This is an interesting discussion and I think it gives us something to
think about as we categorize error. (BTW, I intentionally left out the
comma in that sentence. Is it a run-on?)
I would not have called the original sentence a run-on sentence because its
major problem was simply a missing comma. The independent clauses had been
linked appropriately with 'so,' just as my two clauses above are linked
with 'and.'
So for me, the basic idea of a run-on is that the joining of two
independent clauses forces a reader to have trouble parsing the sentence.
The comma missing from the original example does not give a reader any
trouble at all. This seems to be why it is acceptable to join two short
independent clauses with simply a conjunction and no comma.
The discussion is intriguing to me in terms of how we characterize error.
There seems to be a more structural rules-based view as opposed to a more
functional view. The first seems more writer-based (Am I following
the conventions of formal English?) and the second more reader-based (Can
my reader easily understand my meaning?).
Linda
Linda Di Desidero, PhD
Director, Leadership Communication Skills Center
Marine Corps University
Gray Research Center, Room 122
Quantico, Virginia 22134
703-784-4401
On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 11:00 AM, Karl Hagen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> John's concern about grammatical legalism is well placed. To call out
> something as a run-on carries with it an intrinsic criticism of “not
> worthy,” which can definitely be beside the point. To run with your legal
> metaphor, I’m sympathetic to the maxim, “de minimus non curat lex,”
> particularly as a pedagogical matter in the classroom. On the other hand, I
> also spend a significant portion of my time training writing teachers, so I
> spend a lot of time thinking about how the system of rules we set up lead
> to consequences down the line as teachers and their students try to employ
> those rules on real-world language. (You’ll note that in my last email I
> was very careful to attribute the definition of run-on to a “common
> understanding” rather than owning it as my own position. That’s because I’m
> not convinced that it’s the right one, but I do see it as a logical
> consequence of the way run-ons are commonly taught.)
>
> Dick, I think I understand how you’re laying things out. I’m still working
> through the consequences in my head, though. It’s interesting that you
> include the semicolon among the list of sentence-final punctuation marks. I
> wouldn’t do so, as the semicolon always needs to be followed by something
> else, and that something doesn’t automatically start with a capital letter.
> You can’t, for example, have the final sentence in a paragraph end in a
> semicolon the way you can for the other marks. And in this scheme, some of
> your sentences will start with lower-case letters. For myself, when I use
> the term “sentence” without a qualifier, I mean an orthographic sentence,
> starting in a capital letter and ending in sentence-final punctuation.
> Whether or not it’s syntactically well-formed can be indicated with
> additional commentary. Thus, I can say, without self-contradiction, things
> like, “This sentence is a fragment."
>
> So that I understand your definition of a sentence, are you saying that an
> independent clause along with all its dependents and adjuncts is a
> sentence, but it’s not a sentence if it’s introduced by a coordinator like
> “and"? That’s the only way I can make sense of the distinction you draw in
> saying that the “so” example is a single sentence (unless you consider “so”
> a subordinator, but your example with “and” makes me think that’s not the
> case). Correct me if I’m paraphrasing you badly, but it looks like you’re
> saying that the use of a coordinator makes the second independent clause
> not a sentence. In that case, what status do you assign to a coordinator
> initial sentence (e.g., “But there’s more to be said on the issue.”)? Is
> that not a sentence, under your definition?
>
> Gerald, I wasn’t advocating a particular position, only exploring the
> consequences of following one widely taught set of rules. I was even
> neutral on whether “so” should be preceded by a comma or a semicolon. But
> as a linguistic matter, “so,” in the meaning under discussion, doesn’t
> appear to belong in the same category of “however,” which is unambiguously
> a conjunctive adverb. In particular, “however,” along with most (all?) the
> other conjunctive adverbs,has a positional mobility that “so” lacks.
> Compare:
>
> I, however, kept writing.
> *I, so, kept writing.
>
> That lack of mobility affiliates “so” more with the coordinators and
> subordinators than the adverbs. (Note that “so” can be an adverb, but only
> other senses, such as “very” (I’m so sorry) or “in this manner” (I kept
> writing so), not in the meaning of “as a consequence”. As I think I’ve
> argued on the list before, “so” has some properties of a coordinator and
> some properties of a subordinator, but it does not seem very adverb-like to
> me in this function.
