Conjuction/Punctuation question

[vcolts]

Ex:

1. The reasons are that the crime was already commited and that the offender repented and that the victim is still suffering.

2. The reasons are that the crime was already commited, that the offender repented, and that the victim is still suffering.

*Notice the comma before the second that clause and also the omittion of the "and."

3. The reasons are that the crime was already commited, the offender repented about his crime, and the victim is still suffering due to the offense commited.

Q1: Are the above examples grammatically and punctuation wise correct?

The question in my head gramatically would be that do we treat the sentences (complete ones) as clauses and as "series of items?" If so, we can seperate these sentences which are complete sentences with commas even though normally we cannot (because they are clauses?)

Ex. The reasons are that the crime was already commited, (THAT) the offender repented about his crime, and (THAT) the victim is still suffering due to the offense commited.

Q2: If it is the case that we are omitting "THAT," is there a site that deals with the omission rule?


Thanks in advance.

[5jj]

1. The reasons are that the crime was already commited and that the offender repented and that the victim is still suffering. No

2. The reasons are that the crime was already commited, that the offender repented, and that the victim is still suffering. Fine

3. The reasons are that the crime was already commited, the offender repented about his crime, and the victim is still suffering due to the offense commited. #2 is clearer.

I might write your number 2; I might add a colon after 'the reasons are'.

This is not a matter of 'rules', but of clarity. the repeated 'that' makes it very clear that we are dealing with clauses dependetn on 'the reasons are ...'. The commas give the reader confirmation that we are taking a break before embarking on a fresh subordinate clause.

[vcolts]

We are taught not to put a comma before a that clause but since this is a "series of items," it's okay?

Also, you are saying the first example is wrong grammatically (redundant?) while the third one is okay?

[5jj]

We are taught not to put a comma before a that clause but since this is a "series of items," it's okay?
That is not a good rule as it stands.

Also, you are saying the first example is wrong grammatically (redundant?). No. I think that the absences of commas gives it a rather breathless feel. I don't know what you mean by 'redundant'.

while the third one is okay?
I think that the third one is less clear than the second, as I said. If you want to say that a second-rate sentence is 'okay', fine.

Incidentally, in concentrating on the core idea of your question, I did not correct these slips:

The reasons are that the crime was already commited, the offender repented about his crime, and the victim is still suffering due to the offense commited.

'Repent is rather formal/old-fashioned. We'd be more likely to say 'expressed regret for'.
We would be more likely to say that the victim is still suffering 'as a result of' the offense.crime/ attack, etc.

[vcolts]

Even if it's not a good rule, isn't it still the rule?
Professors won't find it as a punctuation/grammar error?

I am mainly concerned about formal, academic writing.

[5jj]

Even if it's not a good rule, isn't it still the rule?

I said that it is not a good rule as it stands. It needs something extra to account for the fact that the commas are fine in this sentence: "The reasons are that the crime was already commited, that the offender repented, and that the victim is still suffering".

[vcolts]

Anybody else think Ex3 is clear enough? If not, why?

[Rover_KE]

Whichever you decide to use, committed needs two ts.