0

Consider this (extracted) sentence from the song "Yakkety Yak":

Let in the dog and put out the cat.

I would read this as

(you) Let in the dog, and (you) put out the cat.

where because both sides of the "and" have a subject, albeit implied, they are independent and should be conjoined by a comma.

Am I correct, or is the implied subject from the first side sufficient for both and makes the predicate contain the "and," thereby eliminating the need for the comma?

  • You can probably best decide on the acceptability of dropping the comma between two imperative clauses by looking at relevant sentences on the internet. The "independent clauses joined with the coordinator 'and' should have a comma before the 'and' " mantra is seen to be considered far from a binding rule at comma before 'and'? in any case. Here, I'd say that anyone insisting on a comma (or saying that using one is incorrect) needs deprescriptivising. I'd choose the one I wanted: pause for emphasis, or smooth flow? – Edwin Ashworth May 16 '18 at 19:14
  • There seem to be few commaed examples of the well-known maxim 'Tell the truth and shame the devil.' online. Of course, fixed-phrase status and the 'effect' sense of 'and' here [and in so doing you will] make this a less than perfect comparison. – Edwin Ashworth May 16 '18 at 19:33

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.