Stage 2-f: Correct “compounds,” (w/ comma rules & accidentals)

Now we’ve turned a bright light on the first “purposeful” technique for correctly joining MCs in a compound sentence – the semicolon. For many reasons related to how people actually learn all this – as mountains of experience have taught me – I’ve labeled the semicolon “technique #1.”

Well, compared to the old TV commercials for the Avis car-rental company, this time the “#2” technique for forming compound sentences not only “tries harder,” but is actually much more common, especially if we “count” all the times it gets used incorrectly! We’ll fix that right now.

So let’s wrap up this lesson and this whole second stage of my “activated” writing system.

To do so, we will drill down (as seldom, if ever, seen) into the second purposeful technique for linking two MCs in a single sentence called a compound sentence. The “rules,” as provided on the typical grammar site, run shallow; the reality runs deep. Let’s go there.

I refer to the second, fairly common, “connective” option: the “team” of a comma-plus-coordinating conjunction. For short, I sometimes refer to this team as  ,+CC .

Come on, “lucky 7”

In this final lesson of Stage 2 (which built upon Stage 1, where we first defined and explored main clauses, themselves), we now take a close look at this second purposeful technique, which comes with its own seven options!

Yes, in a sense, here come seven more options, under the umbrella of ,+CC.  Often, your choice (among the seven) will come automatically, that is, naturally, but some cases can get tricky and cause errors and/or needless confusion. Here’s a place in my system where the terminology is pretty simple – but very important.

After delving into  ,+CC,  I will lay out some special “comma rules” that apply in or around compound sentences. This section will help clear up some right (and wrong!) answers on the various pre-quiz items, including some fresh items just ahead for you.

I won’t be laying out all the rules for commas  , but  I will clear up where commas should or shouldn’t go, in or around the use of main clauses, especially those joined by  ,+CC .

Finally, and mercifully briefly (!), with our foundation now set, like concrete poured and set to hold up what’s coming, we will look at two common accidental ways by which multiple MCs can legally go together in the same sentence. In our specific context (compound sentences), I think you’ll have no trouble learning the easy and useful function of these accidentals.

Trying mindfully

As for “the comma: its nine uses,” I don’t teach commas that way, in my system. I prefer to teach commas as they actually apply to larger lessons. I have found that students do better to learn, retain, and put to use my punctuation lessons, when they learn them as they play a role in grammatical options (for their writing) that I lay out.

You will remember the following “comma rules,” because you will understand just how they fit into the sentences you are crafting. If you’re really paying attention and learning – I could say internalizing – all this, then you really are opening the door to a thriving and natural authenticity, by which your words will mean so much more, to others and to yourself.

I’ll bet you are truly realizing that I am not kidding about this. When you have lots of options, you can sound the most like YOU!

I love knowing that your understandings are going to continue to grow, as you write and experiment – and now and then “search” a rule or tip . . . and even understand what comes up in your search! With your Up-Wordz.com foundation in place, your improvement will continue for as long as you keep trying, mindfully.

So let’s move into the three related topics of this lesson, starting, as usual, with the pre-quiz.

Now you can find out what you may (or may not) already understand, concerning the material you’ll soon be learning, as you now complete Stage 2.

Okay, we’ve made it to the Stage 2 homestretch, with three related topics to cover, so let’s get started.

You now understand the first (as I teach it) purposeful technique for combining two main clauses into one, correct compound sentence. This technique utilizes the humble semicolon; there’s one right there. (Please note, in this lesson (Stage 2-f), I will usually skip the extra spaces and bold around the semicolons, which I used frequently in Stage 2-e. With rare exceptions, I’ll show the semicolons in their correct usage; there’s another example.

Now we proceed to the connective tissue of comma-plus-coordinating conjunction; therefore, I will indulge in some eye-catching use of bold and spacing to highlight this next technique, noted in shorthand as  ;+CC.

Not the seven deadly sins,

the seven “coordinating conjunctions“

No, these extra-special members of the conjunction family do not arise from fiery Perdition. Much to the contrary, they offer us writers our very salvation, diverting us from the crooked path that leads wayward souls straight into Run-on Hell!

Okay, maybe that’s a bit over-dramatic – which is almost as bad as the lowest kind of drama, melo–drama. Yuck! Over-blown! Over-acted! Over-ly focused on poor, poor pitiful me! Who needs that kind of drama?

