Thread replies: 19
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
File: FeYZlft.jpg (185KB, 1536x2048px) Image search:
[Google]
185KB, 1536x2048px
Guys, can you help me out with some grammar clarifications about the use of comma splice?
My understanding is that a comma splice happens when two independent clauses are connected by a comma that is not followed by a coordinate conjunction. However, I was told that the following are instances of comma splice:
CASE 1:
>[..], so it may be used to shoot around the city, **but it is not great for portraits as it may [...]**.
I was told that the comma before but introduces a comma splice, but I don't understand why. But is a coordinate conjunction, should it not be correct to use a comma there?
>I was not planning [...], so I
settled on [..], and by the end of week two, [...]
Likewise, I was told that the comma before "and" introduces a comma splice. Why?
CASE 2:
>I was not comfortable with my X, I was not confident in my Y, and I generally had [..]
I was told that the first comma introduces a comma splice, and I understand that it does according to the definition I mentioned at the beginning, but this is a list of things. A list separates items with commas, so how else could I have structured this?
> i learned the importance of X, I practiced my Y, I delved into Z, and I improved my W.
Same as before; what's wrong with listing comma-separated sentences, and should I do it correctly?
>>
Help
>>
If it's a novel, comma splices are okay and the norm, for style. If it's academic, they're considered a stylistic flaw. Correct for novels, incorrect for academic writing.
>>
>>9330790
these cases are not comma splices
also, even if they were, standard English tolerates a lot comma splices (albeit not as much as, say, French)
>>
>>9331145
>Correct for novels, incorrect for academic writing.
this is a good example of an actual comma splice
>>
>>9330790
it sounds like whoever is telling you these are comma splices doesn't know the difference between an independent clause and a dependent clause
the connectives in your examples make their respective clauses dependent, and therefore make their respective sentences not count as comma spices
>>
>>
>>9331178
I'm dead sure
not sure how to resolve your problem, though
it's a bit of a pickle when a professor is wrong
maybe just rephrase into a sentence that could not even possibly resemble a comma splice
e.g.: change
>I was not comfortable with my X, I was not confident in my Y, and I generally had [..]
into
>I was not comfortable with my X, nor confident in my Y, and generally had [...]
that said, I don't see how anyone who knows what a comma splice could possible think Case 1 counts as one
how could a connective introduce a comma splice?
the whole point of a comma splice is that it lacks the requisite connective
>>
>>9331217
Good idea for fixing Case 2; I had no idea how to do it otherwise.
For case 1: could it have something to do with the fact that I have 3 connected sentences? In both cases it seems that I have a 2nd clause connected with "so", and then the last one with "but" or "and". Does this matter?
(also, if you don't mind a side question: is my use of colon in the paragraph above correct? I didn't know what else to use besides em-dash, but I feared that would be an even worse misuse?)
>>
On this topic:
>It felt very special in many ways, but also similar to some of my previous experiences
In this sentence: is the comma before "but" incorrect? The sentence after the comma doesn't seem to be an independent clause so the comma is incorrect, and its removal would not introduce a run-on, right?
Similarly, is the second comma used below correct?
>No, it's still just one thought, and punctuated correctly.
>>
>>9331281
>could it have something to do with the fact that I have 3 connected sentences?
That could be what your professor is picking up on, but it still isn't a splice. You're allowed to connect what would be independent clauses if you do it in a grammatically appropriate way.
>is my use of colon in the paragraph above correct
Yes, but a comma would be even more standard there.
>>9331339
>is the comma before "but" incorrect?
No, but it is unnecessary.
>is the second comma used below correct?
That one might actually be a splice. I would never mark that incorrect but you might change it to a semicolon to placate a pedant.
>>
>>9331424
Many thanks for all your answers. Just one last thing:
>Yes, but a comma would be even more standard there.
What's the justification of using a comma in that sentence ("For case 1, could it have something to do [...]")? I'm struggling to explain why a comma is correct there
>>
>>9331467
"For case 1" is a dependent clause that requires an independent clause
it's analogous to "As for myself, I like X." or "First of all, I will do Y."
a good heuristic would be to consider the clause in isolation
does it work as a standalone sentence?
if not, you have a dependent clause on your hands
the comma is versatile and plays many roles, try not to get caught up on a particular one
>>
>>9330790
gramar and spelling are memes made up to sell gramar books and dictionarys
>>
Hey, i'm trying to write a 2000 word (compare & contrast) essay on traditional and CGI Animation. Is there a way to make it reach the word count (without being redundant)?
>>
>>9331525
Ohh I see: "for case 1" is an introductory adverbial phrase
>>
>>9331424
>That could be what your professor is picking up on, but it still isn't a splice.
Yeah, just found out the term is "sentence sprawl"
> In short, sentence sprawl means there are too many equally weighted phrases and clauses, which produces tiresome sentences.
>>
Found this really cool PDF if anyone wants to be really anal about grammar
http://writing.wisc.edu/Handbook/PDF/twelve_common_errors_uwmadison_writingcenter_rev_sept2012.pdf
>>
FWIW more discussion confirming that case 2 is not a comma splice https://www.englishforums.com/English/CanListIndependentClausesSingle-SentenceList/pxlcr/post.htm
Thread posts: 19
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1