Could some knowledgeable individual please tell me whether this sentence needs a comma before the "and":

“Share the good times and stay together with the family at the Grand Hotel in LA”.

I am aware that two imperatives are separated by a comma when they are of a certain length, but here, "Share the good times" and "stay together with the family" both complete/rely on the final part of the sentence "at the Grand Hotel in LA". It is basically "Stay together with the family at the Grand Hotel in LA" and "Share the good times at the Grand Hotel in LA" as another. Does this mean that a comma is not called for because they both relate to the final part of the sentence, or is it still required?

I really hope I explained that well enough for you to understand. Any help would be very much appreciated, and lengthy explanations are extremely welcome (rules and all)! Thank you, everyone.

ADDITION: This would maybe demonstrate what I mean better: "Experience dining at its finest and get a great night's sleep at the Grand Hotel." Would there be a comma before "and" here?

  • 2
    Approximately, share the good times is being proposed here as the result of staying at the Grand. But in any "normal" English utterance consisting of "action + result" (particularly when joined by and rather than some other conjunction explicitly identifying the "causal" relationship), we specify the action first. It's no accident that the cited advertising copy reverses that idiomatic norm - as with McDonald's "I'm loving it", advertising copy writers know perfectly well that "sightly odd" phrasing sticks in the mind better. May 28 at 11:25
  • A dash would be the more logical (though as FF says pragmatics trumps logic, especially with sales pitches) 'Share the good times – stay together with the family at the Grand Hotel in LA.' Inserting a comma would make the 'slightly odd' decidedly unusual. // The second example just added does not show causality but merely synchronicity. A comma would be wrong here. A pair of commas around << and get a great night's sleep >> is totally permissible, but the smooth-running commaless version sounds more professional and more natural. May 28 at 11:37
  • Neither of these comments addresses the question, which is whether a comma is needed. Since these are two distinct and independent clauses, the theoretical answer is YES. You need a comma. However, with modern usage, I think this is less and less the case. May 28 at 15:23
  • 1
    "Share the good times and stay together" forms a coordination of two imperative clauses. No comma is required. The adjunct "with the family at the Grand Hotel in LA” can modify the whole coordination, if required of course. I don't see a problem.
    – BillJ
    May 28 at 15:57
  • Sam, punctuation is nearly always a matter of style, which means, unfortunately, that this question should be closed: it's not the purpose of our site to interpret a particular style guide, and if no style guide is specified, it's not possible to provide a definitive answer, in which case the question will merely solicit personal opinion. For further guidance, please see How to Ask and take the EL&U Tour. :-) May 29 at 7:49

and stay together with the family at the Grand Hotel in LA”.

You could equally say

“Share the good times by staying together with the family at the Grand Hotel in LA”.

To that extent, and in basic terms, the original clause tells you how to "Share the good times" - it is an adverbial complement of "Share the good times".

No comma is required.


Your Answer

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

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.