Now, just-right-drama?  That’s plenty workable, here upon our shared and ever-present “stage,” where we humans portray our ever-developing roles and “play out” (aka, en-act) our very lives. We don’t like the melo-drama of a bad soap opera, we need the high drama of Aristophanes, Shakespeare, Ibsen, and Tarantino! Drama makes a great lens into how we humans make meaning – made mostly (aided by images) out of language, that is, out of words!

(I am acknowledging my theoretical roots in the work of Kenneth Burke.) I’ll save a zesty “soliloquy” on “dramatism” for later (in its own essay); right now, I’ll just jazz your moment with the proposal that our lives don’t need less drama, they need better drama – starting with upgrading our own “lines” in the play of life! (Whose life? Your life! The one starring you! I’m just trying to help you come up with better lines in the play!  That’s why we’re here!

And to help get us there, you and I will now audition a “cast of seven,” indeed, but not the seven deadly sins. To the contrary, we’re courting Seven Steps to Heaven — well, writer’s heaven, anyway.

And each step has a name and a purpose; I refer, of course, to the seven “co-ordinating conjunctions” which, when accompanied by a comma, do the very job of the semicolon-plus-conjunctive adverb, as you learned all about in the prior lesson, 2-e).

That is, they legally marry two main clauses into one “compound” sentence, while also indicating the relationship that makes our lovebirds’ “two hearts beat as one” (speaking of melo-drama!).

Why “CO-ordinating” conjunctions?

Please note, I will sometimes show the word “co-ordinating” with its prefix, co-, in bold and with a hyphen, to help highlight that these CCs (when aided by a comma) can and do connect equals: They CO-ordinate two of a kind – namely, two “main” (aka in-dependent) clauses, neither main clause being sub-ordinate (aka dependent) “beneath” the other MC.

In a sense, the two, connected, MCs serve as the sentence’s “CO–captains,” which explains why they require CO–ordinating conjunctions. Indeed, some conjunctions – like “if” and “because” – actually sub-ordinate (“arrange” under or, as I like to say, “demote”) what follows them. (There are dozens of these sub-ordinators, not just seven!) We’ll get to those later. Right now, we are studying the seven co-ordinating conjunctions.

This is for my “FANBOYS” out there

Many people have some memory of learning the FANBOYS acronym – sometime, somewhere. I’ve even met a few there in line there at the Piggly who can recollect that FANBOYS stands for certain “words you use between independent clauses.” I did hear that once, anyway –really!

Giving credit where it’s presently due, I think that maybe even half of those who would be reading this text (so one-half of you, personally, ha ha) have at least some memory of FANBOYS, in its grammatical context.

If you‘re currently identifying as your smarter half, you may be wondering, what other “context,” besides “grammatical,” has anything to do with “FANBOYS”? Yep. That’s your smart side coming out. I love when that happens.

Well, I have heard “FANBOYS” used publicly in recent times, outside of any grammatical context. My ears being tuned for this, I guess, they have pricked up, at an occasional interview clips, etc., where “FANBOYS” was used in the media, referring to young, male fans of this or that pop icon: “And this is for all my fanboys out there.” Yay! The grammatical acronym has morphed, somehow, into a word – for fans who are boys. I shoulda saw it coming.

Well, that’s fine. As my father taught me, “all publicity is good publicity.” Whatever it takes, we must get the FANBOYS brand out there! 🙂

Quip tip: to qualify as an acronym, a group of initials must make a word that people actually say, like a SNAFU (possibly picked up on RADAR, as the unfortunate result of getting FUBAR?). Just sayin.’ Point is, abbreviations like FYI and BTW don’t count as acronyms, so avoid that term for them.

Fanboys and fangirls, let’s get back on track. For writers, “FANBOYS” is a not a word to use in a sentence, but a mnemonic (memory-aiding) device to help us recall the seven little words (each one, of only two or three letters – another mnemonic!) called CO-ordinating conjunctions (aka CCs).

Listed and defined in their order in FANBOYS, here are the seven CCs:

F = for

A= and

N = nor

B = boys – just kidding, it’s but!

O = or

Y = yet   . . . and

S = so.

Just like the conjunctive adverbs (e.g.  however and meanwhile) that we looked at in lesson 2-e, each of these seven “little” co-ordinating conjunctions, indicate a particular relationship between the two MCs they connect  , so   you must choose them with care, when opting for a CC (instead of a semicolon) in between your two MCs. I know you get this!

FANBOYS (aka CCs) – by function

Some writers use their CC‘s a little hit or miss   , so    let’s define them by function, to help ensure hits, only. We’ll take a look at the seven CCs, in terms of their proper time and place. My little “groupings” make sense, I hope, and will help improve your practical understanding of the nuances of such rarely-understood words as “but.” Okay, I’m joking on that one  , “but”  we need to talk some turkey!

When you had your chance, earlier here in Stage 2, did you correctly answer my Pre-Quiz item that asked which two coordinating conjunctions show “causality“? That Q required a fill-in, not a dart tossed at a multiple-choice maybe. Did you promptly type in, “for” and “so,” without an afterthought? Maybe you did, but probably not.

While we’re recollecting just where “we” were only a short time ago, when I asked, earlier, “how many CC‘s are available?” did you (be honest) A) have any idea of what I was even talking about and/or B) understand exactly that, hence, promptly answer “seven“? Hmmm. Okay, lie if you have to.

Not too many English-speaking adults in the US can promptly answer either of those simple questions (let alone both) about this central element of their own language! In delightful contrast, you already know the second answer, and you’re about to learn the details of the first.

In the parallel universe of my imagination, “which CC does what?” readily rolls off the tongue of every fifth grader.

True fact: I just taught it to one! Don’t tell me you can’t learn this stuff, the way I present it. A fifth-grader named Jonas (my tutoring student) recently did, learning the terms and uses of my system at age 11. You can learn it, too.

So here comes the low-down on those stumpifying quiz questions. Please study this rundown of all seven CCs, starting, yes, with the “cause-als.”

The “cause– als”: SO and FOR

Two of the CCs – so and for – show a “causal” (not “cas-u-al,” cause –al) relationship between the two MCs: one caused the other. That’s very significant.

For easy comparison, let’s label the example MCs to be joined, “A“and “B.” We’ll make A, “I think it will rain” and B, “I’ll bring an umbrella.”

You can easily tell that both A and B could stand as complete sentences, right? And you remember that this means that both include the “essential” pair, subject . . . plus predicate (e.g.,  I . . . think it will rain) – that’s why we can call them main (or in-dependent) clauses.

It’s one thing to “acknowledge” the sheer existence of two things (A and B . . .  something or other). It’s quite another thing to say that one thing caused the other! Okay, you’re getting the gist of these two “causal” CCs. We can capture this gist like this:

Just like therefore (when following a semicolon), so (after a comma) indicates that MC-A caused MC-B:

I think it will rain  , so  I’ll bring my umbrella.

Of our pair (so and for) “so” is the easy and common one: A  , so  B.

Less commonly (but equally valid), writers can use for to show the opposite “causal” relationship: B was caused by A: I’ll bring my umbrella  , for  I think it will rain.

Just as so equates to therefore, the CC for equates to because: We should go  , for  (because) it’s after midnight.

Reader-student, I advise you to use the CC “for” now and then! It’s uncommon   , so   you will get “points” for doing it right   , for   your reader probably hasn’t used it that way in the past year – if ever!

Yet (a CC we will look at next!) your use of “for” will make perfect sense, when you use it well, even to those who never do, themselves!

In fact, most likely, your reader has no freakin’ clue about even the existence of coordinating conjunctions. Right now, the use of these CCs is just between you, me, and the dude you accosted (oh, I did that!) at the Piggly-Wiggly. So let’s move onto the next two CCs we’ll examine as a pair.

The “contradictories”: BUT and YET

I have found that, after explaining for and so, the others take less time to clear up, so I’ll move more quickly through these other five, starting with the two “contradictories,” but and yet.

These need little explanation, except for their subtle difference. Some writers use them more or less interchangeably, depending on which one just sounds or feels right. Well, they are very similar, but they’re not identical, hence not necessarily interchangeable. The difference lies in “degree.”

Let’s start with but.  But indicates that B is true, even though it may seem to contradict certain expectations established by A:

I think it will rain  , but  I’m not bringing my umbrella. (Can you hear that yet would seem a bit much there?)

In mild contrast, yet does the same “work” as but – just more of it. We save yet for cases where the contradiction may seem especially unexpected:

The forecast calls for rain all evening  , yet  I doubt that anyone will bring an umbrella.

