This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Comma splice article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2020 and 12 December 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Kebernhardt.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 18:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
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)
I'm confused. Shouldn't there be a comma in this example of a "comma splice"?
-- hydnjo talk 13:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
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)
Why did someone change this to a typography stub? It's a grammar and linguistics stub. Category:Typography_stubs has mainly fonts in it. bCube. talk( contribs); 00:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
{{
cite book}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)) 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."I removed the poetry sample, which is not applicable to standard English prose usage. Here is the removed text:
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)
I'm not happy with the way the Joanne Buckley reference was added. I've toned it down a little, but I think more work needs to be done.
Firstly, views on what is right and wrong in grammar are opinions: they need to be reported as opinions, not as factual statements. This is especially true when there is cited evidence of reputable authors who break the rules.
Secondly the list of seven conjunctions is remarkably rigid. This seems to suggest that I can say "He went to bed, for he was tired", but not "He went to bed, since he was tired". I'm sure this isn't what the text means to say, but that's what it says, so it needs to be clarified.
Finally, I don't think the checklist for use "in your own writing" is encyclopaedic material. I think it should be removed for this reason. If it isn't removed then it needs to be greatly improved, e.g. (a) spelling "appices", (b) reference to "the next question" when there aren't any questions.
Mhkay ( talk) 09:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I added a comment about although and since to the Buckley paragraph, and User:Muchness removed them on the grounds that these are "subordinating conjunctions" rather than "coordinating conjunctions". A subtle distinction, no doubt. But how does it affect their use in comma-spliced sentences? Are we to understand that it's OK to write "I resign, for I am defeated" and "I resign, yet I am not defeated", but it is not OK to write "I resign, since I am defeated" or "I resign, although I am not defeated"? It seems to me that there is no tenable grammatical distinction between these four sentences, and if the first two are OK, then the last two must also be OK. In fact, it appears to me that ANY conjunction is OK in this grammatical context. Mhkay ( talk) 18:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
"I would argue that copying is not a criminal offence, it is merely irresponsible."
I would write this sentence without compunction, but it seems to be against the rules, and not within the scope of any of the acknowledged exceptions. Using a semicolon or dash in place of the comma seems far too strong in this situation; it seems to encourage the "it is merely irresponsible" to be contrasted with the "I would argue" rather than with "copying is not..." Mhkay ( talk) 09:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
It shouldn't start a sentence. Ifnkovhg ( talk) 04:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
particularly in living languages. This is purely a matter of writing style and a pretty trivial one at that. 72.228.177.92 ( talk) 22:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be grammatically correct to correct a comma-spliced sentence by adding a comma, a space, and an ellipsis to its end? — RandomDSdevel ( talk) 14:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
In the world of professional editing, The Chicago Manual of Style (16th) is one of several modern comprehensive style guides that are in wide use. Strunk & White is extremely old-fashioned and increasingly condemned in professional editorial circles ( http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/strunk-and-white.aspx, https://chronicle.com/article/50-Years-of-Stupid-Grammar/25497), and it isn't even used a style guide by any known English-language publisher, so at least adding the advice given in modern style guides like CMOS would be more relevant and more helpful for this article. 71.227.163.196 ( talk) 02:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Correcting comma splices
|
---|
Simply removing the comma does not correct the error, but results in a run-on sentence (if the sentence is not one already). There are several alternatives to using a comma splice:
|
I've removed this section from the article because Wikipedia is not a usage guide. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 01:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I added the {{ original research}} message box to the article – a significant part of the article's content, including additions already discussed on this talk page, is evidently based on analysis, synthesis, or interpretation that may or may not be directly attributable to an existing, published source. I've listed some examples below. Any help finding reliable, published sources that explicitly support these and other statements would be appreciated.
- Some English style guides consider comma splices appropriate in certain situations... [1] [2]
- Grammarians disagree as to whether a comma splice also constitutes a run-on sentence. Some run-on sentence definitions include... [3] but others limit the term... [4] [5]
- Comma splices are considered acceptable by some in passages of spoken (or interior) dialogue, and are sometimes used deliberately to emulate spoken language more closely.
