Each week The Old Editor will attempt to address your entreaties for information and advice on grammar and usage, writing, writer-editor etiquette, and related subjects.
The Old Editor does not address marital and relationship matters, dietary questions, or automobile mechanics.
This week's question: Is the rule that one does not split a compound predicate joined by a conjunction with a comma a "real" rule or a crotchet? For example, take the disclaimer at the bottom of the "Christians, Be Careful What You Say on Facebook" article that you just posted.
This article was written by a Christian, and is directed toward Christians--it is important that you understand the context of the article before you comment.
I was taught, and have found this rule in various grammar and punctuation guides (since I seem to look it up a lot when I teach writing just to make sure of myself before I correct it on a paper), that the comma after "by a Christian" is incorrect and that (1) the comma needs to be removed, (2) a subject needs to be added before "is," or (3) this needs to be broken into two independent clauses with a period or semi-colon separating them. It seems very common for writers to use a comma to divide the two elements of the predicate. Once in a while in fiction, I see a comma dividing a compound predicate that seems to indicate a dramatic change in direction of thought or behavior and it seems less objectionable in those contexts than in other types of writing (this is not to speak of the "literary" fiction writers who seem to think that totally dispensing with grammar and punctuation is just fine and dandy). But I'd just like your read on this rule if you have time to address it some Monday.
The Old Editor answers: It would be more useful to talk about conventions of the use of commas, because talking about rules inhibits a necessary flexibility. Separating subject and predicate with a comma was common practice in the nineteenth century, but it's not a convention we observe today. Use of the Oxford comma is a convention, as is omitting the Oxford comma.
There are places where we think that commas are necessary—to separate the elements of a series, for example, or to mark two independent clauses separated by a coordinating conjunction. And there are places where we introduce commas that are not syntactically necessary because we want to imitate the pauses of spoken language.
In the example cited above, the comma is not necessary, and the sentence would be better off without it. We do not commonly separate compound verbs with commas.
The writer probably intended the comma to indicate a slight pause to emphasize what would follow. That might have been more effectively accomplished thus: This article was written by a Christian—and is directed toward Christians; it is important that you understand the context of the article before you comment. Or the final clause could be turned into a freestanding sentence.
Adding a subject before the second verb to make a compound sentence—This article was written by a Christian, and it is directed toward Christians—looks needlessly wordy and sacrifices some of the emphasis on the second part.
It's fairly common, by the way, in the journalism I regularly edit to see writers separate compound verbs with a comma to no particular purpose while they omit the comma separating independent clauses in a compound sentence.
I take them out, I put them in. The life of a copy editor.
Got a question for The Old Editor? Write to him at john.mcintyre@baltsun.com. Your name will not be used unless you specifically authorize it.