Hear the difference? You could use “but” there  ; however,  “yet” makes the unexpected prediction stand out more. See it?

Notice how my prior paragraph above helps validate a little “equation” I would show, in class, on the whiteboard, as regards joining MCs:

, but   =   ; however,

If I asked you to explain that, could you?

Well, if you could, it would sound something like this: both constructions can be used to correctly join two main clauses, when the second MC seems to contradict the first.

For brownie points, you might throw in “and this proper connection” makes the combination of two main clauses a correct compound sentence, instead of a run-on!

The “it can’t be both” CCs: OR and NOR

These two CCs – or and nor – are also pretty straightforward, but they do get messed up occasionally.

The mistake I sometimes see occurs when someone (mis)uses and when they mean or – that is, when what follows the CC can, in reality, be only one or the other, not both. Here’s an example of this error, in response to the question “What should we do tonight?”

Someone (not you!) might reply, erroneously, “We have options. We can go to the game  , and   we can stay in.” To that, may come a salty response: “Well, make up your mind. We can’t do both.”

Surely, you know the correct conjunction to be or (with or without the optional helper “either”): We can (either) go to the game , or  we can stay in.”

Then again, maybe the two interlocutors (that’s really the term, a central one in my scholarly training!) can, that evening, do neither of these options. The we would, of course, use not or but nor.

In contrast to or, which can work fine without either, nor, does need its “partner” – using neither (or other preceding “negation“) is not optional; it must appear with the first (not-happening!) option: We can neither go to the game  , nor  can we stay in.”

Is that painfully obvious to you, Reader-student? If so, sorry. Let me make it up to you by clarifying this related nugget, which very few writers understand, definitively.

As suggested just above, the CC nor can indeed be used without the standard-issue neither – as long as some other “negation” (some form of not or no) precedes it, near or at where the “neither” might have appeared. Here’s a quick example: I won’t go to the game  , nor  will I stay in. See? I just used “nor” without “neither” (the “won’t” did the trick).

When I see writers do this, their credibility shoots way up in my eyes! “They know what they’re doing.” Using the CC “nor” (like for, as noted above) can serve as a simple and subtle – not showy nor pretentious – way to snag some writing-skill credibility!

A little “move” like that can serve as as a subtle nod to your readers up the literacy food chain, without seeming like you’re “trying too hard” to sound educated, as can happen, for example when you use a conspicuously uncommon (call it gaudy) vocabulary word, such as the technical name for this obtrusive writing act, itself, which I just looked up: “lexical ostentation“!

Now that’s a sentence that takes you (the reader!) an adventurous “step” in the march of my ideas. And the whole thing unfolds with only one main clause (along with several “add-ons” that could not stand as their own sentences, so not MCs.

Can you see that? Check out the sentence again. The advice in there is worthwhile  , and  the model, as such, provides a lovely example of the longish, yet clearly flowing, sentence. (Well, I think it’s “lovely.” Alas, the call, as always, belongs to the reader!) Meanwhile, I just “previewed” for you the seventh CC, the one that, ironically, comes in as a solo act: and.

The seventh of seven CCs – “and” some related comma rules

The “FANBOYS word” (which we know, more precisely, as a CC) that causes the least confusion (except where and when commas come in – or don’t) is the simple “additive” and.

I won’t insult you with much more about this CC  , but  I will use it as a handy transition to some “comma” rules I’ve been promising. Sadly (tome), screw-ups with these particular “comma rules” appear frequently, even in print.

Let’s put it this way: I often see these related “comma rules” hosed up in “writing that should show better, except that the writer clearly doesn’t know better.” The major newspaper I read daily, the Denver Post, commits one or all these errors in every dang edition. So let’s clear up these common misunderstandings that arise directly from our present lesson.

Related “Comma rule” #1: Don’t use a comma before a CC

WITHOUT MCs on both sides

Reader-student, you have only seven CCs to keep tabs on ; it’s not that hard. Remember “FANBOYS” or my other mnemonic device: all seven CCs take only two or three letters to spell. That means, for example, that even “thus” (spelled with just four letters) is too lengthy for inclusion in this special group.

