My first time starting a thread! Be gentle with me.
A friend of mine was recently complaining because, for some writing she is doing, she is required to use the Chicago Manual of Style. Specifically her complaint is that Chicago requires the use of a semicolon to connect two independent clauses. She says that this is “the complete opposite of how I was taught!” She prefers to use a comma to join the clauses, and says that she hates the use of the semicolon because “it just looks so wrong.”
By way of illustration:
I didn’t get any presents this year; everyone completely forgot my birthday.
My friend would put a comma where I have a semicolon, thus:
I didn’t get any presents this year, everyone completely forgot my birthday.
The thing is, I’m not sure she can blame this on Chicago. I don’t believe that any of the major style manuals allow for the use of a comma to connect independent clauses. The way I was taught, that creates a “comma splice,” and it’s incorrect.
Nothing huge is riding on this, but it got me wondering. Is there any style manual that would approve the use of a comma in this situation?
Before anyone suggests it, if I were writing it I would probably make it two separate sentences. My goal here is not to determine a better way of writing this sentence, but to find out if there is any source that would approve the second version of the sentence, with the clauses joined by a comma. Is it possible that she was taught to write that way? Or is it more likely that she’s gotten confused about something and internalized an incorrect rule of style?
In that example a semicolon is correct; a comma is incorrect. (Cite: Penguin Dictionary of English Grammar, p. 122). You can use a comma to replace a semicolon only if it is followed by ‘a connecting word like and, or, while, or yet (but not however, which requires a semicolon)’. (Cite: ibid. p. 27).
To the extent that people care about this stuff, you are correct. Your friend’s approach results in a comma splice, and should be fixed by using a semi-colon or adding a conjunction.
I’m not sure if this stuff is taught at all in schools these days. I teach history at a four-year university, and the comma splice probably appears in at least fifty percent of the papers that my students submit. I keep correcting it, and they keep doing it.
And using “and” can result in independent clauses. (See multiple examples above.) So the answer to the thread question is that it is sometimes allowed.
When I read or hear a sentence like that, I infer a subordinate clause, like for/because. If that is what is meant, it seems to me a colon would be more appropriate than a semicolon.
They already are independent clauses. “And” always joins independent clauses.
A semicolon by itself is correct. A semicolon with “and” is correct. “And” by itself is correct. A comma with “and” is inelegant and possibly redundant but not incorrect.
I took it that a sentence like “And using “and” can result in independent clauses.” was itself an independent clause, or at least could be such. Is this incorrect?
If it wasn’t incorrect, the thought was that a sentence like “I went to the shop, and I bought some milk.” would be an example where that which follows the comma is (or could be) an independent clause. If it is incorrect then my original post was wrong.
Thank you for stipulating that, because on this message board someone usually comes in and offers a rewriting of the problematic language, probably thinking they are impressing everyone with their wordsmithery, when actually it’s something that anyone could have done, and is completing evading the issue.
Really this isn’t about grammar. It’s purely a question of punctuation. The same rule applies to joining a dependent and independent clause without using a conjunction, because it’s the conjunction itself that makes a clause dependent.
Yes, this is fundamentally about style, though the prohibition against comma splices in non-fiction is pretty much universal.
Yeah, I’m a little bit confused by that, too, so hopefully Acsenray can clarify. Using comma + “and” is perfectly normal (and correct) in joining two independent clauses. If the clause on the right is a dependent clause, the comma should not be used. (For example, “I went to the store and bought some bread” vs “I went to the store, and I bought some bread.”) There is sometimes an exception for independent clauses if the second clause is short (e.g. “I watched the ending of the movie and I wept” where a comma between “movie” and “I” would usually be called for.)
Thanks for all the opinions, folks. Acsenray’s mention of the Harry Potter books puts me in mind that comma splices like this probably do occur in fiction fairly often. Or at least, more often than in formal writing. Of course, fiction is frequently more casual in its usages.
I have probably done, and read, more formal academic-type writing than my friend has, so I have probably encountered this usage more often than she has. This alone might account for my being more familiar with the rule.
As a practical matter, of course, the Chicago Manual of Style is what she’s being required to use, so she’ll need to follow its prescriptions. But I’m sure she won’t like it.
While I am generally a descriptivist when it comes to issues of language, my approach to writing in a formal setting is to follow whatever style guides are required for the situation. I honestly can’t think of a style guide that allows for such a construction as that in the OP to use a comma instead of a semi-colon. I’m wondering what your friend had been taught and whether she is simply misremembering or misunderstanding the rule. Comma splices are usually bêtes noires for those who teach English grammar and writing classes.
I’m sure that she must be. That’s what made it so puzzling, was her insistence that she had actually been taught to use commas, rather than semicolons. And it’s not as if she didn’t understand what was going on–she herself identified them as “two independent clauses,” so she understands what an independent clause is.
I didn’t want to come right out and say “Who the hell taught you this stuff?” I suspect that she developed an incorrect understanding some time ago, and has never had reason to wonder about it until now.
“And” connects two independent clauses. It cannot connect two dependent clauses.
“I went to the shop” is an independent clause. “I bought some milk” is an independent clause. They can be connected by any coordinating conjunction, including “and.”
This is wrong. For any two things that can be connected by “and” or “or,” whether words, phrases or clauses, the comma is unnecessary.
No, no, no. And, but, or, nor, for and yet connect independent clauses. They cannot make an independent clause into a dependent clause.
The two independent clauses are “I went to the store” and “(I (implied)) bought some bread.” The second is not a dependent clause.
Nope. Any two things—words, phrases or clauses—can be connected by “and” or “or” without a comma. In these situations, the comma is not offering any grammatical functionality. It’s only when you get to three or more things that the comma becomes necessary.
Brain fart. I meant “compound predicate.” Those don’t get the comma. It would be “I went to the store and bought some bread,” but it would be “I went to the store, and I bought some bread.”
I’ve so far said nothing about dependent clauses. “And” can be used that way, but I didn’t think it had to be so used. What is your take on a sentence like “And life goes on.” when taken independently of context. Or “And life goes on.” uttered in response to an event, rather than a sentence.
All I have said is consistent with this. The question I have is whether it could also be the case that “and I bought some milk” is an independent clause.
I suspect that she developed an incorrect understanding some time ago, and has never had reason to wonder about it until now.