In my senior English class at Central High School in San Angelo, Texas, there were a few grammar mistakes that were considered to be mortal offenses. Include one of these in a paper, and you received an automatic F. Among these unforgivable sins was the comma splice.

When two independent clauses are connected by only a comma, they constitute a run-on sentence that is called a comma-splice. (Guide to Grammar and Writing by the Capital Community College Foundation)

So why is it that I’ve taken to using comma splices as a stylistic device? As I attempt to recapture the cadences of my preaching, I join sentences together with nothing but a comma between them, when I should really use a semi-colon. It’s a nasty habit I’ve gotten into.

But under normal circumstances, such a mistake has no real consequences beyond annoying grammar connoisseurs. I’ve discovered, however, that writing a book for publication does not fall under the category of “normal circumstances.” Editors read what you write and make corrections that make sense to them. When faced with a comma splice, they do their best to turn it into proper English. Doing so can, at times, change the meaning of a sentence.

Consider, for example, the following which I wrote for Letters From The Lamb:

“Tolerance and political correctness warp our doctrine, nationalism and patriotism distract us from our true calling.”

To my reading ear, the cadence of that “sentence” was logical: this and this cause one thing, that and that cause another. If a period or semi-colon were to intrude on the musical flow of those words, it would come after the word “doctrine.” I assumed any reader would read it the same way.

Any reader, perhaps, but a proofreader. Faced with this linguistic aberration, the copyeditor read “doctrine, nationalism and patriotism” as a series. The sentence was fixed in the following way:

“Tolerance and political correctness warp our doctrine, nationalism and patriotism—and distract us from our true calling.”

Blech! When I first read the sentence in the published book, I thought that the change had been made on ideological grounds. Then I read the original carefully and saw that it was a grammatical correction. One that greatly altered the meaning of the sentence.

Whose fault was it? Mine, of course. My English teacher would have flunked the whole book based on that sentence alone. I guess I should have paid more attention in class. As of now, I’m going to a special 12-step program for comma splicers, seeking to overcome my syntax abuse. One day at a time.