The error I see daily in the Denver Post and elsewhere in print occurs when writers decide they “want a pause” before a CC that does not show MCs on both sides of it. Let me show you this rule, first used incorrectly, then followed correctly:

Incorrect: Maybe I’ll just keep hosing up my commas , or not! (We see a MC on only the first side of the comma-plus-CC), not on both sides, as needed if combining a comma with that CC).

Correct: Here’s the correct compound-sentence rule  , and   I know that you understand it   , for   you’ve been reading carefully __ and   learning a lot!

See? I omitted the comma (you see just a blank there) before that final CC, “and,” since that CC is not followed by another MC.

I’m sure you can see that the phrase (a super-general “grammar term” for any related group of words) “learning a lot” does not make a MC (subject plus predicate). Less technically, but just as true, that phrase “could not stand as a complete sentence.” That’s why all you see before the CC “and” is a blank (highlighting the omitted comma).

However, the prior three “clauses” (clauses includes both a subject and verb – notice I don’t say predicate, which is more specific) that you see in that four-part sentence do show both S and P   ; hence,   those three do count as MCs  , so  they do get commas before their preceding CCs.

You might want to re-read that Correct sentence, four short paragraphs above. In fact, I recommend that you study it! I wrote it expressly to help you learn this rule.

Bottom line, on this rule, don’t degrade your sentence with an “illegal” (technically, a “superfluous“), comma! Yes, with a CC – and no MC following – the comma is super-fluous (“over– flowing“) there.” It spills over, right onto the desk! Watch your laptop! 😊

REMEMBER, when you put a comma before any of the seven CCs, you are telling the reader, get ready, here comes another main clause, with a fresh subject, which will get a fresh predicate.

Here’s an even simpler example of this common comma error: I want my bacon crispy, and plentiful.

It’s easy to see (and hear – try it!) that a pause before the CC “and” could add desired emphasis.

But written that way, it’s incorrect. What follows the  ,+CC  (just one word, plentiful) is not a new main clause starting up ; it’s just another adjective – a “go-along” with “crispy.” So you can’t put a comma before that CC!

Four fixes for this “superfluous” comma

(before a CC that’s not followed by a MC)

Note, as a quick fix (for the superfluous comma), just skip the comma: I want my bacon crispy and plentiful. There’s the quickest (almost automatic, for a proofreader) fix for the superfluous comma: just delete it.

However, if you desire, for emphasis, a pause before an added phrase (not a MC), you have three legal techniques for creating this pause.

Did I promise you options? Yes, I did. Here come three more of them:

1) Add some words to the second part, to turn it into a MC (might need only one or two words), like this: I want my bacon crispy  , and  make it  plentiful. See how adding “make it” there creates a MC? Now, the comma is allowed with the “and,” since we have MCs on both sides” of the CC. See how easy?

2) As you learned in the prior lesson (on using semicolons to connect MCs), a conjunctive adverb (aka CA, a single word or a phrase) adds clarity  ; furthermore,  it creates a pause, which is our present desire.

Now it can be told : a conjunctive adjective can be “plunked in” anywhere that makes sense and flows smoothly  ; clearly,  it’s not just for helping out semicolons, as we explored in detail in the prior lesson.

A CA can, for example start or end a sentence (using just one comma!)   , or  it can go inside the sentence (judiciously placed right where it works best!), enclosed by a pair of commas.

For clarity (and fun!), I’ll show you all three of those options (before, in the middle, and at the end) in the same sentence:

Luckily, I know endless ways to, without offending anyone, show my readers how CAs normally function, when not used with semicolons.

Similarly, in the sentence that we are “curing” (of its superfluous comma), we could insert the CA right where the comma, by itself, was not allowed. Well, now it is allowed, since it’s one of a pair, enclosing the CA, “of course,” like this :

I want my bacon crispy , of course , and  plentiful. See how it works? The comma before the and is now legal, even without a full main clause after it. Why? It’s one of a pair.

3) Use a dash – as I’ve been modeling for you all over this site (and just showed again right in this sentence). Note, dashes can be used singly – or in pairs – with different purposes for each usage. I’ll explain this more in the separate lesson on “inserting things.” Right now, we are talking about single dashes, used, simply, for a pause.

Indeed, a dash could, fully “legally,” cause the pause we wanted – like this :

I want my bacon crispy – and plentiful. Compare the pause there with the “proofreader’s” easy (but un-paused) fix of just deleting the offending comma : “I want my bacon crispy and plentiful.”

