Lois & Clark Forums Forums Fan Fiction Fanfic Related What is a run-on sentence?

This is something I've been confused about for some time. Well, not confused, exactly. I'm very clear on the rules I was taught, but I've been told more than once that those rules are wrong.

I've tried doing research on the net, but, as usual with grammatical rules, it's hard to get a single clear answer.

Many sources seem to indicate that what makes a sentence a run-on is improper usage of a conjunction. That if you string together two or more independant clauses (things which could serve as complete and independant sentences) without using a conjunction (or using a conjunction improperly), then you have a run-on.

Example: I went to the car I opened the door.

Solution: Add something after "car." A period, a semicolon, or a comma and the word "and" would serve.

The solution (and the need for it) is obvious to me, but it's not what I'd call a run-on sentence.

I was taught that a run-on happens when you string together three or more independant clauses with two or more conjunctions.

Example: I came, and I saw, and I conquered.

To me, that's a run-on sentence. Possible solutions would be to seperate the clauses into two or three sentences ("I came. I saw. I conquered."or "I came, and I saw. I conquered.") or to convert the entire thing into a list ("I came, I saw, and I conquered.").

(Note, BTW, that the way I was taught, a semicolon serves the same function as the comma-and combination. Therefore, "I came; I saw; I conquered." or "I came, and I saw; I conquered." would also be considered run-ons.)

I've been told that this is unusual, to say the least. That, in fact, the sentence is fine as it is. That, basically, my teacher was a lone nutcase, and I should unlearn this rule.

I have found some evidence that, at the least, my teacher was not alone. Wikipedia's article on compound sentences ( click here and then select the link entitled "Compound Sentence (Linguistics); the boards won't allow me to post a link which contains parentheses) has the following to offer:

That is what I was taught (I'm not alone!!), but I'm still confused about how correct it is.

So, all you FoLC grammarians... Have at it!

Paul

Some see the run-on as a form of a fused sentence (one where two independent clauses have been joined together without the use either a conjunction or punctuation. Another form of the run-on is the comma splice (where a comma is used instead of a conjunction or the correct punctuation--often a semi-colon.)

I taught that a run-on sentence was one which went on forever. It may or may not be grammatically correct, but there were just too many parts to it...stream of consciousness.

Sometimes, a run-on sentence is exactly the right kind of sentence: I often use run-ons to show Lois's babbling.

The best run-on I ever read was in one of Yvonne Connell's works ( I think it was Discovery--the nfic version--) where Lois and Clark had this very long, passionate moment in one looonnnnggg sentence. The run-on was perfect timed and placed.

gerry

I was taught that a run-on sentence is what Gerry refers to as a comma splice. But that was over 50 years ago, and grammar usages and terms have changed since then. (Yes, Gerry, I'm freely admitting to changes in grammar usage <eg>) As I write, I'm trying more and more to stick to shorter sentences because I have a real fondness for the type of sentence that Gerry describes- the one that goes on and on. I love to put together something that is perfectly sequential, with correct grammatical reference from one thought to the next, leading the reader ever forward to the final conclusion. I find something very comforting in the structure, like listening to Bach or translating Latin. The style shouldn't be used frequently or the poor reader gets exhausted. However, most "no-no's" can have an appropriate place in one's writing. As Gerry pointed out, sometimes style conveys as much as substance.

Jude