A/N: Kudos to those that figure it out.

There is something to be said about punctuation. Of all the rules that must be adhered to, ending a sentence is the most diverse.

Sentences must be complete and separate from each other - that is one of the most basic rules in grammar. You can't have run-ons, no fragments, nothing.

Run-ons are at least two sentences that have been put together as one. When you first look at it, nothing seems out of place. I mean, it sounds good, right?

Alas, this is one kind of sentence that's frowned upon by all societies, no matter what language it's in.

One of the other "bad" oddities of writing is the fragment. It's too short to be a sentence, too long to be a phrase. A fragment is rejected by both norms, simply because no one can figure out what to do with it.

However, I believe that these grammatical errors, as they are so called, have a quiet justice about them. Yes… that's it.

A run-on sentence personifies the defiance of rules. It refuses to be corralled and … and captured by the limits of common law. Why should anyone care how long or how much those sentences come together, without any out-dated punctuation to stand in their way?

A fragment is the guardian of the pure, unelaborated essence of the sentence. It refuses to listen to the grammatical authority, showing all that it is the very root of sentences. The fragment says to you, I am outside of your rules, your laws, your traditions.

And yet, these outlawed forms of expression have no place in society - despite the fact that it was the very society that spawned these relationships between sentences. Oh, no, that is a conveniently ignored fact.

While the run-on enjoys the melding of two into one, the fragment will always have a sense of utter finality of its version of hope when it speaks. No punctuation hinders a fragment's expression.

With this in mind, whatever is a fragment resounds because there is nothing to stifle it.

Goodbye