No, you can’t put a comma there  , but  you can “plunk” in a dash – see?

I can see clearly now

See? If you can see that, pat yourself on the back. You are demonstrably “getting somewhere” (a great way to get somewhere, noticed!). It’s one thing to feel good about your writing ; it’s another thing to know that you are learning new things.

At right about this moment in my semester (give or take a couple weeks), I would begin to see roomsful (for many years, I taught four classes at a time, so, yes, rooms!) full of newly-interested writers showing joyously unmistakable signs of turning into expert writers.

How much fun do you think that was? Lots! Well, I aim to feel it again, this time, with you. Speaking of that, let’s get back to our dash. As you read on, your expertise grows. I do love it.

Get out of (grammar) jail free

Unlike the comma, the dash does not come with restrictive rules about where it can or can’t go. (Notice I don’t say “where it can and can’t go ; it can’t both “go there” and “not go there”! I’m just reminding you, with my chance handy, about using or when you should!)

I have, in class, called the dash the “get out of jail free” punctuation mark. It’s (almost) never in an illegal place! And it fixes many problems, including run-ons. It can go (almost) anywhere you want a pause – while possibly performing other specific duties (whether singly or in pairs).

We’ll look more at these purposeful uses of the dash (along with simply causing a pause) in a separate lesson, on “inserting things.”

Another oft-broken rule:

No comma *right after* a CC!

Inserting a CA, enclosed in a pair of commas (as just discussed), represents an exception to an important and related rule: No comma can come right AFTER a CC (unless, per that exception, it comes in as one of a pair).

Incorrect (but common!!!): So, that’s our new rule.

Yes, that comma is wrong there, after the CC so (or any CC).

See? CCs are special within the large “conjunction” family. They’re spoiled brats! They often get their own “special” rules, like this one, no comma right after a CC.

Tip: Since so (when used as a CC) means therefore, just use therefore there, if you really want to use a comma to accentuate the pause. Therefore, since it’s a CA, is not so fussy. A comma is not required, but it is allowed and, in fact, common. It’s just those “privileged” CCs that can’t “take a comma.” (But can they take a joke? Ha ha, I hope so!)

Now it can be told

Guess what? I must admit that, with some searching, I’ve found grammar guides that deem that “superfluous” comma, as “acceptable,” although “not preferred.” Well, elsewhere (Foundational Issues / Big-Picture concepts), I have written and posted for you an essay specifically addressing this issue, which I sometimes call “which dictionary are we going by?” As I’ve said many-a-time,

Our English language has no “governing body” setting the “rules“! The various books and style guides available (some in print, some online, most both) often dis-agree!

FYI and on the subject, many organizations, for the sake of consistency in their written communications, designate one specific source (such as the Associated Press style manual or the Chicago Manual of Style) as their governing guide. It reduces arguments in the break room.

Not really! I’ve seen these rulebooks cause arguments in the break room, as local grammar nerds square off with their varying interpretations of the rules they are supposed to be “going by.” Each is sure the other has it wrong. I usually see holes in both sides. People who actually understand grammar (as you are becoming) can explain it and be thanked, not debated.

Point is, even with one “governing” rulebook to “go by,” user (and even authority) interpretations vary. That’s exactly what I am doing, on your behalf. I am interpreting the rule book. I did it voluminously and with gratifying results, at my state’s flagship university. I can do it here, too, with some authority.

A rule about the rules

Anyway, I, personally, don’t go for options listed anywhere as “acceptable, not preferred.” I’m a writer. I take pride in my precision. I don’t want to show my stuff in the dispreferred manner of those who are evidently abundant but untrained. I may not be perfect, but I am trained.

You’re getting there, yourself. So never let “acceptable, but not preferred” be good enough for you. Is that too much to ask?

I promise you, you can’t go wrong by holding to our rule: no comma is allowed after a CC,  unless one of a pair.

The tunnel at the end of the light

We just have one more thing to cover, to finish up this last lesson of our whole Stage 2, and that is the also-promised “accidental” ways by which two MCs can appear in the one sentence, namely via two punctuation marks: the colon and the dash – both of which have been previewed for you in this very sentence; now, let’s look at how they can “accidentally” join main clauses.

(Prior sentence word count = 69 – I just checked. I call that just “fairly long.”)

