can someone tell me whether or not japanese has the rule of omitting the comma,linking two different phrases like in this article i found on wikipedia

Question

第一次若槻内閣(若槻禮次郎)は鈴木商店の不良債権を抱えた台湾銀行の救済のために緊急勅令を発しようとしたが、枢密院の反対にあい、総辞職した。 there is nothing to seperate the phrase :"鈴木商店の不良債権を抱えた" from "台湾銀行の救済のために緊急勅令を発しようとしたが" i know i am just a noob in japanese but i like to read wikipedia.Can someone explain why these kind of "no gap" exists? link to article :https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%98%AD%E5%92%8C 目次:金融恐慌

Answer 1

In correct terms, those are separate clauses.

Clause is a verb with its subject and their modifiers.

Relative clause is a subordinate clause which modifies a noun.

Phrase is a group of words or singular word acting as a grammatical unit. There are different types of phrases, e.g. nominal phrases, adpositional phrases (only postpositional phrases in Japanese), verb phrases.

「鈴木商店の不良債権を抱えた」 is a relative clause, and it contains several phrases:

「鈴木商店の」 - postpositional phrase

「鈴木商店」 - nominal phrase

「不良債権を」 - postpositional phrase

「不良債権」 - nominal phrase

「鈴木商店の不良債権を抱えた」 - verb phrase

Above whole clause modifies noun「台湾銀行」.

---

In writing, after any clause or postpositional phrase (or nominal phrase not followed by case particle), you are allowed to put comma or to not put it, and there is usually no difference in meaning. When whole sentence or clause is long, it is good idea to put commas after clauses to simplify reading.

In short sentences, commas are rarely used. However the following examples are valid:

これは、私{わたし}の、猫{ねこ}です。 "This is my cat."

寝て{ねて}いる、猫{ねこ}。 "Cat, who is sleeping." (example with relative clause)

---

I said earlier "usually no difference in meaning". When there is?: Example:

連用形{れんようけい}/Continuative form of verbs can be used for several functions, including combining of clauses (中止法{ちゅうしほう}) and creation of compound verbs. Commas can be added to force interpretation with separate clauses:

書き{かき}出す{だす} is a compound verb "to write out/down, ...".

私{わたし}は書き{かき}出した{だした}。 "I wrote out/down (something)." OR "I wrote (something 1), and I took out (something 2)."

私{わたし}は書き{かき}、出した{だした}。 "I wrote (something 1), and I took out (something 2)."

---

Another situation when commas are useful is when omitting particle after noun (which is rather limited to は, が, を), to prevent reading of two words as one compound word. Examples (titles of novels):

『世界最高の暗殺者、異世界貴族に転生する』 [*]

『史上最強の大魔王、村人Aに転生する』 [*]

『勇者、辞めます〜次の職場は魔王城〜』 [*]

Answer 2

I'm not sure why you think it's 2 different phrases. There's no comma because 「鈴木商店の不良債権を抱えた」describes 「台湾銀行」. This is a very common form of description. The equivalent in English would be something like "In order to save the Bank of Taiwan that held the bad debts of 鈴木商店..." No comma needed in English either.