The comma splice

[Nick B]

confuses me entirely. I have looked up several writing resources and sure enough they all say the same thing but in different ways.
The problem I have is that I think I understand it. Then I go away and read things by amateur and professional alike and see what, what looks to me, like comma splices everywhere. Am I simply not understanding the problem or is there something deeper going on that I can't see?

This is my greatest bugbear at the moment.

 

[HareBrain]

Then I go away and read things by amateur and professional alike and see what, what looks to me, like comma splices everywhere. Am I simply not understanding the problem or is there something deeper going on that I can't see?

What's going on is that a surprising number of writers use comma splices.

 

[Ursa major]

I blame the Romans; or, rather, the poor translation into English of

Veni, vidi, vici
​

as

I came, I saw, I conquered
​

rather than a correct version, such as

I came. I saw. I conquered.
​

or

I came; I saw; I conquered.
​

or (my preference)

I came; I saw. I conquered.
​

not to mention the many versions using 'and' in various ways.


So many correct version available and yet they use the damned comma splice.

 

[Mouse]

Nothing wrong with comma splices. I like 'em.

 

[HareBrain]

I must admit I'm not as anti 'em as I used to be, and have been known to dabble myself from time to time.

I have to say regarding Ursa's example, I find the splice-laden "I came, I saw, I conquered" easily the most elegant version, whether it's technically correct or not.

(By the way, Quellist, there is also something unofficially termed an "andless list", which I think some might confuse with comma splices. "I came, saw, conquered" is an example.)

 

[alchemist]

Nothing wrong with comma splices. I like 'em.

I dislike 'em, cos they're ugly brutes*







* except for those deployed by Mouse and Hex. Their splices are beautiful, rose-scented creatures of goodness

 

[Glisterspeck]

I think it's similar to the visual arts: novices should learn the basics rules of composition before they go about busting those rules. Comma splices can be an effective stylistic choice (think Hemingway), but they must seem purposeful to a reader. The reader can't be made to wonder if the two joined sentences really have a strong enough semantic connection or rythm to justify dropping the conjunction. And if the use doesn't pass this smell test, and if the rest of the prose is littered with other seemingly random writing errors (run-ons, misused words, dangling participles, etc) then the writer won't seem to be crafting style but ignorant of the basic rules of composition.

Without knowing the writers, and from taking parts in critiques here and elsewhere, I'd say some use them purposefully, but most do not. (By this I mean that at some point in editing they confronted the use and decided to keep it.)

 

[Jo Zebedee]

* except for those deployed by Mouse and Hex. Their splices are beautiful, rose-scented creatures of goodness

You're just scared of them...

I don't mind the odd one, especially in an action sequence, but like anything else they need to be balanced. For me, if it flows okay, I'm happy.

 

[Nick B]

Is it something that will go against your submissions though? As someone who has never had anything published yet, would it make agents and publishers reject the works?

Thanks for all your replies, I think I have learned more in the few days I have been here than in all the times I looked things up on (the always, always correct) intertubes lately.

 

[Glitch]

Is it something that will go against your submissions though? As someone who has never had anything published yet, would it make agents and publishers reject the works?

I think Glisterspeck's comment is spot on.

I think it's similar to the visual arts: novices should learn the basics rules of composition before they go about busting those rules.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Is it something that will go against your submissions though? As someone who has never had anything published yet, would it make agents and publishers reject the works?

Thanks for all your replies, I think I have learned more in the few days I have been here than in all the times I looked things up on (the always, always correct) intertubes lately.

Well, it didn't stop Hex getting an agent, or Mouse a publisher's offer and numerous writing credits to her name...


The trick, if you like them and they're part of your style, is to be very good at them. It's part of the elusive "voice" we all seek, if you like. My voice doesn't suit them much at all (although the odd ones slip in there.)

 

[Ursa major]

Or it could be that the other aspects of Hex's and Mouse's writing are so good that:

1. none of their comma splices look other than deliberate (whether they are or not ),
​

and/or

2. the agent isn't worried about the comma splices, as they're a minor issue compared to all the good stuff.
​

An editor at a publisher may have a different view of Hex's comma splices. (Surely, there has to be someone upholding standards in the publishing industry.... )

 

[Mouse]

Editors and agents don't see our comma splices because they're blinded by our pure awesomeness.

