When two sentences are very short, as they are here, and very closely related, the "and" between them can be omitted.
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
AppleFanboyTheater is immediate, its actions present to participants and audience.I don't understand this. I don't know whether "present" is supposed to be a verb or an adjective, but neither interpretation creates a sentence that I recognise as correct.
AppleFanboyWas there 'and' between 'immediate' and 'its' somehow omitted?No. You have a three-word main clause and a short clause after the comma (a noun phrase and another kind of phrase — adjective phrase in this case). The implicit connection is "in that" or "because".
CalifJimTheater is immediate (in that) its actions (are) present to (both the) participants (to the) audience.So what does it mean for actions to be "present to" the participants and the audience? That makes sense to you, does it?
GPYSo what does it mean for actions to be "present to" the participants and the audience?
CalifJim GPYSo what does it mean for actions to be "present to" the participants and the audience?Physically there. Really there. In their faces. (Compare with film, where the actors themselves and their actions are "absent" from the venue, "not present".)CJOK, I don't think I know that expression.
AppleFanboyThank you for your answers. I first though that 'present to' was a verbRe your now hypothetical question ... While it is normally a comma splice to join independent clauses with no conjunction, it is still permissible in certain strictly limited cases (e.g. "I didn't walk, I ran"), at least in my opinion. I think it is dubious though whether the or