There are only two things in the list, pig & whistle.
They want more space between pig and &.
They also want more space between & and whistle.
If we were listing three areas where they want additional space we would need at least one comma, and I would argue for the Oxford comma as well, however we are only listing two areas where we want more space and so no comma is needed.
Sure it’s nearly unreadable, but I think it’s grammatically correct.
If the same and is referred to twice then it should be a separate sentence clause requiring use of a comma. Since there is no comma there is no indication the and is the same both times.
finitebanjo@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
then it should be separated by comma after the first and and
UmeU@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I don’t believe that’s accurate.
There are only two things in the list, pig & whistle.
They want more space between pig and &.
They also want more space between & and whistle.
If we were listing three areas where they want additional space we would need at least one comma, and I would argue for the Oxford comma as well, however we are only listing two areas where we want more space and so no comma is needed.
Sure it’s nearly unreadable, but I think it’s grammatically correct.
finitebanjo@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
If the same and is referred to twice then it should be a separate sentence clause requiring use of a comma. Since there is no comma there is no indication the and is the same both times.
UmeU@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Because your example sentence uses the word ‘went’ rather than ‘was’, you need a comma because those are two separate I dependent clauses.
You and Dave were together and then Dave leaves you and goes driving by himself… me and Dave, then Dave went.
If you used ‘was’ then those would not be independent clauses and therefore a comma would not be used. It was me and Dave and Dave was driving.