I am at a loss how this is a run-on sentence. If you could tell me how it is, I would greatly appreciate it. An editor for an article I wrote said it is and the rule making it such is lost on me.

A common misconception is vast savings on trendy items means there is something wrong with the construction of the clothing.

A common misconception is vast savings on trendy items means there is something wrong with the construction of the clothing.

Many people have the misconception that discounted trendy fashions mean the items are seconds or somehow flawed.

One possibility?

I see nothing wrong with your original sentence. It is not a run-on sentence.

One Tweak

A common misconception is that vast savings on trendy items means there is something wrong with the construction of the clothing.

I like to point out that grammarians are seldom published or read (outside of textbooks) and that many writing styles are technically incorrect - but pleasing to the ear. Very few of us speak correctly - and when a playwright or screenwriter uses correct grammar they say it is stilted.

Who are you writing for?

(Or more correctly - For whom are you writing?)

See what I mean?

Shale wrote:

I see nothing wrong with your original sentence. It is not a run-on sentence.

One Tweak

A common misconception is that vast savings on trendy items means there is something wrong with the construction of the clothing.

I like to point out that grammarians are seldom published or read (outside of textbooks) and that many writing styles are technically incorrect - but pleasing to the ear. Very few of us speak correctly - and when a playwright or screenwriter uses correct grammar they say it is stilted.

Who are you writing for?

(Or more correctly - For whom are you writing?)

See what I mean?

This is content for a discount clothing company. The client has already purchased and used it. The editor sent me a note about the run-on. I want to learn from it but I honestly can't agree it is a run-on. After analyzing it at length, I would and could rephrase it to be much better. I just don't see the run-on. Glad somebody agrees with me.

I know what you mean about "that." It is such an awful habit. I catch myself using it way too often and other times do not catch it. This is one of the times I did not catch it.

This sentence is officially driving me batty because now I am thinking "means" should be "mean."

zthatzmanz28 wrote:

A common misconception is vast savings on trendy items means there is something wrong with the construction of the clothing.

Many people have the misconception that discounted trendy fashions mean the items are seconds or somehow flawed.

One possibility?

Ah, yes, "flawed" would have eliminated the wordiness of my flawed sentence!

I do agree that the sentence reads awkwardly, but not because it is a run-on. It might just be a bit clunky. Also, the items and the clothing might have an agreement issue. I'd decide if you want it to be a wide-sweeping statement encompassing all "items" or if you just want it to focus on "clothing."

for one option, I might rewrite it as something like this (Not saying you have to do this. I could be way off with my advice. Also, I am not 100% sure about the comma I used.): The notion that heavily discounted, trendy items are likely to be defective is a common misconception.

Forgiveness Man wrote:

I do agree that the sentence reads awkwardly, but not because it is a run-on. It might just be a bit clunky. Also, the items and the clothing might have an agreement issue. I'd decide if you want it to be a wide-sweeping statement encompassing all "items" or if you just want it to focus on "clothing."

for one option, I might rewrite it as something like this (Not saying you have to do this. I could be way off with my advice. Also, I am not 100% sure about the comma I used.): The notion that heavily discounted, trendy items are likely to be defective is a common misconception.

That sentence is volumes better than mine, FM. I am so mad at myself for not catching how awful my sentence was prior to submitting the piece. As for the comma, I would leave it out. I normally skip the comma if "and" would sound awkward between the two descriptive words.

RedBedroom wrote:

That sentence is volumes better than mine, FM. I am so mad at myself for not catching how awful my sentence was prior to submitting the piece. As for the comma, I would leave it out. I normally skip the comma if "and" would sound awkward between the two descriptive words.

Don't sweat it. Most of us are not good at reviewing our own work. We're too close to it. Your original sentence was workable too. I still don't agree that it was a run-on sentence. Whoever said that seems to need an English 101 refresher. It just was a bit wordy, but that isn't the same as a run-on. If you had used it, I don't see what the real problem was.

Thanks, FM. It was wordy along with the "that" mistake and "mean/means." I feel worse about those two awful errors than I do the fact the editor labeled it a run-on.

Though, honestly, I think the editor realized it after commenting because kudos are few and far between with this company and I was given a pat on the back for my subsequent submission which was a short content piece. It was grammatically correct but lacked flair due to the subject matter...yet that was the assignment I got a "great job" for? So, I am officially not stressing it now after ya'll agree it is not a run-on. Though I despise the poor rating I got on it.

Thank you to all who commented.

Don't sweat it. Most of us are not good at reviewing our own work. We're too close to it.

FM, that is probably true for those seeking to pen the next great American novel. My writing is for marketing purposes, so I like to think I can edit it well, but I totally dropped the ball on this one.

Quote :

A common misconception is vast savings on trendy items means there is something wrong with the construction of the clothing.

I'm certainly no grammar expert but I can't see where the original sentence is made up of at least two independent clauses, i.e., thoughts that make sense on their own.

RedBedroom wrote:

Don't sweat it. Most of us are not good at reviewing our own work. We're too close to it.

FM, that is probably true for those seeking to pen the next great American novel. My writing is for marketing purposes, so I like to think I can edit it well, but I totally dropped the ball on this one.

Maybe. lol Still, I find the effect with academic areas too, which is a bit closer to marketing. So who knows. lol