- The comma splice is often considered acceptable in poetic writing. The editors of the Jerusalem Bible translate... [6]
- The famous sentence I came, I saw, I conquered falls into the same category.
References
- ^ Truss, Lynne (2003). "That'll do, comma". Eats, Shoots & Leaves. London: Profile Books. p. 88. ISBN 1-86197-612-7.
- ^ Strunk, William (1918). "Elementary Rules of Usage". The Elements of Style (1st ed.).
{{ cite book}}
: External link in( help); Unknown parameter
|chapterurl=
|chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) ( help)- ^ "Run-on Sentences, Comma Splices". grammar.ccc.commnet.edu. Hartford, Connecticut: Capital Community College.
- ^ "Run-ons - Comma Splices - Fused Sentences". Purdue Online Writing Lab. Purdue University.
- ^ Hairston, Maxine; Ruszkiewicz, John J.; Friend, Christy (1998). The Scott, Foresman Handbook for Writers (5th ed.). New York: Longman. p. 509. ISBN 0-321-00248-2.
- ^ Alexander Jones, ed. (1966). Jerusalem Bible (Reader's Edition). Doubleday. ISBN 0-385-49918-3.
— Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 02:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:These are not original researchdoesn't address vague qualifiers like "Some", which could just as verifiably be changed to "few" or "hardly any" (since only two sources are cited); and finally, that essay doesn't necessarily indicate what is "considered" original research by the Wikipedia community – it is only an essay, not a policy. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 04:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Regarding statements in the article that are "self-evidently true" or "indisputable" and therefore don't need citations: once again, all material must be attributable to a reliable, published source, even if you're sure it is true, especially when it contains interpretation or analysis such as describing a particular example of something as "famous". However, even ordinary examples must be properly sourced to reflect proportional coverage in reliable sources and avoid original interpretations. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 09:16, 10 April 2017 (UTC) (Updated 13:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC))
New section re: "I came, I saw, I conquered" is below. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 23:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I've removed most of the above examples and
replaced them with properly sourced content. —
Sangdeboeuf (
talk) 21:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Looking at the changes made to this article over the last couple of months I find them very disappointing. The whole structure and flow of the article has been lost. A new structure has been imposed (by changing the headings) which doesn't fit the content, and the whole thing now feels random and disjointed. I'm very tempted to revert it back to where it was at the beginning of February. Mhkay ( talk) 17:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Five pillars: "Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong". Also, if you will look at my comments under § Original research above, you will see that I am not suggesting "not allowing any kind of analysis, comparison, or evaluation of sources" – I am asking for secondary sources that can be used to support said evaluation. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 14:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm not seeing any sources that explicitly place " I came, I saw, I conquered" in the same category as Strunk's joining of clauses that are "very short" and "alike in form", so I removed the statement to that effect. Usually this sentence is treated as a special example of rhetorical style [1] [2] rather than punctuation. Consider this excerpt from Follett's Modern American Usage:
Julius Caesar's well-known dispatch Veni, vidi, vici, usually rendered as I came, I saw, I conquered, is more than a series of related and compact statements. It elegantly condenses some such statement as I not only came but also saw, and I not only saw but also conquered [...] Caesar's sentence and those which are like it in English do not contradict the schoolteacher's ban against what is termed the comma fault or comma splice: the casual use of the comma to join clauses so independent as to show barely a nodding acquaintance. She wrote the song in 1990, it wasn't recorded until 1996 exemplifies this mistake [...] Those who have trouble distinguishing the comma fault from the lawful comma link had better avoid the latter and stick to semicolons, conjunctions, and sentences stopped by periods. [3]
— Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 13:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC) (updated 05:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC))
References
Does everyone know a German translation for comma splice? -- Worm&Virus ( talk) 23:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC) In German, the comma splice may be bad style, but it is not wrong grammar. Pls excuse my weak English :-)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Comma splice article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2020 and 12 December 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Kebernhardt.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 18:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
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)
I'm confused. Shouldn't there be a comma in this example of a "comma splice"?
