|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,295
Carpal Tunnel
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,295 |
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..)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400 |
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!)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 120
member
|
|
member
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 120 |
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.
tempus edax rerum
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,295
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,295 |
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.
Last edited by BranShea; 05/31/07 05:21 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,773
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,773 |
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
dalehileman
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6 |
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.
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,317
Members9,182
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
0 members (),
583
guests, and
1
robot. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