The – accidental – MC joiners:

the colon and the dash 

Since back in the prior lesson, Stage 2-e, on semicolon use, I’ve been referring to certain “accidental” ways of joining main clauses into correct compound sentences. With all of the above now explained, I can make this simple:

If and when a colon (:) or a dash (–) is used following a main clause, either mark may be followed by another main clause – without constituting a dreaded run-on.

In such cases – whether colons or dashes are joining the main clauses – such sentences are fully “legal,” even though they include “multiple main clauses” that are not joined by either of the two purposeful techniques for that job, as you now understand well.

There. That’s the rule – my version of it, anyway. If you look in enough different places, on enough grammar sites, you can find plenty of support for this little noted grammatical “option.”

As you may have read elsewhere on Up-wordz.com, I do not “make up” the grammar rules, but I do like to invent new ways of understanding and utilizing them! And sometimes these new ways need a new term, in this case the “accidental” compound sentence.

Turning rules into resources – and options

By now, I hope, you are coming to see why I focus on, hammer on, and stay on the sentence’s essence, the main clause – subject plus predicate.

Mastering the nature, make-up, forms, and centrality of main clauses helps to put almost all writing and grammar rules in a more coherent, hence, learnable perspective. As I would say in class, my system does not require memorizing numerous grammar rules ; rather,  the system is based on one grammar rule, with lots of sensible parts, off-shoots, and most of all, options!

Bring on a MC – or not

That’s how we might characterize the way colons and dashes “feel” about the “status” of what comes after them. If the words that follow accidentally make a main clause, that’s fine. If not, that’s fine too. The compound sentence thusly formed becomes, therefore, accidental.

Okay, that part is clear. So what do they “care about”? Well, they care about a lot, especially colons. As mentioned above I’ll go into those details in a separate lesson. But in our context of “caring,” I must point out one essential thing that the colon cares about, as a matter of rule.

Don’t use a colon where you could not put a period!

The most common colon misuse comes from ignorance of an important grammatical convention (another word for rule, adding an air of “how trained people do it”):

A colon must follow a main clause. That’s the conventi0n and the rule (if unknowingly broken a lot!).

That wording smacks of grammar-speak, I know. Less succinctly but more practically, “Don’t ever put a colon where you could NOT put a period.”

(Charts and other technical writing, including this site, can follow their own rules. Notice my colon, following just the word “Wrong” below. I’m excusing myself from the rule, in this technical context.

One last colon rule, regarding MCs

I’ll cover this quickly, since – unlike most of what you can read above! – this rule is easily found, in many places, and it’s quite straightforward, even if often overlooked (even by me, sometimes – oops.)

The question is simple : Should you capitalize the first word following the colon, as if beginning a new sentence? Well, I did so right there, if you’ll notice. That is correct, for the simple and direct reason that what follows the colon is, itself, another main clause.

That’s the simple rule, available on any decent grammar site. Conversely (obviously?), if what follows the colon is anything but a MC (remember, the colon “doesn’t care” what comes after it, just that a MC comes before it), then, simply, do not capitalize the first word after the colon.

Now, how the heck am I going to clarify this rule for you, if you only “partly, kinda” understand main clauses – so sketchily, in fact, that you still wrestle with the idea that they are the same thing as what you vaguely remember, from back in school, as independent clauses? I don’t know about the cashier at Piggly Wiggly, but I know that you now have a mastery of the makings, at least, of the main clause. Yay.

And, with Stage 2 now complete, you also know how to handle multiple main clauses in one sentence. Even more importantly, you have gained a solid feel for why a writer might opt for a compound sentence (even a triple, or quadruple, etc – there’s no rule setting any limit!).

As I have written up all this for you, I have made a point to demonstrate – live and in context – numerous styles and uses for such compound sentences (often with highlighted, spaced punctuation and adverbs).

I hope you have found helpful my “in situ approach” (fun term – look it up!). I think it beats using only made-up “example sentences.” I have shown you what compound sentences could look like; beyond that, I have shown you (and this sentence gives us one last chance to see it, in our now-finished Stage 2) what they do look like!

So let’s make the quantum leap to Stage 3. There, you will discover the theory and practice of what I have conceived, developed, profusely taught, re-thought, re-vised, re-fined, and now, re-present as the “activation” of writing – specifically, the activation of your writing.