-- hydnjo talk 13:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
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)
Why did someone change this to a typography stub? It's a grammar and linguistics stub. Category:Typography_stubs has mainly fonts in it. bCube. talk( contribs); 00:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
{{
cite book}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)) 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."I removed the poetry sample, which is not applicable to standard English prose usage. Here is the removed text:
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)
I'm not happy with the way the Joanne Buckley reference was added. I've toned it down a little, but I think more work needs to be done.
Firstly, views on what is right and wrong in grammar are opinions: they need to be reported as opinions, not as factual statements. This is especially true when there is cited evidence of reputable authors who break the rules.
Secondly the list of seven conjunctions is remarkably rigid. This seems to suggest that I can say "He went to bed, for he was tired", but not "He went to bed, since he was tired". I'm sure this isn't what the text means to say, but that's what it says, so it needs to be clarified.
Finally, I don't think the checklist for use "in your own writing" is encyclopaedic material. I think it should be removed for this reason. If it isn't removed then it needs to be greatly improved, e.g. (a) spelling "appices", (b) reference to "the next question" when there aren't any questions.
Mhkay ( talk) 09:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I added a comment about although and since to the Buckley paragraph, and User:Muchness removed them on the grounds that these are "subordinating conjunctions" rather than "coordinating conjunctions". A subtle distinction, no doubt. But how does it affect their use in comma-spliced sentences? Are we to understand that it's OK to write "I resign, for I am defeated" and "I resign, yet I am not defeated", but it is not OK to write "I resign, since I am defeated" or "I resign, although I am not defeated"? It seems to me that there is no tenable grammatical distinction between these four sentences, and if the first two are OK, then the last two must also be OK. In fact, it appears to me that ANY conjunction is OK in this grammatical context. Mhkay ( talk) 18:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
"I would argue that copying is not a criminal offence, it is merely irresponsible."
I would write this sentence without compunction, but it seems to be against the rules, and not within the scope of any of the acknowledged exceptions. Using a semicolon or dash in place of the comma seems far too strong in this situation; it seems to encourage the "it is merely irresponsible" to be contrasted with the "I would argue" rather than with "copying is not..." Mhkay ( talk) 09:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
It shouldn't start a sentence. Ifnkovhg ( talk) 04:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
particularly in living languages. This is purely a matter of writing style and a pretty trivial one at that. 72.228.177.92 ( talk) 22:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be grammatically correct to correct a comma-spliced sentence by adding a comma, a space, and an ellipsis to its end? — RandomDSdevel ( talk) 14:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
In the world of professional editing, The Chicago Manual of Style (16th) is one of several modern comprehensive style guides that are in wide use. Strunk & White is extremely old-fashioned and increasingly condemned in professional editorial circles ( http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/strunk-and-white.aspx, https://chronicle.com/article/50-Years-of-Stupid-Grammar/25497), and it isn't even used a style guide by any known English-language publisher, so at least adding the advice given in modern style guides like CMOS would be more relevant and more helpful for this article. 71.227.163.196 ( talk) 02:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Correcting comma splices
|
---|
Simply removing the comma does not correct the error, but results in a run-on sentence (if the sentence is not one already). There are several alternatives to using a comma splice:
|
I've removed this section from the article because Wikipedia is not a usage guide. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 01:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I added the {{ original research}} message box to the article – a significant part of the article's content, including additions already discussed on this talk page, is evidently based on analysis, synthesis, or interpretation that may or may not be directly attributable to an existing, published source. I've listed some examples below. Any help finding reliable, published sources that explicitly support these and other statements would be appreciated.
- Some English style guides consider comma splices appropriate in certain situations... [1] [2]
- Grammarians disagree as to whether a comma splice also constitutes a run-on sentence. Some run-on sentence definitions include... [3] but others limit the term... [4] [5]
- Comma splices are considered acceptable by some in passages of spoken (or interior) dialogue, and are sometimes used deliberately to emulate spoken language more closely.
