Run-on sentence?

Hi, Oristar. Let me rearrange the sentence:
Posted: Sat Feb 07, 2004 4:54 pm Post subject: Run-on sentence?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Context:

And I can't think of anything that any agency can prove that Microsoft has done would justify the disgraceful vilification of the company by national governments. How is it that the Greater East Asian Coalition of the Willing, which cannot even agree that the government of North Korea is a danger to the world, are able to turn their attentions from a nuclear crisis to take on a software company whose greatest crime is that they sell more software than anybody else.

Should be--and I can't think of anything, that any agency can prove, that would justify the disgraceful vilification of Microsoft by national governments.

The main clause in the sentence is: I can't think of anything. I is the subject and can think is the predicate. (not is a negative)The rest are dependent clauses. The remainder of the sentence is fine.

Does that help? I can't see any run on sentence problem.

Yes, Letty, that partially helped.

The main clause, of course, is too simple to be mentioned. What I wanted to know is relevant to the antecedent of its dependent clause. You've showed me that the "anything" is the antecedent of the clause " that would justify the disgraceful vilification of Microsoft by national governments". And of course the anything is the antecedent of of another dependent clause.

Now it has been clear.

But why has your explanation just helped in part? Because you have not answered me if that were a run-on sentence or not.

oristar, I didn't get an update on this. Nope, it is not a run on sentence. Actually, a run on sentence is usually one with a comma splice, i.e.

He helped the person with his luggage, the girl watched with interest.

Hmmmm. Don't quite understand your use of antecedent. A dependent clause simply means that the structure is dependent on the main clause for its meaning.

Letty,


Antecedent: The word, phrase, or clause to which a pronoun refers.

For example:

(1) I recognized the man who has helped the injured child in the accident.

In the sentence, the pronoun "who" refers to the word "man"; that is, the "man" is the antecedent of the pronoun.


(2) I can't think of anything that any agency can prove, that would justify the disgraceful vilification of Microsoft by national governments.

In the sentence, the pronoun "that" refers to the word "anything"; that is, the "anything" is the antecedent of the pronoun.

Hey, oristar. Still not getting updates. I know what antecedent means. I just wasn't certain to what you were referring within the context of your sentence. Both dependent clauses are referring to "anything"...

The general test is to isolate the dependent clauses and determine how they function. Can the sentence be semantically correct without one?

How is it that the Greater East Asian Coalition of the Willing, which cannot even agree that the government of North Korea is a danger to the world, IS able to turn ITS attention(DELETE S)s from a nuclear crisis to take on a software company whose greatest crime is that IT sellS more software than anybody else.

A few more mistakes. "Coalition" and "company" are both singular.

Hey, Roberta. Are we talking agreement again? I think that I am confused.

Roberta, not in Britain. The I work for a company. The company are having a picnic. The team are all excited...

It's not American, but it is English!

Wy, Okey dokey. Is a coalition plural as well?

Letty, I was talking agreement. But I was talking agreement only from an American point of view. Hey, what do I know?

Plenty, I would say, Roberta. ..but then, what do I know.

Also plenty, Letty.