Fear is an Excellent Motivator

[Japher]

Is short man the guy that wears shorts?

[self biased]

yes. he wears short shorts.

[KrazyHorse]

I am aware of no difference between a comma fault and a comma splice

I would call it a "comma fault" whenever:

a) a comma is used when there is no need of any punctuation
b) a comma is used in place of the proper punctuation
c) a comma is omitted
d) a comma is omitted in favour of some other punctuation

My quote employed a resumptive modifier, which is a perfectly valid use of the comma.

Hmm. Looking this up, it appears that you're right. However, I've noticed that all the examples of resumptive modifiers I've seen so far seem much more natural than your quote. I wonder why that is.

[Lorizael]

I suppose you could claim that the second part of the sentence is actually a parenthetical remark, and should therefore be preceded by a comma, but that seems awkward to me.

Yes, it is a parenthetical phrase, a specific kind known as a resumptive modifier. Resumptive modifiers are usually separated by commas or dashes. Stick to physics, man.

[Lorizael]

I would call it a "comma fault" whenever:

a) a comma is used when there is no need of any punctuation
b) a comma is used in place of the proper punctuation
c) a comma is omitted
d) a comma is omitted in favour of some other punctuation

My quote employed a resumptive modifier, which is a perfectly valid use of the comma.

I don't think your usage of comma fault is generally accepted. In my experience, comma fault and comma splice are synonyms.

Hmm. Looking this up, it appears that you're right. However, I've noticed that all the examples of resumptive modifiers I've seen so far seem much more natural than your quote. I wonder why that is.

George Lucas is a bad writer?

[KrazyHorse]

Lori, do you think that this:

The man stole my wallet, the short man.

is a grammatically, syntactically, etc. correct sentence?

[Lorizael]

I believe that both my quote and your example are technically correct, but they sound awkward because the resumptive modifier is applying to the subject of the sentence and not the object.

[Patroklos]

Machiavelli had a good chapter on this.

[-Jrabbit]

You guys, are, hilarious, KH and Lori.

[Lorizael]

Let's get back on topic.

[KrazyHorse]

It seems to me that there are all sorts of horrible phrases I can construct using the catchall of "resumptive modifier". This construction (which I've used quite often myself without thinking about it) appears to be a deliberate exception to syntactic rules in order to allow a certain variety of pleasant phraseology. Unfortunately, it's a general enough exception to also allow really ****ty sentences that rather obviously break the intuitive understanding I have of said rules.

[self biased]

Machiavelli had a good chapter on this.

what, threadjacking?

[SlowwHand]

You guys, are, hilarious, KH and Lori.

They're dorks. Be honest.

[Lorizael]

It seems to me that there are all sorts of horrible phrases I can construct using the catchall of "resumptive modifier". This construction (which I've used quite often myself without thinking about it) appears to be a deliberate exception to syntactic rules in order to allow a certain variety of pleasant phraseology. Unfortunately, it's a general enough exception to also allow really ****ty sentences that rather obviously break the intuitive understanding I have of said rules.

It's really just a modification of a relative clause. It seems pretty intuitive to me.

[KrazyHorse]

I'm afraid I'm out of my depth at this point, Lori. Basically, it just feels wrong.