commas vs. period

I don't think yours are wrong. Technically, you've properly joined two clauses with a coordinating conjunction.

However, I like the editor's suggestion better on the second case. For me, it flows better without the conjunction.

[FONT=&quot]She stopped and tore off a bit more of her petticoat, and tied it to a low branch to help with finding it later.

Click to expand...

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[FONT=&quot]I don't [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot]like this [/FONT][FONT=&quot]arrangement. [FONT=&quot]Without a subject in [FONT=&quot]part after the comma, it's not a complete thought. You wouldn't separate it with a comma[FONT=&quot].

[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]Gram[FONT=&quot]matically correct[FONT=&quot] would be:[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]She stopped and tore off a bit mor[FONT=&quot]e of her p[FONT=&quot]etticoat, and she tied it to a low branch to help with finding it later.

[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]You could also [FONT=&quot]write:

[FONT=&quot]She stopped, tore off a bit [FONT=&quot]more of her petticoat, and tied it to a low branch to help with fi[FONT=&quot]ndi[FONT=&quot]ng it later.

That makes the actions [FONT=&quot]comm[FONT=&quot]a-se[FONT=&quot]parated items in a series.

[FONT=&quot]On the second, I don't think yours was wrong. Some editors just have [FONT=&quot]personal preferences. I had an edit[FONT=&quot] once where every single semicolon was [FONT=&quot]replaced [FONT=&quot]with a [FONT=&quot]per[FONT=&quot]iod. [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

She stopped and tore off a bit more of her petticoat, and tied it to a low branch to help with finding it later.

Will do fine.

Is this editor editting for a YA publisher?

The Book Elf said:

[FONT=&quot]I have it this way:

She stopped and tore off a bit more of her petticoat and tied it to a low branch to help with finding it later.

Editor suggests:

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]She stopped and tore off a bit more of her petticoat. She tied it to a low branch to help with finding it later. [/FONT]

Is this okay?

[FONT=&quot]She stopped and tore off a bit more of her petticoat, and tied it to a low branch to help with finding it later.

It's technically correct either of these bottom two ways - both correct the run-on in the original. I prefer the way the editor has it, personally.

My main problem is that it doesn't make a ton of sense. She tied the torn petticoat to a branch to help with finding the torn petticoat piece later?

[/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]I have:

[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot]Her stomach growled then, so she picked up her pace to deliver lunch.


editor suggests:
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Her stomach growled then. She picked up her pace to deliver lunch.

Is mine wrong?

Thank you!
[/FONT]

Click to expand...

Yours is correct; I prefer the other, but it's preference.

The Book Elf said:

[FONT=&quot]I have it this way:

She stopped and tore off a bit more of her petticoat and tied it to a low branch to help with finding it later.

Editor suggests:

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]She stopped and tore off a bit more of her petticoat. She tied it to a low branch to help with finding it later. [/FONT]

Is this okay?
[FONT=&quot]She stopped and tore off a bit more of her petticoat, and tied it to a low branch to help with finding it later.[/FONT]

Click to expand...

I would contend that you are correct. Making the clause a separate sentence seems unnecessary, and separates (cuts up) the action. Having one sentence and a comma separating a dependent clause isn't as good as your original, but it probably isn't actually wrong.

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]I have:

[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot]Her stomach growled then, so she picked up her pace to deliver lunch.

editor suggests:
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Her stomach growled then. She picked up her pace to deliver lunch.

Is mine wrong?
Thank you!
[/FONT]

Click to expand...

Yours is definitely not wrong, and I think that it is better than the editor's version. Does the editor specialize in children's literature in which there are short, simple sentences?

The Book Elf said:

She stopped and tore off a bit more of her petticoat and tied it to a low branch to help with finding it later.

Click to expand...

I can't believe the editor questioned the punctuation, which is correct, but missed what is truly wrong with the sentence.

1) What is a bit?
2) What did she tie to the branch, the bit of petticoat, or the petticoat, itself?
3) To help with finding what later, the petticoat or the branch?

It's hard to rewrite a sentence without knowing the above, but I would suggest something like:

She stopped, tore another strip from her petticoat, and tied the strip to a low branch to mark the location.

The Book Elf said:

Her stomach growled then, so she picked up her pace to deliver lunch.

Click to expand...

Again, the punctuation is correct. What might improve the sentence would be to omit then.

Her stomach growled, so she picked up her pace to deliver lunch.

It's hard to say out of context, but it might be better to use "and" instead of "so."

Her stomach growled, and she picked up her pace to deliver lunch.

Both examples seem awkward, regardless of punctuation. The punctuation question is a symptom of that problem, not the cause of it.

caw



caw

The Book Elf said:

She's an author of a childrens picture book, who's proofing for me. I did notice she's more apt to break down longer sentences for short one's. ( I find lots of short sentences choppy.)

Click to expand...

You might want to, very politely, mention the reading level of your target audience. If she's thinking of the reading level of ten year olds, then she should adjust for the better higher reading level that you are writing for.

What guttersquid said.

cornflake said:

[FONT=&quot]It's technically correct either of these bottom two ways - both correct the run-on in the original.[/FONT]

Click to expand...

The original is not a run-on. It is a single subject followed by three verbs in series: "She stopped and tore and tied." Joining the series with all conjunctions is less conventional than using commas and a final conjunction ("She stopped, tore, and tied," as heza suggests), but it is not wrong.

guttersquid is correct that your editor is focusing on punctuation minutiae rather than semantic clarity.

The Book Elf said:

She's an author of a childrens picture book, who's proofing for me. I did notice she's more apt to break down longer sentences for short one's. ( I find lots of short sentences choppy.)

Click to expand...

Good you're aware of that. Could be she isn't the ideal proofer for yours, despite her experience. Everything she suggests may be perfectly sound, but still not entirely applicable.

The sentences do not read well, or plainly, regardless of whether they're one sentence or two.

That said, I don't like your editor's style at all. Few things read worse than too many short sentences. Choppy writing kills any story, and the editor's style comes across as choppy, even with a short example.

The Book Elf said:

[FONT=&quot]I have it this way:

She stopped and tore off a bit more of her petticoat and tied it to a low branch to help with finding it later.

Click to expand...

It's not that good, esp. "to help with finding it", which is a weak construction. Your editor's version isn't much better.

Let's keep it simple:

"She stopped, tore off another bit of her petticoat, and tied it to a tree."

The illustration will show her tying it to a tree branch. It'll be a low branch, because she can't reach a high one. And the whole point of the exercise is to use it as a marker later on when she's finding her way back, so it shouldn't need to be said.

If it does need to be said, you have other problems.