>
> > On Dec 6, 2014, at 7:40 PM, GERALD W WALTON <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > So you would say, Karl, that “I was tired, however I kept writing” is a
> syntactically well-formed sentence? I see a big difference between “You
> smile and the angels sing” and “There was a dream I had and want to keep
> remembering so I write the image down.” Maybe you put “so” in the category
> of “and” and “but.” I put it in the category of “therefore.”
> > Gerald
> >
> > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:
> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dick Veit
> > Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2014 9:06 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: Run-on
> >
> > Karl,
> >
> > My understanding of run-on sentences is of two sentences adjacent to
> each other with the first one lacking sentence-final punctuation (period,
> question mark, exclamation point, semicolon). The terminology I'd use is
> "run-on sentences" rather than "a run-on sentence" because they are two
> independent clauses.
> >
> > The example in question does not involve run-on sentences because it is
> one syntactically well-formed sentence, not two. It lacks the standard
> comma before "so," but that doesn't transform it into two sentences. "You
> smile and the angels sing" lacks the usual comma before "and," but I would
> not use the term "run-ons."
> >
> > Dick
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 7:55 PM, Karl Hagen <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
> > I think the problem is fundamentally definitional, and we may not all be
> on the same page with what we mean by “run-on."
> >
> > One very common understanding of the term is that it refers to a
> sentence with two or more main (independent) clauses that are not properly
> joined.
> >
> > And one common understanding of what constitutes “proper” joining is
> that you can separate those clauses with a period, a semicolon, or a comma
> + a conjunction (drawn from the FANBOYS, or FANBOY if you’re old fashioned,
> list). A FANBOYS word without the comma is not on the approved list of
> alternatives.
> >
> > If you accept that definition of a run-on and that list of rules, both
> of which are very widely taught, the sentence is a run-on, even if it’s
> rhetorically effective as it is.
> >
> > If you say no, it’s not a run-on, is that because you use a different
> punctuation rule? Do you perhaps accept the punctuation rules but have some
> different term for this pattern (e.g., fused sentence) that you consider to
> be distinct from the run-on? Or do you have a different understanding of
> what constitutes a run-on sentence altogether?
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Dec 6, 2014, at 11:12 AM, Linda Di Desidero <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Sounds like the kind of grammar feedback you might get from a machine
> reader! Definitely not a run-on. :)
> > >
> > > Linda
> > >
> > > Linda Di Desidero, PhD
> > > Director, Leadership Communication Skills Center
> > > Marine Corps University
> > > Gray Research Center, Room 122
> > > Quantico, Virginia 22134
> > > 703-784-4401
> > >
> > > On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 10:04 PM, John Chorazy <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > > Vagaries... "two or more independent clauses in the sentence that need
> a period or semicolon," highlighting "remembering so". I agree that the
> sentence is formed just fine... just a missing comma before "so" which
> still doesn't make a run-on.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 9:31 PM, Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > > Even if it were a run-on, it's a poem! . . . But all parts seem fully
> formed and properly connected. What are the specifics of the claim?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 8:11 PM, John Chorazy <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > > I've recently seen this sentence in a poem called a run-on and would
> dispute that claim. Any thoughts on a parsing would be appreciated.
> > >
> > > "There was a dream I had and want to keep remembering so / I write the
> image down, mindful that years from now nothing / will remain of it except
> this ink, and barely that."
> > >
> > > Thank you... enjoy the weekend.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > John Chorazy
> > > English III Honors, AP Lit
> > > Advisor, Panther Press
> > > Pequannock Township High School
> > > 973.616.6000
> > >
> > >
> > > Noli Timere
> > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
> interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select
> "Join or leave the list"
> > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
> > >
> > >
> > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
> interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select
> "Join or leave the list"
> > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > John Chorazy
> > > English III Honors, AP Lit
> > > Advisor, Panther Press
> > > Pequannock Township High School
> > > 973.616.6000
> > >
> > >
> > > Noli Timere
> > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
> interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select
> "Join or leave the list"
> > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
> > >
> > >
> > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
> interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select
> "Join or leave the list"
> > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
> > >
> >
> > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
> interface at:
> > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> > and select "Join or leave the list"
> >
> > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
> >
> > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
> interface at:http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select
> "Join or leave the list"
> > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
> >
> > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
> interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select
> "Join or leave the list"
> > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
> >
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
> at:
> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
|
