How would you punctuate this sentence?

[Lolly]

To light the room while the sun is down are four long, golden candle stands, each holding a grand amount of candles, and a matching clover-shaped chandelier, each having blue and white gems embedded around it.

 

Is this correct? Is it a run-on sentence? What thinks the hive?

 

My opinion later.:D

[Caitilin]

To light the room while the sun is down are four long, golden candle stands, each holding a grand amount of candles, and a matching clover-shaped chandelier, each having blue and white gems embedded around it.

 

Is this correct? Is it a run-on sentence? What thinks the hive?

 

My opinion later.:D

 

 

I would cut it, by about half. After I did that, then I could punctuate it. Right now it's clunky. :D

[forty-two]

I think it is ok, if not exactly to 21st century standards ;). I've seen plenty of 19th century sentences looking just like that. I could pare it down to the essential bits pretty easily, and everything seemed to fit together logically enough - I'm good with it, anyway.

[LauraGB]

To light the room while the sun is down are four long, golden candle stands, each holding a grand amount of candles, and a matching clover-shaped chandelier, each having blue and white gems embedded around it.

 

Is this correct? Is it a run-on sentence? What thinks the hive?

 

My opinion later.:D

It's a bit runny, if you ask me. Is it yours? Can you alter it? If not, I say get rid of that comma in front of the 'and' (each holding a grand amount of candles and a matching clover-shaped chandelier), at the very least. It doesn't lead well into the description of the chandeliers at all, though. If it is yours, break it up to explain the candle stands and then the chandeliers.

Edited November 5, 2010 by LauraGB

[stephanie]

:seeya:

[Parrothead]

I find it awkward. Personally I'd break it up into at least two sentences.

[newlifemom]

I have to say it reminds me of 18th-19th c. British authors. I like it!:D

[forty-two]

Staring at it further, I don't like the "each" in "each having blue and white gems embedded around it". The only way the current structure is justified, imo, is if the first "each" clause refers *only* to the four candle stands, and the second "each" clause refers *only* to the chandelier (which also justifies it being one sentence, as there would have to be a lot of repetition to make the description clear in two sentences). However, as there is just *one* chandelier, there is no reason to refer to "each" of this singular object :glare:.

 

So I vote for either:

 

To light the room while the sun is down are four long, golden candle stands, each holding a grand amount of candles, and a matching clover-shaped chandelier, having blue and white gems embedded around it.

 

(Though honestly I'd then change the "having" to "which has", which would mean changing "each holding" to "each which holds" for balance, though the latter is more clunky.)

 

or

 

To light the room while the sun is down are four long, golden candle stands and a matching clover-shaped chandelier, each holding a grand amount of candles and having blue and white gems embedded around it.

 

Depends on which description is accurate.

[Lolly]

But, it is NOT a run-on sentence?

 

I think maybe I should stop having dd18 read 18th and 19th century classics... This dd did start speaking with a British accent when reading The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe series. She is taking an on-line writing class. Her teacher has flagged a few of her sentences as run-ons. I couldn't see it. A bit wordy, yes. Incorrect, technically not. I don't think I am going to say anything to the instructor. Just an opportunity to let dd know that teachers are not always correct.:D Her revisions were less wordy. It did make it a bit easier to read by cutting them up into smaller sentences. Dd of the flowery language prefers it the first way. Gotta admit, it did have more personal style and flair.:lol:

Edited November 5, 2010 by Lolly

[Lolly]

Staring at it further, I don't like the "each" in "each having blue and white gems embedded around it". The only way the current structure is justified, imo, is if the first "each" clause refers *only* to the four candle stands, and the second "each" clause refers *only* to the chandelier (which also justifies it being one sentence, as there would have to be a lot of repetition to make the description clear in two sentences). However, as there is just *one* chandelier, there is no reason to refer to "each" of this singular object :glare:.

 

So I vote for either:

 

To light the room while the sun is down are four long, golden candle stands, each holding a grand amount of candles, and a matching clover-shaped chandelier, having blue and white gems embedded around it.

 

(Though honestly I'd then change the "having" to "which has", which would mean changing "each holding" to "each which holds" for balance, though the latter is more clunky.)

