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?)

 

Definitely not. Whether one puts a comma before a coordinator connecting two independent clauses is just a matter of choice, though grammar books used to suggest the comma, especially in relatively long sentences.

 

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.'

 

Those who might consider it a run-on would call it that because to them “so” is a subordinator. Since usage tends to determine acceptability, I would say that a majority of writers nowadays do put “so” in the category with “and.” In the mid 1950s Paul Roberts wrote: “Because for, yet, and so never connect anything but clauses, grammarians are often dubious about calling them coordinating conjunctions. But there is no real difficulty. And, but, or, nor, for, yet, and so are to be put together because they have a syntactical peculiarity not shared by subordinating conjunctions or connective adverbs: they must always stand between the two elements joined.” In 1947 Pence and Emery commented: “The distinction between transitional adverbs and coordinating and subordinating adverbs is important in the matter of punctuation. Whereas a comma is the usual mark between statements joined by coordinating or subordinating connectives, a semicolon is customarily used before a transitional adverb standing between independent clauses.” They put so in the transitional adverb category.

 

Gerald

 

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/

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/