-out sub-clause, like "I am travelling (alone!), and without a mobile phone". Aloneness still can be considered an aside, but has actually been made a more important fact than the lack of phoneliness.
Where you don't use commas before an "and" (well, not in my own personal stylesheet, others are ambivalent about it, or suggest it but allow it to be optional) is prior the final "and" (or "or") of a list. "The letters 'A', 'B' and 'C' begin the alphabet. Neither 'Q', 'R' nor 'S' are anywhere in the first ten letters." (Bearing in mind that there's opinions about whether "nor" works in a list sense. Although "neither 'X' nor 'Y'" is pretty much indisputable in my particular brand of English English.)
Another comma convention I learnt, but have largely ignored since leaving school, is for quoting speech. Punctuation should occur immediately prior to a quote-mark. Both the starting and ending one, thus:
As I approached him, the soldier asked, "Friend or foe?" To which I replied, "Friend!" and caused his guarded manner to fall away in relief. "Pass friend," he murmured, unbeknownst that I had lied, "It's nice to see a new face on the front line." "Not at all," I replied, "for I've heard that this is the place that I might enjoin myself in glorious battle. And something tells me that battle is not far off."
See how a comma appears before the opening quote and a quotes closing is preceded by the relevant punctuation, but substituting a comma for a full-stop if it doesn't close the sentence housing the speech.
However, I find an awkwardness to that (never mind the sentence structure in general, and I ignored the general rule that in a dialogue you shouldn't clump both sides into the same paragraph). I'd probably write it, these days, as follows:
As I approached him, the soldier asked "Friend or foe?" To which I replied "Friend!", and caused his guarded manner to fall away in relief. "Pass friend" he murmured, unbeknownst that I had lied, "It's nice to see a new face on the front line." "Not at all," I replied, "for I've heard that this is the place that I might enjoin myself in glorious battle. And something tells me that battle is not far off."
Note that I've kept preceding commas where they make sense to the sentence (e.g. breath-pause/clause separating ones) or the quote. And of course kept the preceding exclamations and question-marks.
Of course, if abandoning the one convention, there are arguments for making that 'asked "Friend or for?".', etc, but I personally find that tacky. The "Pass friend" bit is tricky for me to justify, as that's a sentence. I might as easily but a full-stop in (but keep the lower-cased "h" in "he said", to show a follow-up), re-envisage it as "Pass friend!" (and stating, or barking, the reply... no longer murmuring) or even go for an ellipsis and a pausing comma post-quote. e.g. "Pass friend...", he murmured.
You might also wonder at the comma in the "Not at all," quote, but that's broken up from "Not at all, for I've heard...".
Don't take any of the above as gospel, BTW, and I may have erred against my own standards despite all that.
I also know that, as you can see, I overuse commas, in subclauses and the like, and they probably get confused with lists, other clauses and the like.
I also know that (as you can see) I overuse commas (in subclauses and the like) and they probably get confused with (a)lists, (b)other clauses and (c)the like.Where you don't use commas is as an apostrophe. Especially where you shouldn't even be using the apostrophe. The other day I had an example of a list of riders in a cycling event. The first table (solo bicycles and tricycles) had no header, but the second table was entitled "Tandem,s". But apostrophes are a whole other discussion. (I don't even like to say "1000's", except in a possessive sense, in which case I'd refrain from digits and say "the first thousand's experience was happier than that of the many more thousands who followed.")