 

or

 

To light the room while the sun is down are four long, golden candle stands and a matching clover-shaped chandelier, each holding a grand amount of candles and having blue and white gems embedded around it.

 

Depends on which description is accurate.

 

Ah! That was a good catch! I think she was trying to focus on being parallel (she has a problem with this) which made her go in a wrong direction.

[Truscifi]

I think the sentence is grammatically acceptable, except for the second each - there appears to be only one chandelier. That said, it is awkward. I would hack it.

[Nan in Mass]

To light the room while the sun is down, there are four long golden candle stands, each with a grand amount of candles, and a matching clover-shaped chandelier embedded with blue and white gems.

 

I normally use tons of commas, but if you take the comma out of the "four long, golden candle stands", I think it works better. I added a "there", chopped out the holding, and rearranged the embedded part.

 

-Nan

[MamaSheep]

No, I don't think it's a run-on either, but there a few things about it that I find awkward, grammatically speaking. Not that I'm a grammar queen.

 

It seems to me that it should be, "To light the room while the sun is down there are four..." It seems like you'd have a "number" of candles, rather than an "amount" of candles. And it seems like some of the clauses need to be rearranged for the sake of clarity--something about the antecedant of each "each" is a bit confusing. I think it could be rewritten as one long sentence that still sounds fun and "19th century-ish" (to invent a term), but would be more elegant without the awkward bits. Maybe something along the lines of this:

 

 

Lighting the room while the sun is down are four long, golden candestands embedded with blue and white gems, and a matching clover-shaped chandelier, each holding a grand number of candles.

 

 

 

(Assuming the chandelier is also lit with candles, and all of the items are embedded with the gems.)

or

 

 

To light the room while the sun is down there are four long, golden candlestands, each holding a grand number of candles, and a clover-shaped chendelier with blue and white gems embedded around each sconce.

 

 

 

(Assuming the candles are only in the candlesticks, and only the chandelier has the gems.)

If I were the teacher, depending on the age and ability level of the student, I might want some of the modifiers to be a bit more interesting too. Words like "long", "embedded", and "holding" are a bit flat, and even "gems" could have a bit more life. How about this:

 

 

When the sun is down the room is lit by four colossal golden candelabra and a massive, clover-shaped chandelier, each sparkling with icy diamonds and cerulean sapphires, and each bearing a grand number of snowy white tapers.

 

Edited November 5, 2010 by MamaSheep

[Sara R]

I agree with the others: not officially a run-on, but terribly awkward and should be reworded. Right now the subject is "to light the room when the sun is down," which isn't very clear. I think it would be better with the subject at the beginning of the sentence: "A chandelier and four golden candlesticks light the room." Then describe the chandelier and candlesticks in another sentence.

 

Has she read the Elements of Style? Maybe this style does work for imitating 19th century British authors, but she should learn the modern style. Clarity should be valued above flowery description IMO.

Edited November 5, 2010 by Sara R

[Mrs Mungo]

I agree with the others: not officially a run-on, but terribly awkward and should be reworded. Right now the subject is "to light the room when the sun is down," which isn't very clear. I think it would be better with the subject at the beginning of the sentence: "A chandelier and four golden candlesticks light the room." Then describe the chandelier and candlesticks in another sentence.

 

Has she read the Elements of Style? Maybe this style does work for imitating 19th century British authors, but she should learn the modern style. Clarity should be valued above flowery description IMO.

 

I agree. Sentences written in passive voice often "sound" or "read" clunky, awkward or wrong in some way people can't put their finger on. Part of the problem here is that she has split her subjects up. The stands and chandelier are lighting the room and are embedded with gems, correct? Because that's not how it reads. That's why her teacher thought it was a run-on. Even when you are imitating a flowery style it has to be clear. Faulkner has sentences that seem like they will never end, but they are still clear.

 

So, instead of:

To light the room while the sun is down are four long, golden candle stands, each holding a grand amount of candles, and a matching clover-shaped chandelier, each having blue and white gems embedded around it.

I would say something more like:

Four long, golden candle stands and a clover-shaped chandelier light the room when the sun is down. Blue and white gems twinkle amongst the innumerable candles.

 

Does she mean blue and white gems or crystals? I'd be specific if she meant gems and say sapphires and diamonds or whatever. If she means crystals, I'd say crystals.

