<p>Version 1:
A recent version of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet drew harsh reviews from purists, they are people who expect filmakers to follow the original text exactly. </p>
<p>VS </p>
<p>Version 2 (correct answer):
A recent version of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet drew harsh reviews from purists, those who expect filmakers to follow the original text exactly. </p>
<p>In the first case, there is a comma splice due to the 2 independent clauses. Why is "they are people who ..... exactly. " an independent clause while "those who ....... exactly. " is not?</p>
<p>I could be wrong, but I think both of the above sentences aren’t correct. </p>
<p>I think the correct sentence would be either:</p>
<p>A recent version of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet drew harsh reviews from purists. They are people who expect filmakers to follow the original text exactly. </p>
<p>or </p>
<p>A recent version of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet drew harsh reviews from purists, who expect filmakers to follow the original text exactly.</p>
<p>Independent Clause- Is a clause that can stand on its own. e.g: Bob was tall, yet so skinny. Here "Bob was tall is the independent clause because that it self could be a sentence. </p>
<p>Dependent Clause- is a clause that can not stand on its own(it is an incomplete sentence.) e.g: yet so skinny cannot be a sentence</p>
<p>There are many ways of correct the sentence. Since both clauses are independent(they can stand on its own as sentences). They can be fixed with usually a comma splice ( or a period. There is nothing truly wrong, but on the level of technicality it is.</p>
<p>In version two the first sentence is independent and the second is dependent so the use of a comma is appropriate.</p>
<p>I disagree with collegeandstuff regarding the second sentence. The point he maks is that:</p>
<p>(1) A recent version of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet drew harsh reviews from purists, those who expect filmmakers to follow the original text exactly.</p>
<p>is incorrect, and that a better (and correct) phrasing is;</p>
<p>(2) A recent version of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet drew harsh reviews from purists, who expect filmmakers to follow the original text exactly.</p>
<p>If we drop the comma between “purists” and “who” in the second sentence then I agree that it is grammatically correct. However in meaning it is not equivalent to the first sentence.</p>
<p>The first sentence is correct as written, and in that sentence the comma is essential. The writer wants to make an emphatic statement regarding the purists, and his style is to do that with a clause separated from the main clause with a comma – a forced divider.</p>
<p>Try this:</p>
<p>Stuck in traffic I spent an hour listening to the demonstrators, those who had little regard for my delay.</p>
<p>So basically, “Those who expect filmmakers to follow the original text exactly” is not an independent sentence, while “They are people who expect filmakers to follow the original text exactly.” can be an independent sentence?</p>
<p>Why is “A recent version of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet drew harsh reviews from purists, who expect filmmakers to follow the original text exactly.” not grammatically correct? Isn’t “who expect filmmakers to follow the original text exactly” not an independent clause, so why can’t there be a comma?</p>
<p>ccef888
I also got stuck on exactly the same question:
"So basically, “Those who expect filmmakers to follow the original text exactly” is not an independent sentence, while “They are people who expect filmakers to follow the original text exactly.” can be an independent sentence?
"</p>
<p>but I realized that: if you replace with a different words thats not ambiguous lets put: “Purists” it works since you can say:
Purists were people who expedcted filmakers…</p>
<p>while you cant say: Those who expected filmakeers to follow the original text exactly…</p>
<p>I’d add a semi-colon to make the sentence: “A recent version of Romeo and Juliet drew harsh reviews from purists; they are people who expect filmakers to follow the original text exactly.”</p>
<p>Can the sentence also read ,
’ a recent version of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet drew harsh reviews from purists ; they were people who expect filmmakers to follow the original text exactly.’ ? </p>
<p>@Ash9622 No. The use of ‘were’ implies that ‘purists’ no longer exist, and of course they do. “were” would also be inconsistent with the later “expect”; so if you <em>could</em> get around the semantic problem of shifting the verb into the past, you would have to write “expected” as well. </p>
or a period. There is nothing truly wrong, but on the level of technicality it is.</p>