What's the rule here? It's one of those that always has me stalling mid-sentence. I know a punctuation mark is not always required prior to a 'but'. Here's my definition. If someone could qualify that would be great. If the stuff following the 'but' provides a short exception to the statement preceding it, I'd use a comma. But if the sentence which is to follow the statement (such as this one, coincidentally) can stand alone, even though it relates to the previous statement in some way, I'd use a full stop. Am I anywhere near right?
Oh man this is something I'm often confused about as well. Gonna watch this thread closely, see what the others have to say about it.
You are half right. If the second clause can stand alone, you either need a comma to join them, or you need a full stop, but if both clauses can stand alone, you need one of the two depending on the effect you're going for: "Fred wanted to go to the bar last night, but he didn't have any money." In this example, you need the comma or full stop because the two sentences are complete with subjects and verbs. This lends itself to a more connected feel- more emphasis on the first clause, less on the second. "Fred went to the bar last night. But, he didn't have any money." This sentence is also grammatically correct (note the comma after But*). In this example, you're putting more emphasis on the second sentence. You'd do this when you want to highlight Fred's lack of money rather than his desire to go to the bar. *The comma after But in my second example is one of those rules that often gets ignored in fiction for rhythm, flow, cadence, etc. Technically, you need the comma because But is acting as an introductory clause. If you ignore this in fiction, no one will throw up their arms and tell you that you're a grammatical Philistine. EDIT for clarity: "Fred wanted to go to the bar but he didn't have any money" This sentence is grammatically incorrect without a comma or a full stop, but, again, you see this type of thing in fiction regularly and it's not an egregious error. If you're writing an academic paper, you'll get called on this, but not in fiction because flow and voice and whatever else matter more than pedantic comma rules.
Thank you I can usually 'hear' when I need to use a comma / full stop, or neither, but sometimes I don't [hear].
Sometimes you can't hear and the "place a comma where you pause" rule is not always correct. It's usually a good indicator of where to look for grammatical issues but not an absolute. I hope my examples were clear enough for you, Jud. Comma rules can be tricky, especially in fiction where they are not nearly as strict as academia.
There's really not a rule. You're playing with fragments, and the decision to use them happens beyond the sentence level (which is where grammar ends). It's more of a stylistic device. There are a few different kinds of fragments: fragment(s) by emphasis, succinctness, list-emphasis, natural-tone, statement-question, question-response, negation, and exclamation. (I think I got them all. I might have missed one.) What you're doing is a fragment by emphasis. "But" is providing sentence-level cohesion. By writing this way, you're thinking at the paragraph level (because you're connecting sentences, you moved up). Keeping it all together in one sentence with "but" as a conjunction would stay at sentence level. The difference is that anything that crosses the boundary of the sentence is more important. And that's the emphasis. Keep in mind that each time you do this, it has less of an effect. True of everything in life, I guess. Edit: I might be wrong about grammar ending at the sentence . . . hmm. (thinking . . .) But anyway, this is still more of a style issue.