- The comma splice is often considered acceptable in poetic writing. The editors of the Jerusalem Bible translate... [6]
- The famous sentence I came, I saw, I conquered falls into the same category.
References
- ^ Truss, Lynne (2003). "That'll do, comma". Eats, Shoots & Leaves. London: Profile Books. p. 88. ISBN 1-86197-612-7.
- ^ Strunk, William (1918). "Elementary Rules of Usage". The Elements of Style (1st ed.).
{{ cite book}}
: External link in( help); Unknown parameter
|chapterurl=
|chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) ( help)- ^ "Run-on Sentences, Comma Splices". grammar.ccc.commnet.edu. Hartford, Connecticut: Capital Community College.
- ^ "Run-ons - Comma Splices - Fused Sentences". Purdue Online Writing Lab. Purdue University.
- ^ Hairston, Maxine; Ruszkiewicz, John J.; Friend, Christy (1998). The Scott, Foresman Handbook for Writers (5th ed.). New York: Longman. p. 509. ISBN 0-321-00248-2.
- ^ Alexander Jones, ed. (1966). Jerusalem Bible (Reader's Edition). Doubleday. ISBN 0-385-49918-3.
— Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 02:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:These are not original researchdoesn't address vague qualifiers like "Some", which could just as verifiably be changed to "few" or "hardly any" (since only two sources are cited); and finally, that essay doesn't necessarily indicate what is "considered" original research by the Wikipedia community – it is only an essay, not a policy. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 04:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Regarding statements in the article that are "self-evidently true" or "indisputable" and therefore don't need citations: once again, all material must be attributable to a reliable, published source, even if you're sure it is true, especially when it contains interpretation or analysis such as describing a particular example of something as "famous". However, even ordinary examples must be properly sourced to reflect proportional coverage in reliable sources and avoid original interpretations. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 09:16, 10 April 2017 (UTC) (Updated 13:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC))
New section re: "I came, I saw, I conquered" is below. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 23:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I've removed most of the above examples and
replaced them with properly sourced content. —
Sangdeboeuf (
talk) 21:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Looking at the changes made to this article over the last couple of months I find them very disappointing. The whole structure and flow of the article has been lost. A new structure has been imposed (by changing the headings) which doesn't fit the content, and the whole thing now feels random and disjointed. I'm very tempted to revert it back to where it was at the beginning of February. Mhkay ( talk) 17:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Five pillars: "Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong". Also, if you will look at my comments under § Original research above, you will see that I am not suggesting "not allowing any kind of analysis, comparison, or evaluation of sources" – I am asking for secondary sources that can be used to support said evaluation. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 14:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm not seeing any sources that explicitly place " I came, I saw, I conquered" in the same category as Strunk's joining of clauses that are "very short" and "alike in form", so I removed the statement to that effect. Usually this sentence is treated as a special example of rhetorical style [1] [2] rather than punctuation. Consider this excerpt from Follett's Modern American Usage:
Julius Caesar's well-known dispatch Veni, vidi, vici, usually rendered as I came, I saw, I conquered, is more than a series of related and compact statements. It elegantly condenses some such statement as I not only came but also saw, and I not only saw but also conquered [...] Caesar's sentence and those which are like it in English do not contradict the schoolteacher's ban against what is termed the comma fault or comma splice: the casual use of the comma to join clauses so independent as to show barely a nodding acquaintance. She wrote the song in 1990, it wasn't recorded until 1996 exemplifies this mistake [...] Those who have trouble distinguishing the comma fault from the lawful comma link had better avoid the latter and stick to semicolons, conjunctions, and sentences stopped by periods. [3]
— Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 13:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC) (updated 05:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC))
References
Does everyone know a German translation for comma splice? -- Worm&Virus ( talk) 23:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC) In German, the comma splice may be bad style, but it is not wrong grammar. Pls excuse my weak English :-)