What a difference punctuation can make!

(I apologise if you've already seen this).

I especially like the ironic "Yours" at the end of the second version.

Properly locating the hyphen can also be imnportant:

http://wordsmith.org/board/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/155919/page/7/fpart/1

The following sentence from a biograpy about the Duke of Alba (16th century) posed problems caused by superfluous comma's:

"The shock tactics, the arrests and repression, the executions and the defeat of invasion attempts, all combined to overawe any possible opposition, and stunned the population into submission."

It seemed like an impossble sentence to me and I read it over and over again . It all became clear when I took three commas's off:

The shock tactics, the arrests and repression and the defeat of invasion attemps all combined to overawe any possible opposition and stunned the population into submission.

In the original sentence I missed the link between the summing up and the conclusive: 'and stunned the population into submission.'

(think this falls under 'puncutation'?)Sorry, punctuation. (some typo's are worth keeping) It was a funny reading experience.

One of your executed commas took "the executions" along with it; tarred with too broad an eraser. That aside, I think it's a good argument for the Strunken Whitean comma before the conjunction in a list of three or more items. I'd go with

I don't know if the last two commas

"... attempts, all ..."

and

"... opposition, and stunned ..."

are good from a formal point of view, but I could see where they might lead to confusion in the mind of a non-native speaker, even one as fluent as you are, BranShea.

Yes, the way you put the commas , the sentence is perfectly understandable and possibly best. The critical one was the one after opposition. That's the ugly one. (for a non native reader)
( Once the eraser is loose comma's, beware! )

Faldage
are good from a formal point of view, but I could see where they might lead to confusion in the mind of a non-native speaker,

Yes, Faldage, I'm always aware that my look a the English words must be quite different from the way a native speaker sees them. So misunderstandings come easy. And makes it and adventure at the same time. It would take about a lifetime to really get a bit near a native speaker's ease with the language.

As a tech writer in my younger life I had to be acutely aware of the hyphen. For example, 5-year-old boys are an unspecified number of male youngsters each 5 years old; while 5 year-old boys are 5 boys, all one year old.

However, 5-year old boys are an unstipulated number of aging men; each having, for example, tenure of 5 years.

Nice examples.

I still like Truss's heading for the chapter on the importance of the hyphen in her book on punctuation.



That's clever, I think.

It's like a little bridge connecting Two words together.
However, I think the meaning here is clear.
5 year old boys
Context is the key!

But context is not always obvious or accessible.

"They are all out standing by Jove."

Lucky Jove.

Back here for a punctuation consult, if possible please.

"Much of that maintenance metabolism goes to our invisible scheduled replacement." (that's a logic sentence) But then this follows:

"And so I'd guess that where we cost more than a mouse is in putting a bigger fraction of our energy into self-repair, and a smaller fraction into other purposes like keeping warm or caring for babies."

I've read this phrase over and over again and I cannot read it's clear meaning.

Is here a word missing? Should it be " than a mouse is costing"?
Or is this a totally normal running sentence and do I not see it?

Comma's maybe missing?

Replacing "we cost" with 'human's maintenance metabolism is" may help.

Thanks Maven, it helps getting more of the general meaning , but it still looks like an odd sentence to me, when I replace this for that.

Headlines are fun too.
Local Man Is Out-
Standing In Field

You know, I even think headlines are more fun.

Long sentences are harder to parse. Technical writers try to avoid them, but sadly, many professions no longer emphasize writing skills. Grammar? Spelling? Punctuation? Ha! Who cares, it's word count that matters, right?

Well, it's a good writer and a good book. Maybe a word was lost in the process of editing-printing. But such a sentence becomes like a little riddel I want to solve. And I read over and over again. Compare it with a scratch in an old gramophone record. Doesn't ultimately stop me from reading on.:~)

Does the concept of a run on sentance as a grammatical fault occur just in English or in other languages as well?

A run on sentence is not a grammatical fault and occurs in all languages as far as I know. Some writers are notorious for their long sentences. ( with or without comma )
Only this one above makes me doubtful of why it does not seem to run. That's all. And a native reader might see what I don't.
(I hope I understood you well..)

a long sentence is not always a run on sentence.

a sentence is sometimes defined as "a complete idea"

so "Run" can be a sentence.

but some idea's are more complex.. and require more words.

a run on sentence is 2 or more ideas.

so, in theory, "Run, skip, jump!" could be a run on.(most wouldn't think so, but...

edit to "Run, skip, jump, jog, do anything, but get your self moving!" and it expresses one idea (activity)

where as "Run, skip, jump, jog, do anything, but get your self moving, you'll be healthier and so will your heart." is a run on.

2 idea's-- (1 get moving, 2 health) (and the health aspect has 2 ideas, general good health and cardiac health!) that a lot to cram into mone sentence!)

The sentence BranShea cited is not a run-on. It's a lengthy sentence, and could be improved by reducing the clutter, but this would change the tone from a conversational feel to one that's more technical.

Run-on's are more than just sentences with more than one idea. A compound sentence is not a run-on if properly punctuated, though often the meaning is more apparent if broken into multiple sentences. A run-on is a compount sentence where the clauses are not separated by punctuation.

Thank you, of troy for explanation.
Is the sentence I came up with really a run on sentence? I understand that what it wants to say is that humans can put more energy ( 'cost' ) into body self repair than mice because they have a lesser frequency and number in baby care.(and consequently can have a longer life span) This seems to be a single idea.

All I would like to know (hate to nag on) is: does the sentence I brought up read normal to you? Was I blind or am I stupid?

Thanks Maven, for your in the meantime answer. My grammar days are long gone and not in English.

By coincidence in my young life I was a technical writer in the field of electronics, as an untoward reaction to which in my 77th year I also tend to the run-on, consoling myself, however, with the idea that the longer sentence is often used to convey an idea, feeling, mood, atmosphere, or ambiance

Personally, I think the sentence makes more sense with the addition of one more word, "does", after mouse.

"And so I'd guess that where we cost more than a mouse does is in putting a bigger fraction of our energy into self-repair, and a smaller fraction into other purposes like keeping warm or caring for babies."

Then again, looking closer I think that "in putting" needs to be changed to "that we put" in order to be correctly grammatical.