0
JJDouglas Posted 11 years ago
Grammar
Is this a run-on sentence?
Is the following a run-on sentence? As the subordinating conjunction ("because" in this case) applies to both the clauses that follow, does not having a comma after "great" make it a run-on or not? Or Should there be a comma?
"I liked the film because the acting was great and the musical score was excellent."
(Sorry for the really simple example. It's all I could think of at the moment.)
"I liked the film because the acting was great and the musical score was excellent."
(Sorry for the really simple example. It's all I could think of at the moment.)
Top answer
It's fine as you have written it. A run-on is two separate sentences incorrectly joined by a comma. "
- It's fine as you have written it.
- A run-on is two separate sentences incorrectly joined by a 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.
5 Answers
0
It's fine as you have written it.
A run-on is two separate sentences incorrectly joined by a comma.
eg "I liked the film because the acting was great, the musical score was excellent."
A run-on is two separate sentences incorrectly joined by a comma.
eg "I liked the film because the acting was great, the musical score was excellent."
00
Are there any specific reasons as to why the run-on sentence rule doesn't apply to this example? I'm struggling to get my head around it. I'm constantly in conflict between what feels right and what is technically correct.
00
"I liked the film because the acting was great and the musical score was excellent."
A run-on is two independent sentences incorrectly joined, often by a comma.
eg Mary cooked dinner, Tom ate it.
What two independent sentences do you see in your example?
A run-on is two independent sentences incorrectly joined, often by a comma.
eg Mary cooked dinner, Tom ate it.
What two independent sentences do you see in your example?
00
I thought that a run-on sentence was when there is no punctuation used where there ought to be. Most style guides say you need a comma before a conjunction that links two independent clauses, but I was wondering if my example is an exception because both clauses are preceded by a subordinate conjunction that applies to both of them.
The two independent clauses are after the subordinating
The two independent clauses are after the subordinating
00
The acting was great and the musical score was excellent.
There is no run-on here. The two parts are correctly joined by the conjunction 'and'.
No comma is necessary before 'and'. The simple meaning is perfectly clear without a comma.
But as the two joined parts become
There is no run-on here. The two parts are correctly joined by the conjunction 'and'.
No comma is necessary before 'and'. The simple meaning is perfectly clear without a comma.
But as the two joined parts become
0
Related Questions