Question regarding the compound sentence

Quote by tiddlywink
I've always been of the belief that independent clauses fused with a FANBOYS conjunction should always be separated by a comma and have implemented this into my writing over the years.

Recently, somebody tried to convince me that placing a comma before the conjunction "and " is bad practice and done, more often then not, as a rule of thumb.

My question to authors: Is there any case in which a comma would NOT be necessary when fusing two independent clauses with a coordinating conjunction. If so, would you please give me an example.

Quote by dpw

Naughty but nice, lol.
It's right though. It isn't direct speech.

Quote by tiddlywink


An independent clause is a sentence that contains a subject and predicate (verb) and can stand by itself and make perfect sense. Also known as a simple sentence. I'll show you an example.

"I like sex".

This is a simple sentence. It consists of one independent clause. We know it's an independent clause because it has a subject and a verb (or predicate,if you like) makes sense by itself and expresses a complete thought.

"I" is the subject. "Like" is the predicate. "Sex" is the object.

Quote by sprhr2
I used to write with the comma because it's how I would say it. I would pause if I said "I like to read erotic stories <pause> but she likes to write them." Because of the way I spoke, I would try to use punctuation to make it 'read' the way I would speak it. "I like to read erotic stories, but she likes to write them." Doing a LOT of writing with a very particular professor I learned that I over use commas (for instance, I just tried to put one in between "professor" and "I" in the last sentence but took it out. I actually just tried to put it between "sentence" and "but" as well! Damn you academia!). My over use of commas also was related to my propensity to have run on sentences...

Whether or not it is correct, I have been instructed not to use commas like that and will continue to personally cut back my usage. At least until my thesis is complete and I brain dump all this. Thanks for bringing up grammar in the arena of erotic stories, where a) I will actually care a lot more than an academic setting and b) it will improve the writing of said stories!

Quote by SereneProdigy


There are no fixed rules for this, really. Punctuation essentially exists to create pauses when we're reading: these pauses often serve to separate clauses from one another (we even do this naturally when we're speaking), so there's still a certain 'logical reasoning' behind it, but it's not all black and white.

Written language is derived from spoken language, and so what you really should be concerned about is if what you're writing accurately reflects how your text is intended to be read out loud.

Just examine my previous sentence, which will help you figure out the comma before 'and' dilemma:

"Written language is derived from spoken language, and so what you really should be concerned about is if what you're writing accurately reflects how your text is intended to be read out loud."

In this sentence, I intentionally wanted to create a pause just before the 'and': that's how I would have pronounced it verbally if I was talking to you. In this example, it serves to give emphasis on my introductory clause 'Written language is derived from spoken language' and to make it distinct from the rest of the sentence, just like I would normally provide a pause after 'However' at the beginning of a sentence.

As I said there's no fixed rule for this, but the way I usually see it is that no comma (or pause) is necessary when the two clauses are seemingly equally important in the sentence and serve a similar purpose/function. For example:

"My father was a sailor and he worked on ships for nearly forty years."

In this example, neither clause is more important than the other regarding the information I want to convey; it also feels better to read it as a whole, without any pause.

By opposition:

"My mother has always neglected her health, and she eventually died from her carelessness."

In that one example, the main clause of the sentence is definitely the last one (ie. she died). The first clause has more of an 'introductory' or 'justificative' function. That pause would also have been reflected in the way I would have verbally said that sentence out loud. Here the comma (and the pause), provides a nice 'drumroll' or 'wait for it' effect that gives emphasis on the last portion of the sentence, which feels much better than reading the sentence in one go without any pause.

As you can see, it's all about the effect and feel you want to give to your text. You could even break the comma before 'but' in some instances, for a better effect. For example:

"Billy always had trouble fighting his drug addiction. He was always seeking the next thrill. He just kept consuming more and more. He tried to stop but couldn't."

Here, the effect that I'm trying to provide is to throw a succession of quick 'punch lines' one after the other. Adding a comma (or a pause) just before 'but' in the last sentence would just break the overall flow of it. Again, this is exactly how I would have wanted it pronounced verbally; the omission of the comma is just there to reflect that.

So all in all, the 'correct' use of punctuation has more to do with making your text pleasant/easy to read than just blindly following a rigid set of rules.

Concerning semi-colons, I use them frequently when I'm writing on these forums (in addition to my trademark 'in-lack-of-a-better-term' or 'if-you-know-what-I-mean' apostrophes), but I would avoid them altogether when you're writing a literary piece. They're a lot more useful in 'argumentative' texts, as their use is often to provide a logical connection between clauses (justification, supplementation, comparison, opposition, etc.). I would simply rework your sentences if you're writing literary prose, to steer away from a 'logical' vibe in favor of a more 'eloquent' one.

And many writers share the same opinion:

Kurt Vonnegut in A Man Without a Country (2005) famously stated:

"Here is a lesson in creative writing. First rule: Do not use semicolons. They are transvestite hermaphrodites representing absolutely nothing. All they do is show you've been to college."

Quote by dpw

Gets my vote for the best post, well it made me laugh. Extra points for the avatar.

Quote by dpw

Sex is always the object, that's why we're on Lush, lol.
I know what an independent clause is, but you can have subordinate and relative clauses. That's where the problem lies.

Quote by tiddlywink
Allow me to give my opinion on the subject of punctuation and inverted commas.


First let me show you an example of when the punctuation should be placed inside the inverted commas.

"I had great sex last night," he announced.

The comma is part of the dialogue and should be placed inside the inverted commas.


Now outside the inverted commas.

Last night I read a book called "Nineteen Eighty-four ".

In this example the full stop should be placed outside the inverted commas.


I wish I could explain it better, but it's midnight and I'm awfully tired.

Quote by mrd82


this is a perfect example of where we differ in the US. even with a title, we'd always put the period inside the quotation marks. "Nineteen Eighty-four." never "Nineteen Eighty-Four".

Quote by Dirty_D


Not true.

Quote by tiddlywink


You're very funny. I think that I'm going to like you.

I explained the subordinate clause earlier. [s]Wasn't[/s] Weren't you listening?

Quote by overmykneenow

Quote by SereneProdigy


"There are no fixed rules for this, really. Punctuation essentially exists to create pauses when we're reading: these pauses often serve to separate clauses from one another (we even do this naturally when we're speaking), so there's still a certain 'logical reasoning' behind it, but it's not all black and white.

Written language is derived from spoken language, and so what you really should be concerned about is if what you're writing accurately reflects how your text is intended to be read out loud.

Just examine my previous sentence, which will help you figure out the comma before 'and' dilemma:

"Written language is derived from spoken language, and so what you really should be concerned about is if what you're writing accurately reflects how your text is intended to be read out loud."

In this sentence, I intentionally wanted to create a pause just before the 'and': that's how I would have pronounced it verbally if I was talking to you. In this example, it serves to give emphasis on my introductory clause 'Written language is derived from spoken language' and to make it distinct from the rest of the sentence, just like I would normally provide a pause after 'However' at the beginning of a sentence.

As I said there's no fixed rule for this, but the way I usually see it is that no comma (or pause) is necessary when the two clauses are seemingly equally important in the sentence and serve a similar purpose/function. For example:

"My father was a sailor and he worked on ships for nearly forty years."

In this example, neither clause is more important than the other regarding the information I want to convey; it also feels better to read it as a whole, without any pause."





Personally, I find slavish adherence to correct grammar a bit tedious. I do have a little problem with the above example too. The content is somewhat ambiguous, so I don't really know for certain what the sentence means.

1) Is the second clause redundant? My father was a sailor for nearly forty years. (Fact) I would have put it that way in a statement of facts.
or
2) Does the sentence really mean, "My father was a sailor." (I am not saying for how long). "He worked on ships for nearly forty years." (He might or might not have been a sailor all of that time because it isn't necessary to be a sailor to work on a ship).

This is a problem with compound sentences; they can obscure the meaning, rather than amplifying or clarifying it.

Quote by HopefullAuthor


The first part of my comment is directed to Liz. We’ve all been wondering where you got that ‘devilish little smile’ from and that ‘glint’ in your eye. Now you a have finally given yourself away, when you wrote, ‘Liz walked in wearing nothing but a leopard print thong; consequently, the English lecturer fainted.’ There really is a ‘little devil’ in you, isn’t there? LOL

Okay, now I have a question for all you English language experts, suppose she had written ‘Liz walked in wearing nothing but a leopard print thong; the English lecturer fainted.’ I removed the word ‘consequently’, so would this sentence still be correct?

Now I want to offer my apology to Liz. I’m sure you are a very sweet lady, without any sign of a devil in your words or thoughts.

Quote by DanielleX


This is a great thread!

In Hopeful's example above, I don't like the use of the semi-colon when we lose the conjunction. I would probably use a dash in this sentence. The conjunction had the effect of linking the two clauses. The semi colon no longer does its job, as 'the English lecturer fainted' is left high and dry. It's almost now a separate sentence but not quite, hence I'd use a dash, to indicate that his fainting was as a result of Liz.

It could grammatically be a separate sentence but that would lead to a semantic ambiguity as his fainting might be construed as independent of Liz's sexiness.

Danny xxx

Quote by B0swell0x
"My father was a sailor and he worked on ships for nearly forty years."

Personally, I find slavish adherence to correct grammar a bit tedious. I do have a little problem with the above example too. The content is somewhat ambiguous, so I don't really know for certain what the sentence means.

1) Is the second clause redundant? My father was a sailor for nearly forty years. (Fact) I would have put it that way in a statement of facts.
or
2) Does the sentence really mean, "My father was a sailor." (I am not saying for how long). "He worked on ships for nearly forty years." (He might or might not have been a sailor all of that time because it isn't necessary to be a sailor to work on a ship).

This is a problem with compound sentences; they can obscure the meaning, rather than amplifying or clarifying it.

Quote by Verbal


Yes, great thread!

"Liz walked in wearing nothing but a leopard print thong; the English lecturer fainted."

I too would use the semi-colon to combine two independent clauses that are related, particularly when it is a cause-and-effect sort of relationship. But I am very fond--perhaps overly fond--of semi-colons. Part of the reason is, during a fast moving or action filled bit, I like to create rhythm and momentum with long sentences, as if not allowing the reader to take a breath.

I am about to submit a story that combines three sentences combined with two semi-colons. Just warning the mods in advance . I fully expect to have to end up breaking them into three separate sentences.

Quote by Verbal
I am about to submit a story that combines three sentences combined with two semi-colons. Just warning the mods in advance . I fully expect to have to end up breaking them into three separate sentences.

Quote by tiddlywink


You're ever so naughty. The moderators will be terribly cross with you.

Let's look at three independent clauses separated with a period.

"I visited an Ann Summers store today. I bought lots of sex toys. Vibrators, dildos, and love eggs were all on special offer."

We would want to use a semicolon here. Why? Because these three sentences are very closely related and, with full stops, sound very abrupt and choppy.


I could do this, "I visited an Ann Summers store today; I bought lots of sex toys. Vibrators, dildos, and love eggs were all on special offer."


My choice would be this, "I visited an Ann Summers store today. I bought lots of sex toys; vibrators, dildos, and love eggs were all on special offer."

Why? Because I would want the reader to realise that the reason I bought so many sex toys is that they were on special offer.


But if I did this, "I visited an Ann Summers store today; I bought lots of sex toys; vibrators, dildos, and love eggs were all on special offer." I would expect to be told off and sent to the naughty corner.

You're braver than me. You'll have to let me know what the mods have to say about that little doozy.

