Unfortunately, this sounds more like a matter of preference. This is not an actual rule

It's a rule. I happened to guess correctly. He created an interrupted sentence structure by placing the modifier between the subject and the verb. link

It's a rule. I happened to guess correctly. He created an interrupted sentence structure by placing the modifier between the subject and the verb.

I agree with what the link is saying, and I agree that "Winter finally is here" is poor wording, but nowhere does it say that there must be commas surrounding the interrupting modifier. The author just writes that these interrupted sentences are weak, which does not mean grammatically incorrect (and therefore in violation of a rule). All of the improvements in the examples involve switching words around. Putting commas around the interrupting modifier does not resolve the interruption. Isn't that what you're trying to make a case for? Furthermore, if you read closely, the author writes, "Although you can often get away with interrupting the structure of the sentence with a short (one-word) modifier, adding a longer modifier significantly worsens the sentence."

That doesn't make it any less of a nonessential parenthetical element [can be re/moved without changing the essential meaning of the sentence], which requires commas. link, link.

This is going in circles. That rule does not apply in this case. Why? Revisit the two versions:

1. Winter finally is here.
2. Winter is finally here.

Again, I ask: Assuming that the rule applies here, why is it that that the first version must be set off by commas, but the second version doesn't? Yes, the "finally" in the first sentence is an interrupting modifier, but as I noted above, commas do not resolve the interruption. In fact, they obstruct the flow even more, if anything. The rule described by your two links generally does not apply to adverbs.

And as I said before, in MIT link, the author specifically wrote, "you can often get away with interrupting the structure of the sentence with a short (one-word) modifier." This is one of those situations.

I'm done here. If you wish, you may continue this on my profile, though I'm not sure how else to convince you.

This is a pointless discussion. I'm sorry, but it is. Just let people submit and if their haikus are incorrect grammatically or whatever, hey, they don't have to win the contest.

This is a pointless discussion. I'm sorry, but it is. Just let people submit and if their haikus are incorrect grammatically or whatever, hey, they don't have to win the contest.

The discussion has been transferred over to our respective profiles, but I don't think it's pointless. Wouldn't you agree that participants deserve a fair judging of their haikus? Docking points for trivial grammar mistakes is a petty way of judging, in my opinion. Plus, if the judges are going to scrutinize the haikus for grammar, you guys should have a mastery of grammar rules.

Like, you need a comma after "submit" in your second sentence. That's how stupid this grammar thing is. But I do agree that egregious mistakes are different and should count against the author.

After further research, xerox's haiku will be accepted, but it contains weak structure and I advise improving it, although there will be no penalty if it remains unchanged.

Ok EmperorPalpatine here is the full haiku whith the necesairy modifications

Paradise in ice,
Like an ice-cold  block of ice
They live in ice now

Popsicle

Pleasing shade of pink,
Scent of the blazing tropics,
Yet cool on the tongue.

I hope I'm not too late! I don't know what time it is in the US now.