Edited November 5, 2010 by Mrs Mungo

[Jenny Piaaree]

But, it is NOT a run-on sentence?

 

I think maybe I should stop having dd18 read 18th and 19th century classics... This dd did start speaking with a British accent when reading The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe series. She is taking an on-line writing class. Her teacher has flagged a few of her sentences as run-ons. I couldn't see it. A bit wordy, yes. Incorrect, technically not. I don't think I am going to say anything to the instructor. Just an opportunity to let dd know that teachers are not always correct.:D Her revisions were less wordy. It did make it a bit easier to read by cutting them up into smaller sentences. Dd of the flowery language prefers it the first way. Gotta admit, it did have more personal style and flair.:lol:

 

:lol: When I first read her sentence, I immediately thought of this sentence my dd did for dictation in WWE2 today:

 

"Not a nasty, dirty, wet hole, filled with the ends of worms and an oozy smell, nor yet a dry, bare, sandy hole with nothing in it to sit down on or to eat: it was a hobbit hole, and that means comfort."

 

Maybe she's not quite J.R.R. just yet, but she's gotta start somewhere! :D

[NanceXToo]

I don't think the sentence was technically incorrectly punctuated or technically a run on sentence, but, like someone else said, it was "clunky." Kind of awkward. So I would condense it.

 

I wouldn't bother saying "when the sun is down" because I think that could be assumed if the room needed to be lit.

 

I would say something like:

 

"Lighting the room are four long, golden candle stands, each with a grand amount of candles, and a matching clover-shaped chandelier embedded with blue and white gems."

[Lolly]

Thanks guys! I'm wishing she had you all for her instructor. I agree that it needed editing for clarity's sake. It does concern me somewhat that the instructor doesn't seem to know what a run-on sentence is. Well, she probably knows but isn't able to properly identify them. It confused dd because the suggestions the instructor made to fix the sentences from being run-ons really didn't work. It just garbled the whole mess even more. You can't just stick a semi-colon and a conjunction in there!

[angela in ohio]

I don't think it's a run-on; I think it's a fragment. The sentence has no subject. "To light the room..." is an adverb (it tells why.) At the very least, adding "there" would make it complete.

To light the room while the sun is down, there are four long, golden candle stands, each holding a grand amount of candles, and a matching clover-shaped chandelier, each having blue and white gems embedded around it.

 

The other grammatical issue is the word "each." It is unclear if there are four chandeliers or not, so each seems to be referring to one object only. I think repeating the word "four" before "matching clover-shaped chandeliers" would help.

 

Now, if you want to then work on the style of the sentence, I agree with pp to leave out "while the sun is down."

[angela in ohio]

Thanks guys! I'm wishing she had you all for her instructor. I agree that it needed editing for clarity's sake. It does concern me somewhat that the instructor doesn't seem to know what a run-on sentence is. Well, she probably knows but isn't able to properly identify them. It confused dd because the suggestions the instructor made to fix the sentences from being run-ons really didn't work. It just garbled the whole mess even more. You can't just stick a semi-colon and a conjunction in there!

 

It's absolutely not a run-on sentence. A run-on sentence usually contains either two or three sets of subject/verb improperly joined, or more than three sets of subject/verbs. That is a different issue than what is going on in this sentence. That's why the suggestions wouldn't work, too. I would be disappointed if the instructor didn't know this. :001_smile:

[at the beach]

To light the room while the sun is down are four long, golden candle stands, each holding a grand amount of candles, and a matching clover-shaped chandelier, each having blue and white gems embedded around it.

 

Is this correct? Is it a run-on sentence? What thinks the hive?

 

My opinion later.:D

 

I'd change it from passive to active voice to make it easier to analyze. I think it seems to be saying each chandelier has blue and white gems, so it would seem there are also four chandeliers. ETA: It isn't clear to me if there are four chandeliers or one. It reads as though the chandelier could be part of the candle stand and that doesn't really make sense. Anyhow:

 

Four long, golden candle stands, each holding a grand amount of candles, and a matching clover-shaped chandelier, each having blue and white gems embedded around it, light the room while the sun is down.

