0

I was claiming that the sentence

The ice cream was so good, he ate all of it. ... (1)

is a run-on sentence. And somebody pointed out that

The ice cream was so good he ate all of it. ... (2)

sounds like it is not a run-on sentence. I think the reason is that it sounds very much like:

The ice cream was so good that he ate all of it. ... (3)

and this doesn't sound like a run-on sentence. Are they run-on sentences? If (3) is not, is it a particular proper grammatical construct that makes it not a run-on sentence? (because there are two clauses (with verbs) and not connected by a conjunction, semicolon, or separated by a period .)

The question was closed because a definition of run-on sentence was needed. The definition is:

A run-on sentence occurs when two or more independent clauses (also known as complete sentences) are connected improperly.

nonopolarity
  • 3,023
  • {I've adjusted tenses for better balance.} No and/or yes. If you intend 'The ice cream was so good, he ate all of it.' to have the sense 'The ice cream was so [ie really, sooo] good./! He ate all of it./!' the commaed version is a run-on sentence, and (though this is not always the case) unacceptable here. This is because the default reading is 'The ice cream was so good[,] he ate all of it.' being a deleted variant of 'The ice cream was so good that he ate all of it.'. The comma is optional, and (1) and (2) are both grammatical, but ... – Edwin Ashworth Dec 28 '19 at 12:23
  • the default reading is the same as for (3): neither (1) nor (2) is then a run-on sentence. / If you want the 'two related statements' rather than the 'resultative', 'so good that he did ...' reading, you need something more heavy-duty than a comma: a semicolon or a dash if you want to retain a single sentence. – Edwin Ashworth Dec 28 '19 at 12:23
  • 1
    @EdwinAshworth It took me awhile to see what you were getting at. Yes, if the 2 pieces were meant to be read separately, they should be separated with a full stop or at least a semicolon, not just a comma. If parsed as antecedent-consequent pairs, all variants presented are grammatical. – Lawrence Dec 28 '19 at 12:45
  • The three different ways of writing it really just net down to two in speech (whether there's a pause after "good"), since in many people's diction, the optional word "that" (only valid without that pause) would be so "de-emphasised" you wouldn't necessarily hear it anyway. And it seems to me all native speakers would understand the significance of that (pragmatically unlikely) pause without being consciously aware of the syntactic structure or terminology. – FumbleFingers Dec 28 '19 at 13:06
  • Please define "run-on sentence". – tchrist Dec 28 '19 at 21:55

1 Answers1

1

In sentence 3, "that" is a subordinating conjunction that introduces a result clause. Therefore it is not a run-on sentence. See the entry for "that" at Webster's online dictionary: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/that

As the commenters noted, sentences 1and 2 are perfectly acceptable versions of 3, at least in spoken English. But I would generally avoid them in more formal writing.

However, as some of the comments have alluded to, depending on emphasis sentence 1 might be heard as 2 sentences. The only instance I can think of when sentence 1 would be heard as a single sentence is when the comma is used as a dramatic pause. In this case, you would overemphasize "so good" so that the listener would expect a pause before "that." If the pause is not expected, then I think most native speakers would hear two separate sentences.

SAG
  • 266
  • thanks. I also thought about (1) and (2) if it is spoken... they sound alright... the thing is, if spoken, it is hard to say whether it is a comma or period in between. Let's say, it is written, maybe as if it is written as dialogs in a novel. – nonopolarity Dec 29 '19 at 07:26