In Lingua Latin per se Illustrata I, Orberg generally avoids comma splices, that is, he typically connects independent clauses in a single sentence with semicolons, dashes, or coordinating conjunctions:
Collum Lȳdiae margarītīs pulchrīs ōrnātur; Lȳdia autem nūllum aliud ōrnāmentum habet (8.32)
Aliae fēminae digitōs ānulōrum plēnōs habent—meī digitī vacuī sunt! (8.85)
Mēdus est servus Iūliī, sed dominus eius Rōmae nōn est. (8.27)
However, he sometimes uses a mere comma to connect such clauses in a way that would be less than ideal to some English speakers:
Ānulus digitum Aemiliae ōrnat, margarītae collum eius ōrnant. (8.22)
In some Romance languages, like French, I understand that comma splices are not generally considered incorrect. But a comma splice like this would be considered borderline at best by some English grammars since at least the beginning of the 20th century.
All this leads me to wonder if the "rules" for comma splices in Latin might be more lenient than they are in English. Of course, a key tool for avoiding comma splices, the semicolon, wasn't even invented until the 15th century, so I doubt the Romans had an opinion on this (correct me if I'm wrong?). Instead, let me ask this in two ways:
- Generally, did Modern Latin (pre-1900) adopt a distinctive and at least somewhat internationally uniform approach to comma splices?
- Particularly, do any Modern Latin texts forbid connecting independent clauses with a mere comma?