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.
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!
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.
- Feed the dog, and I'll wash the dishes.
- 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!