0
Musketman Posted 12 years ago
Grammar
6. Do not break sentences in two.
I'm so confused by this rule I just read; its from The Elements of Style by Strunk & White.
The rule says:
6. Do not break sentences in two.
"I met them on a Cunard liner many years ago. Coming home from Liverpool to New York."
"She was an interesting talker. A woman who had traveled all over the world and lived in half a dozen countries."
Their explanation: In both these examples, the first period should be replaced by a comma and following word begun with a small letter.
What I don't understand is why these two sentences even need a comma? Isn't the second half of the first example a dependent clause? And isn't there a rule that says that if a dependent clause comes after the independent clause then a comma isn't needed? I thought the rules for using commas in sentences were:
1. Independent clause+Comma+conjunction+Comma+Independent clause
2. Dependent clause+comma+Independent clause
3. Place commas in between non-restrictive elements
Those are all the comma rules I know, so I have no idea where to place the rules that Strunk & White are talking about. If someone can clarify this for me it would be greatly appreciated.
The rule says:
6. Do not break sentences in two.
"I met them on a Cunard liner many years ago. Coming home from Liverpool to New York."
"She was an interesting talker. A woman who had traveled all over the world and lived in half a dozen countries."
Their explanation: In both these examples, the first period should be replaced by a comma and following word begun with a small letter.
What I don't understand is why these two sentences even need a comma? Isn't the second half of the first example a dependent clause? And isn't there a rule that says that if a dependent clause comes after the independent clause then a comma isn't needed? I thought the rules for using commas in sentences were:
1. Independent clause+Comma+conjunction+Comma+Independent clause
2. Dependent clause+comma+Independent clause
3. Place commas in between non-restrictive elements
Those are all the comma rules I know, so I have no idea where to place the rules that Strunk & White are talking about. If someone can clarify this for me it would be greatly appreciated.
Top answer
In the first sentence, the comma is optional; the non-finite clause may be considered either restrictive or non-restrictive. I wouldn't use the comma myself. countries' is a part of the noun phrase).
- In the first sentence, the comma is optional; the non-finite clause may be considered either restrictive or non-restrictive.
- I wouldn't use the comma myself.
- countries' is a part of the noun phrase).
- The phrase is an appositive and requires the comma.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
2 Answers
0
In the first sentence, the comma is optional; the non-finite clause may be considered either restrictive or non-restrictive. I wouldn't use the comma myself.
In the second sentence, the phrase after the comma is a noun phrase, not a clause (the clause 'who...countries' is a part of the noun phrase). The phrase is an appositive and requires the comma.
In the second sentence, the phrase after the comma is a noun phrase, not a clause (the clause 'who...countries' is a part of the noun phrase). The phrase is an appositive and requires the comma.
00
Related Questions