|
I'm probably on the wrong website, but I've been wondering about this for the entire day now and no one could give me a satisfactory answer.
Is the following sentence correct? "I sat on the couch and was hungry."
Or should it be "I sat on the couch and I was hungry."
Or are both correct?
In the second sentence you could make two sentences by removing "and". In the first sentence this would leave the incomplete sentence "was hungry" (who was hungry?). I remember having something about this at school, but that's over ten years ago and I can't remember what it was.
I'm Dutch, but I somehow think this is an English thing too. In fact you can simply replace the words with their Dutch counterparts and you'd have the same (correct) sentence.
It's an OO world.
public class SanderRossel : Lazy<Person>
{
public void DoWork()
{
throw new NotSupportedException();
}
}
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: Or are both correct?
They are both correct. The difference being that the first one is just one sentence and the second one is a conjunction of two sentences. The only nitpicky thing to make the second one more proper would be to add a comma. Ergo...
I sat on the couch and was hungry.
I sat on the couch, and I was hungry.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
We were taught not to put a comma before a conjunction since it would be redundant.
|
|
|
|
|
mark merrens wrote: since it would be redundant.
You can say that again. 
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
You can say... oh. 
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, there is nothing we like more than reposts.
Whether I think I can, or think I can't, I am always bloody right!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: If both sides are complete sentences, it should have a comma.
Perhaps that is common/accepted usage in the US but when I went to school in London 376 years ago my English master, Mr Williams, as I recall, (a very stern chap who also took our Latin classes would, now and again, lob a book at you when you started to daydream about escaping) taught us not use commas before conjunctions.
However, just had a quick recce online and it appears that there is a lot of conflict over what is correct in this context.
I guess it boils down to what you were taught to do at school. Because of that teacher it just looks wrong to me to put a comma there.
|
|
|
|
|
mark merrens wrote: I guess it boils down to what you were taught to do at school. Because of that teacher it just looks wrong to me to put a comma there.
Oh I get it. To me using a comma for a decimal point looks odd. Way back in the day seeing something like £100 looked weird too when I'm all about $100, but I'm used to it now. Of course none of this is as bad imperial versus metric conversions. I mean having a unanimous system would just be crazy talk.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: Of course none of this is as bad imperial versus metric conversions. I mean having a unanimous system would just be crazy talk.
Crazy indeed!
|
|
|
|
|
I bet Mr. Williams also told you "I before E except after C" - which has more exceptions than rule-followers.
PooperPig - Coming Soon
|
|
|
|
|
When you are young and impressionable and the guy looks like a mad professor in full academic robes you listen to what he says!
|
|
|
|
|
It also boils down to if enough people start doing it, then it becomes accepted practice.
Example: nauseous
Up until a few years back, its only meanings were:
causing nausea, or disgusting; loathsome. <note the use of the comma near the conjunction>
More often than not, I would hear people use it like this:
"I feel nauseous"
My response would usually be, "yeah, you kind of disgust me"
However, now an accepted usage of the work is to mean: affected with nausea, nauseated.
Never underestimate the power of ignorance in large quantities.
|
|
|
|
|
After wrestling with commas for far too long I finally took this sentence from The Chicago Manual of Style, 15th Ed. as gospel: "Effective use of the comma involves good judgment, with ease of reading the end in view." (6.18) Regarding clauses, 6.32 says that commas are usually used. And then goes on to say that if they are short clauses the comma may be omitted.
There were too many vague words in all the real style manuals I read.
My epiphany occurred when I realized that every comma is a slight stop in the reader's mind. Stopping when it isn't required quickly becomes old, at least in my experience. Reading The Hunger Games, where EVERY introductory clause is followed by a comma, made me want to scream! Two-thirds of those commas could have been eliminated and the reading experience would have been much better (even though the books were worth reading in spite of the pain). In your sentences, even though they aren't introductory clauses, I'd eliminate the commas because stopping isn't required.
Unless you, yourself, want, the, reader, to, stop, and, feel, that, pain!
|
|
|
|
|
David O'Neil wrote: My epiphany occurred when I realized that every comma is a slight stop in the reader's mind.
That's exactly how I use them too. In my example I paused when thinking of the second sentence. So it really becomes a question of taste.
David O'Neil wrote: Unless you, yourself, want, the, reader, to, stop, and, feel, that, pain!
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: So it really becomes a question of taste.
Ah! That's different than your original statement: "...to make the second one more proper" I'll accept the new version!
|
|
|
|
|
David O'Neil wrote: I'll accept the new version!
Well gee whiz that's swell.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I am so magnanimous, 'taint I? OK, enough stupidity for today... Must get work done
Happy coding!
|
|
|
|
|
David O'Neil wrote: Yes, I am so magnanimous, 'taint I?
I was thinking more like arrogant.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
I already understood that. Sorry, it wasn't my intention.
|
|
|
|
|
David O'Neil wrote: Unless you, yourself, want, the, reader, to, stop, and, feel, that, pain!
In, the, language blogs, I read, this, has become known, as, the Shatner comma! 
|
|
|
|
|
Both are correct, but you're correct that the latter is somewhat ambiguous.
Consider also "I stepped into the street and was hit by a bus" -- here there is an implied cause-and-effect. In your second sentence, were you hungry because you sat on the couch?
"While sitting on the couch, I began to feel hungry."
|
|
|
|
|
No, he sat on the couch BECAUSE he was hungry - maybe weak with hunger!
Life is like a s**t sandwich; the more bread you have, the less s**t you eat.
|
|
|
|
|
It wouldn't be a * foutieve beknopte bijzin, want het onderwerp in de bijzin is het zelfde als in de hoofdzin ("ik", impliciet), en je hebt ook niet te maken met het geval waar je een werkwoord verandert door er een speciale bijwoordelijke bepaling bij te zetten (namelijk een stiekem voorzetselvoorwerp), zoals in "ik sloeg hem bond en blauw en in de boeien".
* ninja language switch
It may be against style guidelines though.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes! That's exactly what I was thinking of, but couldn't remember 
Enter the ninja 
It's an OO world.
public class SanderRossel : Lazy<Person>
{
public void DoWork()
{
throw new NotSupportedException();
}
}
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
