Post History
That's not a comma splice; that's a statement followed by an elaboration.1 The second does not stand alone, so a semicolon there would be incorrect. This would be a comma splice: It had been ...
Answer
#3: Attribution notice added
by
System
·
2019-12-08T03:57:50Z (almost 5 years ago)
Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/15848 License name: CC BY-SA 3.0 License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
#2: Initial revision
That's not a comma splice; that's a statement followed by an elaboration.<sup>1</sup> The second does not stand alone, so a semicolon there would be incorrect. This would be a comma splice: > It had been a thousand years since the Razzies had known the horrors of the king's might, **it was** a thousand years since he had sailed across the ocean with his vast armies and claimed their lands for himself. In that case, if you were determined to keep all that in one sentence (which I probably wouldn't do because it's getting long), then a semicolon would be the correct way to join two clauses that can each stand alone. <sup>1</sup> Notice my use of the semicolon in that sentence. A comma there would be a comma splice, too.
#1: Imported from external source
by
System
·
2015-01-12T02:58:16Z (almost 10 years ago)
Original score: 7