 

It would appear to me that the subject would be the candle stands (also, ETA: and possibly chandelier) whether written in the active or passive voice. I still don't like a few things in it as written but the only thing I did was remove "to" and "are." For example, the confusion for me is with the dependent clauses. I'm not sure there should be a comma after candles and before and. I guess it depends on whether she wrote the sentence to mean that the chandeliers are part of the candle stands (that doesn't make sense, does it?). After chandelier, I'm not sure that it is made clear whether the second "each" in the sentence is referring to the chandelier or to the candle stands. If it refers to the chandelier, it seems as though there are four then. Also, ETA: The sentence is apparently very confusing to me the more I look at it.:tongue_smilie:

 

I'd be concerned if a writing instructor did not have a clear understanding of what is considered a run-on sentence. This example doesn't appear to be a run-on sentence. There are no independent clauses joined together without proper punctuation or a conjunction as far as I can tell. ETA: If I were working on this with my child, I'd suggest that it isn't clear what she intends to modify with "each having blue and white gems..." I'd also suggest that it needs to be reworked to make it clear whether there is one chandelier or four.

Edited November 5, 2010 by Violet
adding more comments

[Nan in Mass]

I had to work rather hard at figuring out how to fix my children's style of writing. It, too, is based on older literature. The standard modern US writing advice for younger writers will not work for this type of writing. I had to teach semi-colons and colons and what are they called? Oxford commas? much earlier in the process. I had to teach them to ignore advice like, "Never start a sentence with a conjunction." I had to look much more carefully at anything that would have been labelled run-on and think about the reason my child had wanted to put all those ideas together in one sentence. Usually, it was a good reason and I just had to figure out how to help them reword the sentence so it wasn't clunky. I laid much more emphasis on flow and transition and straight-forward and much less on proper punctuation. I laid more emphasis on writing for a specific purpose and specific audience so things like lab reports didn't become flowery. The advice to avoid the passive didn't work. My children use the passive when they want to emphasize the object. I changed my approach once I realized that they were doing all these things deliberately - shifting the emphasis, making the writing flow, adding commas where they wanted the person reading the material aloud to pause. My own punctuation isn't exactly standard GRIN. Nor is my wording. I'm sure I am not doing a very good job at what I am trying to do. It is a great deal better than making my children hate writing forever by rewriting their deliberate imitations of Wodehouse or Tolkein in third grade English.

-Nan

[angela in ohio]

I had to work rather hard at figuring out how to fix my children's style of writing. It, too, is based on older literature. The standard modern US writing advice for younger writers will not work for this type of writing. I had to teach semi-colons and colons and what are they called? Oxford commas? much earlier in the process. I had to teach them to ignore advice like, "Never start a sentence with a conjunction." I had to look much more carefully at anything that would have been labelled run-on and think about the reason my child had wanted to put all those ideas together in one sentence. Usually, it was a good reason and I just had to figure out how to help them reword the sentence so it wasn't clunky. I laid much more emphasis on flow and transition and straight-forward and much less on proper punctuation. I laid more emphasis on writing for a specific purpose and specific audience so things like lab reports didn't become flowery. The advice to avoid the passive didn't work. My children use the passive when they want to emphasize the object. I changed my approach once I realized that they were doing all these things deliberately - shifting the emphasis, making the writing flow, adding commas where they wanted the person reading the material aloud to pause. My own punctuation isn't exactly standard GRIN. Nor is my wording. I'm sure I am not doing a very good job at what I am trying to do. It is a great deal better than making my children hate writing forever by rewriting their deliberate imitations of Wodehouse or Tolkein in third grade English.

-Nan

 

:iagree:

 

I have taught both types, and I much prefer the student who starts out improperly using complicated sentences learned from great literature to the child who just puts together the least number of words possible ("seven sentence paragraph? okay, I'll use about two dozen words." :D) My middle dd endured a classs in which every compound or complex sentence was chopped in half by the teacher. We used it as an example of how to meet a teacher's silly demands (which is a great skill for college ;)) rather than a writing instruction class. It is more challenging to guide a child with a mature sentence structure, but killing it isn't the answer. :001_smile:

 

I didn't jump to changing the passive in this case, because the sentence is out of context. We don't know whether the passive is appropriate here or not without context. Like you, I don't teach "no passives ever." They have a time and purpose.