1

If two or more independent clauses share a common part (for example, a dependent clause or adverbial), do they get separated by a comma? For example

In the morning, he drives to work(,) and his children take a bus to school.

In Russian, for example, there wouldn't be a comma, and it seems logical to me. But English has a different logic so I would like to know how to punctuate such sentences.

Improve this question
5
  • 2
    Take a really simple example, such as Now I speak and you listen. Some people sometimes might include a comma before and (just as some people would articulate a pause at that point in the spoken version). But it's entirely a stylistic choice, nothing to do with "grammatical rules". Besides which the general trend is towards less punctuation everywhere, so if you just follow your natural (Russian) inclinations you'll be ahead of the curve. Note that to all intents and purposes, the only reason for a comma is to reflect a pause in speech All else is pedantic trivia.
    – FumbleFingers
    Commented Oct 28, 2020 at 15:23
  • 1
    Punctuation is not grammar: it does not exist in the spoken language. What is proper punctuation depends on style guides. Style guides differ. Most style guides recommend separating independent clauses by punctuation. If you are writing for the New York Times and its style guide demands punctuation that offends your sense of style, rewrite the sentence so both guide and style agree. “In the morning, he drives to work while his children take the bus to school.” Problem solved.
    – Jeff Morrow
    Commented Oct 28, 2020 at 15:36
  • Logic has little to do with spelling grammar or punctuation
    – James K
    Commented Oct 28, 2020 at 22:42
  • @FumbleFingersReinstateMonica Is it dependent on sharing a common part at all?
    – Sergey Zolotarev
    Commented Oct 29, 2020 at 1:11
  • 1
    Nah. Even my "really simple example" features a "shared common part" - in full, it would be Now I speak and now you listen. But I think what @Jeff says about using "while" is useful. If your context is one where you could reasonably replace conjoining "and" by "while", you probably don't want a comma even if you don't actually do the substitution. Offhand I think there are few if any contexts where you'd put a comma before "while" (unless immediately preceded by a "parenthetical" element delineated by commas). Where "while" doesn't need a comma, assume "and" doesn't either.
    – FumbleFingers
    Commented Oct 29, 2020 at 12:01

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
3

You could put a comma there, but the clauses are short and simple enough that it’s not really required. The "sharing a common part" is irrelevant. There are two coordinated clauses, and these are often separated by a comma. For example, I just used a comma in the previous sentence before "and".

Improve this answer
3
  • "For example, used a comma in the previous sentence before "and"." But they don't share a common part
    – Sergey Zolotarev
    Commented Oct 29, 2020 at 1:09
  • Yes, whether or not there is a common part is irrelevant.
    – James K
    Commented Oct 29, 2020 at 7:32
  • For some reason, the software is not letting me upvote this answer, but consider it done spiritually.
    – Jeff Morrow
    Commented Oct 29, 2020 at 14:01

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .