Compound Subordinate Clause

Question

I'm not sure I have the terminology right, but I'm trying to determine the proper way to punctuate a subordinate clause that is compound in nature. Which of the following is correct?

Since the dog was tired and the cat was sleeping, we drove through the night.

or

Since the dog was tired, and the cat was sleeping, we drove through the night.

Mister Micawber · Accepted Answer

Stylistically, you can do it either way, but I much prefer the first: it makes the subordination much clearer.

Book lime 750 · Answer

I've searched everywhere online and I haven't been able to find the answer anywhere. I see that it's been almost six years, and you still haven't gotten a detailed explanation. The few examples of (what we are referring to as) a compound subordinate (or dependent) clause that I managed to find were in Oxford Dictionary, which omitted the comma between independent clauses within the subordinate clause. My own example follows: In it, the 1st * marks the 1st independent clause within the subordinate clause beginning with the adverb, when, and the 2nd ** marks the 2nd independent clause within the subordinate clause.

The farmer woke up * when the sun rose and turned the eastern horizon blood red ** and the rooster began to crow.

Note that the 1st independent clause is complex (not compound), in that both predicates (rose & turned) are controlled by the same subject (the sun).

Surprisingly, I haven't even been able to find the answer in the new 17th edition of "The Chicago Manual of Style," but I am still looking. (And will get back to you on it.)

My personal feeling tells me that the comma in question should be omitted. Think of it . . . the sentence is now composed of a single (albeit long) independent clause (i.e., The farmer woke up). That simple clause is the focus of the sentence, which is heavily modified with the subordinated "when" clause. But, If you put a comma before the independent clause "and the rooster began to crow," you turn the simple sentence into a compound sentence composed of two separate and equal independent clauses (i.e., The farmer woke up, and the rooster began to crow.), in which "the sun rose and turned ... red" functions only to modify the 1st of the two clauses. In other words, you would totally alter the meaning and intent of the original sentence. So, I am with leaving out the comma between independent clauses within a adverbial subordinate clause. To recap, the best way, according to my cursory review and gut feeling is:

The farmer woke up when the sun rose and turned the eastern horizon blood red and the rooster began to crow.

Note there is no comma before when because it is being used restrictively.

Book lime 750 · Answer

I think what we are really dealing with her is the omission of "since" in the 2nd independent clause w/in the subordinate clause that begins with the adverb "since." In other words, what you are really saying is:

Since the dog was tired, and since the cat was sleeping, we drove through the night.

In this case, the comma is probably acceptable as a means of marking the omission (a common function of commas). Choosing this alternative simplifies the problem but avoids the deeper (and more interesting) issue of compound subordinate (or dependent) clauses.

Book lime 750 · Answer

Let me use my example again:

The farmer woke up when the sun rose and turned the eastern horizon blood red and (when) the rooster began to crow.

The 2nd (when) is omitted (and, thereby, probably open to criticism or considered a "weak link"). There are other mechanisms for dealing with this issue, but I forget them at the moment.

If I were to include the comma in question, the sentence would be:

The farmer woke up when the sun rose and turned the eastern horizon blood red, and the rooster began to crow.

In which case, you completely change the meaning. Why not just write:

The farmer woke up when the sun rose and turned the eastern horizon blood red -- and the rooster (suddenly) began to crow.

Book lime 750 · Answer

Another take on using the comma in question is this. If you use the comma, you can just as well rewrite like this:

The farmer woke up (when the sun rose and turned the eastern horizon blood red), while the rooster began to crow.

or like this:

The farmer woke up (when the sun rose and turned the eastern horizon blood red) -- and the rooster (suddenly) began to crow.

Note the change in mood:

By leaving the comma out, you blend "when the sun rose and (when) the rooster began to crow." Technically, you are probably violating some pedantic principle against omitting the 2nd "when," but it is very like a perfectly acceptable literary device that goes back centuries.

Book lime 750 · Answer

If you insert the comma, you get this: We drove through the night, since the dog was tired, and the cat was sleeping.

Note that I used a comma before the adverbial subordinate conjunction "since", which is, in itself, open to debate because "since" means "because," which doesn't take a comma (a general rule with adverbial subordinate conjunctions).

For clarity, I will rewrite the sentence;

We drove through the night because the dog was tired, and the cat was sleeping.

Totally different feeling. It's like you're saying:

We drove through the night, while the cat was sleeping (note comma before while to emphasis the contrast);

or this:

We drove through the night; the cat was sleeping.

The fact that the dog was tired gets lost in this type of construction, so you can't use it if you want to maintain your original meaning.

In summary, you should write:

Since the dog was tired and the cat was sleeping, we drove through the night. To avoid the ellipsis (of the 2nd "since" before "the cat"), you can rewrite the sentence to something like this:

The dog was tired and the cat was sleeping, so we drove through the night.

My own example, below, you can obscure the problem using a participle phrase: Note the difference:

The farmer woke up when the sun rose and turned the eastern horizon blood red and the rooster began to crow.

The farmer woke up when the run rose, turning the eastern horizon blood red, and the rooster began to crow.

Book lime 750 · Answer

Here are a few examples I pulled out of Oxford Dictionary that may help elucidate this problem:

Jeff told me that the job was available and that . . . (no comma).

The truth is that I have no money and that my friends have forsaken me. (no comma)

I smiled when he first opened his lips and while he told his story. (no comma).

Even if you consider that the comma is necessary or desirable, every grammar source, including 17th ed. of The Chicago Manual of Style, says is it acceptable to omit the (otherwise necessary) comma between very short independent clauses. Therefore, you should have no problem with:

We drove through the night because the dog was tired and the cat was sleeping.

Consider rewrites:

We drove through the night because we had our tired dog and sleeping cat in the car.

Compound Subordinate Clause

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions