comma instead of 'that' [conjunction]: It was such a hot day, I went

Hello all,

I was wondering if it was correct in the English language to use a comma instead of "that" in a cause/effect sentence.
For example: "It was such a hot day, I went to the pool", rather than "It was such a hot day that I went to the pool".

I couldn't find anything specifically about it online.

Thanks

Hello Dionido - welcome to WordReference :)

I don't think a comma is right in that sentence.
Remember ... you cannot join two sentences with a comma unless you also use one of these connecting words. (Source).

Should it be a colon?
The colon is used to indicate that what follows it is an explanation or elaboration of what precedes it. That is, having introduced some topic in more general terms, you can use a colon and go on to explain that same topic in more specific terms. (Source)

Perhaps a semicolon?
A semicolon can always, in principle, be replaced either by a full stop (yielding two separate sentences) or by the word and (possibly preceded by a joining comma). (Source)

I think the example sentence meets the requirements for a colon.
It was such a hot day: I went to the pool.

Others will have different views :)

Hi Dionido,

It sounds and looks fine to me. In more formal texts, I think that is generally advised, but if this is dialogue, then I'd say both versions are OK, given that in spoken English we say things like that.

Regarding the comma, I'd put it, especially if leaving it out leads to ambiguity, as in:

It was such a hot day in Arizona they closed the schools.

This could mean (1) it was such a hot day everywhere that in Arizona they closed the schools, or (2) it was such a hot day in Arizona (but not everywhere) that they closed the schools.

For interpretation (1), you'd put a comma between day and in; for interpretation (2) you'd put a comma between Arizona and they.

Edit: Just saw panj's post. I'm fine with the comma, mostly because I reserve colons for something very important that I want to highlight (or for lists). Of course, if my such-clause introduced something of great enough importance, then I suppose I might use a colon. But going to the pool doesn't really deserve more than a comma in my book. :)

The other thing is that using a colon makes each clause sound like a separate sentence (hence why a full stop can be used instead); but the way I read Dionido's example, even without that, it reads as one sentence, not two.

I forgot to allow for a missing "that", which of course allows for no punctuation at all in the topic sentence.

Many thanks to the both of you.

panjandrum said:

I forgot to allow for a missing "that", which of course allows for no punctuation at all in the topic sentence.

Click to expand...

You mean a missing that (when it's missing) allows for no punctuation? Or a missing that, when it's NOT missing, allows for no punctuation?

In the former case, I'd tend to agree in most contexts, but I'd advise using a comma anyway, just to avoid cases of ambiguity like my Arizona example above.

In the latter case, I agree: so/such ... that usually needs no comma before that. The only exception, again, would be if a lack of comma caused ambiguity, or a garden path sentence, as in:

It's so silly to imagine inanimate objects capable of thinking, that I rarely enjoy reading fantasy books.

Without the comma there, the sentence is ambiguous: either (1) the that-clause is part of thinking, i.e. capable of thinking that XYZ, or (2) it is the result of the so-clause, i.e. so silly... that XYZ.

The comma, at least for me, disambiguates because in English we never put a comma between verbs like think and the that-clauses that follow them. Thus, with a comma, the above sentence has interpretation only (2), i.e. the correct one.

I mean that with the that present there would be no comma.
So ellipsis of "that" should allow the sentence to be valid without the comma.
Unless, of course, it is one of the potentially-ambiguous cases you refer to, in which case the comma represents the missing "that".
My focus was on the topic sentence, where there is no ambiguity.