Confusion caused by omitted pronouns

They look perfectly fine to me.

For example, in the last example the room isn't feeling worried--it's just shaking.

Click to expand...

Yes, but the tense has that under control. For the sentence to hold the other meaning, it would have to be I watched the room start to shake and feel worried. You are agreeing your tenses for the I - I watched and I felt - so we know that those actions belong together.

Someone much more skilled at this than I will be along to explain it more clearly - I just thought in case you needed an answer right away, I'd have a go.

I think there should not be commas in examples 1, 2, and 4 because you are not using two independent clauses. Even though the "I" is implied after the "and," it is not explicit, and both verbs refer back to the same subject.

However, I'm not as sure of these things as I used to be. I think it might be tempting to insert a comma in order to avoid the problem you describe in the OP--namely, that the subject of the latter part of the sentence may seem unclear, and you wish to distinguish between the direct object (Jane) of the first main verb and the subject (the implied "I") of the second main verb. I think it's clear because of subject-verb agreement (as mccardey said), but it still might be better to rewrite in a way to avoid the structure.

Edit: That is, I think this is fine:
I watched Jane steal the candy bar and shook my head.

If it grates too much to you, I would rewrite rather than add a comma.
e.g., Jane didn't even try to hide that she was lifting the candy bar. I shook my head.

It's bulky, but I think it's less jarring than a misplaced comma.

Hi, Tod.

What you're noting is the difference between a compound sentence--two independent clauses (a.k.a. complete sentences) joined by a coordinator--and a sentence with one subject and two verbs.

If you add the pronoun, it serves as a second subject and creates a compound sentence, using the coordinator and. (The coordinators for a compound sentence are for, and, nor, but, or, yet, so--remember FANBOYS.) Except for very short sentences, coordinators are always preceded by a comma.

If you don't add the pronoun, leaving your sentence with one subject and two verbs, tied together with and, the you don't need the comma.

Both are correct, and which you choose is a matter of what seems better to you.

But the one-subject two-verb version with a comma is not among the choices, okay?

Maryn, winking

You don't need the commas after "candy bar" and "shake".

Your compound sentences are fine and they make sense (which is what counts).

"I" is the only subject in those sentences; that's why you don't have to worry about confusion. No one is going to think you mean the room is shaking, because "the room" is a direct object in that sentence, not a subject. But yes, you need to drop those commas.

Todsplace said:

I watched as the room shook and felt baffled.

I watched as the room shook, and felt baffled.

Click to expand...

The first sentence is punctuated correctly.

For simple sentences with compound predicates, do not place a comma before the simple conjunction (as you correctly didn't).

For compound sentence, place a comma before the second main clause beginning with and, or, nor, but, for, yet, or so:

Correct: She liked her coffee hot but wanted a lot of cream.

Incorrect: She liked her coffee hot, but wanted a lot of cream.

Correct: She liked her coffee hot, but she wanted a lot of cream.


Hope this helps some.

Todsplace said:

Edit: Just to clarify, is a comma more acceptable when the verbs are in the same tense:

I watched as the room shook and felt baffled.
I watched as the room shook, and felt baffled.

For in the first example, the words "felt baffled" seem to modify the shaking room. I know they are even clunkier, but I was just curious

Click to expand...

The issue isn't so obvious in your example. We know rooms don't feel things, so we can very safely assume the action was committed by the main subject of the sentence (i.e., I watched and... felt baffled"). It's not necessary to violate the rules of punctuation when common sense is enough to clarify the meaning.

The confusion comes into play when you have a verb that could modify either noun. Take, for example:

I watched as the room shook and shuddered.

Was the room shaking and shuddering? Or did I shudder because the room shook?

In such cases, I would err on the side of caution and use the comma IF this is the only sentence construction you can use. What's important to remember is that punctuation isn't a panacea. You can't say, "I'll write my sentence however I want, and proper punctuation will make sense of it." Punctuation goes hand in hand with syntax (word choice and order) to provide clarity to a sentence. The best choice in a confusing case is not to rely on comma placement but to reorder the sentence so that clarity is not an issue.

I shuddered as I watched the room shake.