Quote by Verbal
"He maintained his cool while he stood in the cramped workmanlike efficiency of his supervisor’s office, getting chewed out by a guy who used to be his best friend; he held his composure in the supervisor’s supervisor’s office as well, the imposing corner office with the large windows and the unused leather furniture set in the corner; he even kept it together while cleaning out his desk, as his coworkers stopped by one by one to say good-bye."

Quote by SereneProdigy


I'm only offering my own personal perspective on this, but I'd simply use periods if I were you:

"He maintained his cool while he stood in the cramped workmanlike efficiency of his supervisor’s office, getting chewed out by a guy who used to be his best friend. He held his composure in the supervisor’s supervisor’s office as well, the imposing corner office with the large windows and the unused leather furniture set in the corner. He even kept it together while cleaning out his desk, as his coworkers stopped by one by one to say good-bye."


As I just said in my last post, in terms of creating pauses in your text, semicolons don't provide anything more than simple periods: they're only susceptible to make the reader steer away from your narrative and question why you used semicolons in that one specific sentence.

Quote by DanielleX


This is a great thread!

In Hopeful's example above, I don't like the use of the semi-colon when we lose the conjunction. I would probably use a dash in this sentence. The conjunction had the effect of linking the two clauses. The semi colon no longer does its job, as 'the English lecturer fainted' is left high and dry. It's almost now a separate sentence but not quite, hence I'd use a dash, to indicate that his fainting was as a result of Liz.

It could grammatically be a separate sentence but that would lead to a semantic ambiguity as his fainting might be construed as independent of Liz's sexiness.

Danny xxx

Quote by Verbal
The attempted effect (I'm not saying it was successful, this is just reasoning behind it) is to show that the whole thing is happening very quickly, a blur to him. Stringing the three sentences together sort of rushes the reader through the events, as quickly as they are occurring to the protagonist. I'm fond of using long sentences to creating an urgency, and create momentum (long sentences are really useful when describing orgasms, for instance). Plus, it is the second sentence in the story, so I want to rush the reader through the exposition to get to the meat of the story (i.e. sex ).

What a great thread.

Quote by SereneProdigy


"He maintained his cool while he stood in the cramped workmanlike efficiency of his supervisor’s office, getting chewed out by a guy who used to be his best friend. He held his composure in the supervisor’s supervisor’s office as well, the imposing corner office with the large windows and the unused leather furniture set in the corner. He even kept it together while cleaning out his desk, as his coworkers stopped by one by one to say good-bye."


Ask yourself this: if your text was to be read out loud, what difference would it make if you used periods or semicolons?

Answer: none.

The way your sentences are structured, the reader already feels that quick sequence of actions. Your three sentences all start with 'He' followed by a verb, so they're still closely related, even with the use of periods, and the reader fully understands that this is a succession of actions.

Furthermore, periods provide this 'done!' effect: the action is completed and you don't look back at it, you just proceed rapidly with the next one. Semicolons only make the sequence of actions all tangled and vague, where you don't exactly know when a specific action starts and when it ends; and it's rather strenuous for the reader too, he has to 'keep track' of the whole sequence as the semicolons kinda imply that the very first word of your lengthy sentence (3 lines!) still has a significance at the end of it.

Quote by Verbal


Well, "tangled and vauge" is kind of what I was going for, but I get your point. The semi-colons weaken the sentence, while three simple sentences would be much stronger. You're right.

Quote by RavenStar


I'm glad you got to this conclusion. I would have sent it back. ;-)

(No, not really. I probably would have talked you out of using them, though.)

Quote by SereneProdigy
You could even break the comma before 'but' rule in some instances, for a better effect. For example:

"Billy always had trouble fighting his drug addiction. He was always seeking the next thrill. He just kept consuming more and more. He tried to stop but couldn't."

Here, the effect that I'm trying to provide is to throw a succession of quick 'punch lines' one after the other. Adding a comma (or a pause) just before 'but' in the last sentence would just break the overall flow of it. Again, this is exactly how I would have wanted it to be pronounced verbally; the omission of the comma is just there to reflect that.