 

[Nick B]

Editors and agents don't see our comma splices because they're blinded by our pure awesomeness.

I am hoping that we can overcome any grammatical problems with shock and awe too

 

[chrispenycate]

When I was young (yes, I was once) comma splices (though we didn't yet call them that) were an absolute no-no, of a level with split infinitives. This is no longer the case; they are now, in moderation, tolerated.

needless to say I, an unrepentant pedant who still uses the subjunctive mood, have not taken on board these progressive, modern modifications, and still point out every comma splice (and a fair number of 'like's where 'as if' would be indicated)

It is normal for a language to mutate with time, but in order for successive generations to be able appreciate each other's literature we need a few stick in the muds like myself slowing the change.

And a comma splice can always be eliminated, with minimal difference (frequently none) in wording, and very little in rhythm.

 

[TheDustyZebra]

I don't consider "I came, I saw, I conquered" to be a comma-spliced entity. If it were, say, "I came, I saw that it needed to be conquered, and so I did," that would be a comma splice to me. The three together in that construction are just, as HB says, an "andless list".

For instance, springs, above, says:

The trick, if you like them and they're part of your style, is to be very good at them. It's part of the elusive "voice" we all seek, if you like.

If she said, instead, "The trick is to be very good at them, it's part of the elusive 'voice' we all seek," that would be a comma splice. Two sentences, not related by being successive parts of a list.

If it were "The trick is to be very good at them, the trick is to find the elusive 'voice'," those are related things that are kind of a list, and while it might technically be a comma splice (I wouldn't consider it so), it also works.

 

[HareBrain]

I don't consider "I came, I saw, I conquered" to be a comma-spliced entity.

Sorry, TDZ, it is. The clauses are independent. (Each works as a sentence in its own right.)

The three together in that construction are just, as HB says, an "andless list".

Actually, I didn't say that. "I came, saw, conquered" is an andless list -- note that I've removed two of the "I"s.

Your other points are good though.

 

[TheDustyZebra]

Sorry, TDZ, it is. The clauses are independent. (Each works as a sentence in its own right.)



Actually, I didn't say that. "I came, saw, conquered" is an andless list -- note that I've removed two of the "I"s.

Your other points are good though.

Oops, didn't mean to misquote you.

It's an elusive thing to try and quantify, but what I mean, I think, is that it's not quite the same animal if the parts will work as a list -- whether they all have their subjects or not.

That is to say, "I walked into the room, I picked up the gun, and I shot him" is just another way of saying "I walked into the room, picked up the gun and shot him." It's just a question of voice and how the character thinks of his actions.

Whereas, "I walked into the room, it was so dark I couldn't see if the gun was there" is two sentences jammed together with a comma that should be, at the very least, a semicolon.

And that's why I thought you were saying the same thing I meant.

 

[Ursa major]

The presence of the extra 'I's is neither here nor there, although they are superfluous (which doesn't mean they mustn't be there). The presence of a conjuction (in this case, and) makes all the difference.


And I'm not sure of the relevance of the and-less list here. A list of clauses separated only by commas, and with no conjunctions, is a comma splice. A list of clauses (separated only by commas and with no conjuctions) AND preceded by words that unite the list -

The people were diverse: six of the women had green hair, the children had blue skin, half the men had five limbs.

- seems to be an and-less list (I assume), but it's not a comma splice.

 

[tinkerdan]

Funny you should say this because I was just reading somewhere where they said that split infinitives were no longer a pariah.

When I was young (yes, I was once) comma splices (though we didn't yet call them that) were an absolute no-no, of a level with split infinitives. This is no longer the case; they are now, in moderation, tolerated.

Most comma splices can be cured unlike a splice in the middle of the audiotape or video tape.

Still I believe that comma splices are the splice of life when used correctly, which is probably never at all. Unless you can justify making the reader insert the coordinating conjunction.