Run-on sentences

[Carol]

Carol earlier:
> >
> > I'm curious as to how other posters define the term "run-on sentence" since I've seen several posters (Potioncat, for one, IIRC) describe their sentences as run-ons when, in fact, they're perfectly legitimate sentences. 
> <snip> 
>  A true run-on sentence (according to all my composition textbooks) merely combines two sentences that ought to be separated by a period or semicolon this last "sentence" is an example.
> 
> Potioncat:
> Oh frabrous day! I can write longer sentences! Which is good since I'm not allowed to write 6 posts.
> 
> "two sentences that ought to be separated..." Sounds like a messy divorce. I guess I thought the definition was a long sentence that ought not be put together in the first place. 

Carol responds:
I have a feeling that other people share that misconception, possibly because they get lost in complex sentences like the ones I tend to write (which are nothing compared with Herman Melville's as you know if you've ever read "Moby Dick").

Potioncat: 
> If I had written Carol's first sentence (a lovely one, by the way) 

Carol interrupts to respond:
Thanks! :-)

Potioncat:
I would have felt compelled to chop it up, so it would look like this:
> 
> << I'm curious as to how other posters define the term "run-on sentence". I've seen several posters (Potioncat, for one, IIRC) describe their sentences as run-ons. When, in fact, they're perfectly legitimate sentences.>>

Carol responds:

So, oops. Your last "sentence" would be a fragment. "When" is a subordinating conjunction, which makes any clause following it subordinate to the main clause. IOW, the subordinate clause can't stand alone as a complete sentence and needs to be combined with an independent clause, in this case, "I've . . . run-ons." (A clause is simply a group of words containing a subject and a verb.)

> The whole thing looks and reads better the way Carol wrote it, but I've performed similar surgery to my own writing before posting.
> 
> As for Carol's run-on sentence, I would put a period (or full stop) after the word semicolon, which would then make the next sentence untrue.

Carol:
Exactly, so in this case we're stuck with the run-on as an illustration of what not to do. (JKR, BTW, is fond of a particular kind of run-on called a comma splice, which uses a comma to join two sentences that ought to be separated because each can stand alone as an independent clause. I fixed one in the quote that zanooda supplied in her post about pulling rabbits out of the Sorting Hat.)

Potioncat: 
> I know exactly where my avoidance of long sentences came from. It came from English 101 or similar college English classes. I'm sure we were taught that short was good and long was bad. It was decades ago, and I'm not sure if that was what was taught, or if that is what I learned. 

Carol:
So you were never taught about subordination (sometimes misleadingly called "sentence combining") as a technique for varying your sentences? that's unfortunate! Just remember, it's okay to start a sentence with "because" or "when" of "after" or any other subordinating conjunction as long as you follow the subordinate clause (the "because" or "when" or "after" clause) with an independent clause. Simplicity can be a virtue if it leads to clarity, but too much of a good thing leads to dullness.

Potioncat: 
> So, Carol, for the purpose of this thread, feel free to comment on any sentences in this post.

Carol responds:
Thanks. As you can see, I did comment on one of them. BTW, in American English (as opposed to British English) the quotation marks follow the period even if you're just quoting a word or phrase, so the correct way to end your sentence on run-ons would be "run-on sentence." Sorry to be picky, but you asked for commentary!

Carol, hoping that her addiction to parentheses and long sentences doesn't cause anyone to lose track of her points