While not often obvious in my message board postings, I often pride myself on my strong writing skills. Because I generally have a pretty decent grasp on various grammar rules, I’m usually the one folks come to when they need papers or correspondence edited. The whole point of this little intro is to show that I’m not totally in the dark when it comes to the grammatical dealings of the world.
The grammar item in question is exemplified in the below quote:
I fully understand that Voltaire is Voltaire and can pretty much do what he wants grammatically; also, of course, Voltaire was from a different time with different grammar rules.
The above, though, is an example of something I seem to see an increasing number of - a comma followed up with a conjunction. To the best of my knowledge, that is a comma-splice. Am I right in this regard?
Like I said, I’m doubting myself because I am starting to see this type of thing more and more often. Is there some circumstance where the above example is acceptable and ok?
There is nothing wrong with a comma followed by a conjunction, provided it is used without violating sense or meaning. In fact the comma+conjunction construction is the traditional, prescriptive-grammar way of connecting two independent clauses. In view of the fact that the above example does not use two independent clauses, its comma would probably be red-marked by an English teacher as unnecessary.
A comma splice is the joining of two independent clauses without benefit of a conjunction, expecting that tiny little comma to bear all the grammatical weight of an actual word. English teachers and other prescriptivists take a very dim view of them usually. They prefer the more formal semicolon and period when respectively joining and separating independent clauses.
Then you get into ellipticals, and I’m too damn tired to go there.
A comma splice is when you use a comma to join two independent clauses without a conjunction.
He lost the book, it did not belong to him.
It can be fixed by replacing the comma with a period or a semicolon or making one independent clause subordinate.
As far as I know, there is nothing wrong with using a comma with a conjunction word such as and, but or or.
I made the grocery list, and left for the store. This is ok. I believe, but am not sure that the comma implies a time difference between the actions that is not implied if the comma is left out. That is: “I made the grocery list and left for the store.” should be read as meaning I made the grocery list and left for the store at the same time. “I made the grocery list, and left for the store.” implies that I made the grocery list and after the list was made, I left for the store.
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. This is exactly one of those fuzzy areas where most prescriptive grammars fall apart in the hands of a skillful writer.
The very first paper I wrote for freshman comp in college came back to me with the following as my professor’s sole “critical comment”: “The rules say there should be a semicolon here, but I like it better your way.”
AFAIK Knead2Know has it: The distinction isn’t “two ideas” but “two independent clauses” (use the comma). I think the concept of “two ideas” is a little mushy, because what constitutes an idea? Example: “Time and tide wait for no man.” Isn’t “tide” a different “idea” than “time”? But obviously no comma is needed.
“I like peas and carrots.”
“I like peas, and I like carrots.”
If you can break the sentence into two sentences then IMO you should use the comma. Well, really, IMO you should seriously think about using two sentences, which is often clearer. But it is also sometimes less elegant, so maybe you decide the compound sentence is the way to go. Then you should use the comma.
Correct. “Left for the store” is not in independent clause. Nor can a good argument be made for it being elliptical. “I made a grocery list and left for the store” is merely a compound sentence with no need for a comma. This is where those of us who still got to diagram sentences in elementary school are at a slight advantage, IMVHO.
My only hesitation is to note that most sentence diagramming is very closely related to some very prescriptive ideas about grammar, which you may have noticed already I don’t hold much truck with. That being said, I did a very cursory search on the web and found this site, which doesn’t look entirely insane: Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos
Also be aware that there are other, far more sophisticated ways to diagram sentences (many of which are closely related to some pretty high-level linguistic theory), but I think this is the kind you mean.
I spent my entire 7th grade year diagramming sentences. T’was glorious, indeed. I also have to say that while I hated the entire experience at the time, I’ve learned that diagramming really has given me an upper hand in writing. Most of my friends that are awful writers never once had to diagram a sentence.
I don’t have any good resources (unless you want to find my 7th grade English teacher), but this one always makes me giggle.
Well, I wasn’t satisfied with my above link, and lo and behold, it turns out the original Reed-Kellogg grammar book is available on Project Gutenberg. No sense not going to the source, I say.
Voltaire, of course, was using French grammar rules. If your English quotation is infelicitous, I’d guess it’s the translator’s fault. He may have been misled by a virgule (comma) in the original. Or if the translation is old, it may be an old rule of English grammar that I’m not aware of. What Voltaire wrote was
Most of the online texts of Candide include the virgule between Canada and et. I’ve checked my copy of the Larousse Dictionnaire des difficultés de la langue française but I can’t even say if the virgule would belong there today, let alone in Voltaire’s day.
