Talk:Comma splice
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
My understanding is that a run-on sentence is not the same as a comma splice; a run-on sentence has no punctuation between the two independent clauses.
E.g.,
Correct: It is nearly half past five; we cannot reach town before dark.
Comma splice: It is nearly half past five, we cannot reach town before dark.
Run-on sentence: It is nearly half past five we cannot reach town before dark.
Chuck 22:15, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
- My understanding is that a comma splice is a type of run-on sentence, with some grammarians using the term "fused sentence" to distinguishing run-ons with no punctuation. --Muchness 18:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- The following quotation from the Scott, Foresman Handbook for Writers clarifies this point. "A run-on occurs when no punctuation at all separates two independant clauses." (5th ed., p. 509) --Davidstrauss 22:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Where is the comma?
I'm confused. Shouldn't there be a comma in this example of a "comma splice"?
- A run-on sentence is a sentence that contains a comma splice.
-
This linguistics article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
--hydnjo talk 13:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] user comma-splice template
If you're interested in helping Wikipedia fix comma splices or you find them annoying in general, you can use Template:User comma-splice to your userboxes. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 02:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Grammar stub
Why did someone change this to a typography stub? It's a grammar and linguistics stub. Cat:Typography_stubs has mainly fonts in it. bCube.talk(contribs); 00:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] British as well
The article said the comma splice was considered an error "especially in American English". But I'm pretty sure there's no 'especially' about it; it's definitely considered an error in British English too. So I've changed it, but if anyone disagrees, let me know. (I don't know if the term 'comma splice' was coined in The Elements of Style — if it was, that should probably be mentioned.) Spandrawn 10:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Example
Whoever removed my example "Some people like it, some don't" is a humourless spoilsport.
Mhkay 17:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
But I found the quote from the Jerusalem Bible in this week's mass readings, which is much better!
Mhkay 12:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Eats shoots and leaves
There is no way that Lynne Truss should be cited as an authority on punctuation or grammar on Wikipedia. Can I suggest that the reference to her book be removed? There must be proper textbooks which this article can refer to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.106.225.127 (talk) 13:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- You know, I have to agree with you. Truss is a popular author, not an authority on grammar. I removed the paragraph, which is unnecessary, because it muddies the waters, is written quite flippantly and sillily, and is talking about literary and poetic use, not standard English usage. Here's the removed paragraph, which I have tidied up considerably in case for some reason there's a consensus it should be re-inserted:
-
- Very occasionally, some popular writers are less prescriptive when it comes to well-known very literary authors, though not when it comes to standard English usage. Lynne Truss [1] observes: "so many highly respected writers observe the splice comma that a rather unfair rule emerges on this one: only do it if you're famous." She cites Samuel Beckett, E. M. Forster, and Somerset Maugham. "Done knowingly by an established writer, the comma splice is effective, poetic, dashing. Done equally knowingly by people who are not published writers, it can look weak or presumptious. Done ignorantly by ignorant people, it is awful."
Softlavender (talk) 03:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I think you are trying to remove opinions that happen to differ from your own. In a matter such as grammar and punctuation, the views of a respected modern journalist are as relevant as those of the authors of dry textbooks written 100 years ago. And it's certainly worth citing respected authors such as Beckett, Forster, and Maugham who have ignored the textbooks (I'd be happier if we could find actual examples from those authors rather than quoting them second hand, but by leaving the Truss quote here, perhaps we can encourage someone to find them). Truss's observations here are pertinent and challenging, and that has a place in the article.
Mhkay (talk) 23:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] removed poetry sample
I removed the poetry sample, which is not applicable to standard English prose usage. Here is the removed text:
- The editors of the Jerusalem Bible had no qualms about using a comma splice in poetic contexts. They translate Isaiah 11:4 as:
- His word is a rock that strikes the ruthless, his sentences bring death to the wicked. [2]
I have removed this because this text is poetry (and not only that, a tramslation, and one which attempts to match an ancient language). Poetry does not follow standard usage -- there are infinite numbers of comma splices in English poetry, and rarely a semi-colon to be found. Therefore, this has no relevance. Softlavender (talk) 03:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but I'm going to put it back again. I think you are trying to remove views simply because you happen to disagree with them. Arguing that these views aren't relevant to "standard English prose usage" seems irrelevant - why should this article be concerned only with standard English prose usage? There is no reason why an article on grammar and punctuation should not explore a variety of usages including poetic usages and translations. The things you have removed meet all the criteria for inclusion: they provide cited evidence that there are writers who disagree with the standard rules, at least in particular well-chosen circumstances, and that is relevant information to include.
