It is generally accepted that comma splices may be used for literary effect to separate three or more independent (and usually parallel) clauses. For example:
I came, I saw, I conquered.
We’re born, we grow, we age, we die.
I’m happy, you’re happy, everybody’s happy.
We scored first, they equalised, we got tired, they scored again, we lost.
I am interested, however, in when it is acceptable to use a comma splice when there are only two independent clauses. I suggest this may be done in the following cases:
(a) where both clauses are very short, parallel, and spoken with little or no intervening pause:
You win some, you lose some.
It’s not yours, it’s mine.
One minute you’re alive, the next you’re dead.
Walk, don’t run.
Man proposes, God disposes.
Two’s company, three’s a crowd.
(b) where the first clause consists only of a verb (or verb phrase) in the imperative mood, functioning similarly to an interjection:
Listen, you must never do that again.
Wait, there’s something else I want to tell you.
Hang on, I haven’t finished!
Sit down, you’re rocking the boat.
A comma may, of course, be used where the entire first clause is the object of the verb (or verb phrase) in the second, with an implied “that”:
The show is rather long, I know. [= I know that the show is rather long.]
The story was completely untrue, he claimed. [= He claimed that the story was completely untrue.]
It’s all very odd, you must admit. [= You must admit that it is all very odd.]
The internet has changed the world, there’s no doubt about it. [= There’s no doubt that the internet has changed the world.]
Any thoughts on the above?
