A Comma Splice?

Question

So I was reading the first page of the book Gone With the Wind, by Margaret Mitchell, and I noticed a unique use of the comma. The following is a passage from the first page: "On either side of her, the twins lounged easily in their chairs, squinting at the sunlight through tall mint-garnished glasses as their laughed and talked, their long legs, booted to the knee and thick with saddle muscle, crossed negligently." The particular clause in this passage that I want to give emphasis to is "their long legs, booted to the knee and thick with saddle muscle, crossed negligently." This, as far as I can tell, is an independent clause; it can stand alone as a sentence. However, this clause is preceded by a comma, not a semicolon. Do any rules of comma usage justify this use of it? If so, which?

CalifJim · Accepted Answer

LiteratiI noticed a unique use of the comma.

Not at all. 'crossed' is a past participle as well as the simple past. In the given context it's a past participle, a non-finite form, so the clause that contains it is not an independent clause.

The legs did not, of their own volition, actively "cross negligently". They were simply in a configuration we call "crossed". Similarly, and in a shorter sentence:

She sat there quietly for hours, legs crossed.

CJ

GPY · Answer

It isn't a comma splice because "their long legs ... crossed negligently" is not a finite clause. It cannot stand alone as a sentence (not without "crossed" changing from a participle to a finite verb, which is not the intention in the original sentence).

LiteratiSo I was reading the first page of the book

I recommend that you do not use "So" to intro

LiteratiSo I was reading the first page of the book

I recommend that you do not use "So" to introduce a new topic. To me it is odd and wrong.

(Cross-posted.)

A Comma Splice?

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions