Cytat:
It is common to insert a comma (or other punctuation) before the coordination in conjoined clauses, but it is less common to insert a comma before the coordinator in conjoined predicates:
Hence,
> Peter ate the fruit and drank the beer. [1]
has no comma, whereas in
> Peter ate the fruit, and Peter/he drank the beer. [2]
the comma is inserted
The commas in
> I send you my very best wishes, and look forward to our next meeting. [3]
> Margaret is ill, but will soon recover. [4]
are optional.
This characteristic difference is one sign of the greater cohesiveness of the coordinated predicate: something which accords with the view that the major constituent boundary in such cases in between the subject and a conjoint predicate, rather than between the end of one clause and the beginning of another.
Rozumiem dlaczego w zdaniach 1 i 2 są przecinki ponieważ prościej nie mogli tego napisać:
Putting it more simply, we may say that in [2] there are two clauses, while in [1] there is one clause with a conjoint predicate.
Ale dlaczego w zdaniach 3 i4 przecinki są opcjonalne? Czy nie są to zdania z 'conjoint predicates'? Nie widzę róznicy pomiędzy zdaniem 1, i zdaniami 3 i 4. Wydaje mi się, że poległem gdzieś na strukturze zdania.
Pomożecie proszę?