Feed the dog<,> and I'll wash...

T

Torque

New Member
English
Hi,

This is an issue with grammar that has bothered me for quite a while.

There is a rule that says a comma should come before a conjunction separating two independent clauses. Some independent clauses lack an explicit subject but have an implied you as the subject. Since these implied you clauses can stand on their own as a sentence, I would think they would be treated as genuine independent clauses for the purpose of this comma rule. However, in most of the writing I've seen, authors don't use a comma to separate these clauses from other independent clauses. I give examples below.


  1. Feed the dog, and I'll wash the dishes.
  2. Feed the dog and I'll wash the dishes.

The subject of "Feed the dog," is you, and it can stand alone just like that as a complete sentence. For this reason, I would use a comma as in example 1, but I usually see this kind of sentence written as example 2 is, without the comma.

I suspect this is one of those many vague areas of comma usage where it really doesn't matter, but what do you think is more correct?

Thanks!
 
    • In sentences like yours, short sentences, some people claim that the comma isn't necessary. I still like it because you have two different subjects, each with its own clause. I prefer the comma here, but many prefer to omit it.
     
    But if you want to be grammatically correct, choose #1. It doesn't matter if the sentence is short. If you have two independent clauses joined by a conjunction, you need a comma.

    You could also say "Feed the dog; I'll wash the dishes."
     
    There is no such rule. Comma use is a matter of pronunciation, of rhythm, far more than anything else. The alleged 'rule' might describe the practice of some people - and some of those might even follow it because of the mistaken belief that it existed - but it doesn't, and never has.
     
    entangledbank said:
    There is no such rule. Comma use is a matter of pronunciation, of rhythm, far more than anything else. The alleged 'rule' might describe the practice of some people - and some of those might even follow it because of the mistaken belief that it existed - but it doesn't, and never has.
    Click to expand...

    There are many sources from around the English-speaking world, in book form and on the Web, that say otherwise. To say that something doesn't exist simply because you don't like it or disagree with it is silly.

    Comma use (and punctuation in general) has nothing to do with speaking; it has to do with the written word. It governs the organization and meaning of sentences.

    Let's eat, Mary!
    Let's eat Mary!

    The student said the teacher is crazy.
    The student, said the teacher, is crazy.

    The panda eats shoots and leaves.
    The panda eats, shoots, and leaves.

    There is a world of difference in meaning between these sets of sentences, so it's plain to see that there are LOTS of rules on the use of commas!
     
    Last edited:
    entangledbank said:
    There is no such rule.
    Click to expand...
    That was my initial reaction, too. But I've learnt, hanging around the forum, that at least some AmE speakers have been taught a 'rule' on these lines.

    Torque, I suspect your "no comma" examples come from writers who (1) have never been taught the 'rule' or (2) simply disagree with it.

    Welcome to the forums, by the way!
    Torque said:
    I suspect this is one of those many vague areas of comma usage where it really doesn't matter, but what do you think is more correct?
    Click to expand...
    Ooops, sorry, I forgot to answer your question....

    I'd say both are correct:).
     
    Last edited:
    Miss Julie said:
    If you have two independent clauses joined by a conjunction, you need a comma.
    Click to expand...

    The grammar I consult says that
    "Commas are often used to separate longer or more complicated clauses. Shorter pairs of clauses are often connected without commas. Compare: I came home and the others went dancing. I decided to come home earlier than I had planned, and the others spent the evening at the local club." (Michael Swan, 2005).
    ​
    Regarding the topic sentence, in spite of it being short, I'd prefer a comma because the clauses are written in different moods - the imperative and the indicative - which disrupts the symmetry of the sentence.
     
    Torque said:
    1. Feed the dog, and I'll wash the dishes.
    2. Feed the dog and I'll wash the dishes.
    Click to expand...
    Welcome to the forum Torque.
    I agree that 1. is the more appropriate in this context, however I can understand the comma being omitted because the rule about using a comma to seperate unrelated clauses comes into conflict with another rule, which I was taught at school, that in a list we do not use a comma before "and":

    Comb your hair, feed the dog and wash the dishes.
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.
    Back
    Top