Would this be considered correct grammer?

Before we start, yes I spelled grammar wrong. I know. I do that on purpose.
Okay, so much of us (should) know what a comma splice is. It's when you connect two sentences with a comma, but without the word, but, yet, or, ect.
What I want to know is, would this sentence for example be correct grammer?
"A train makes a loud sound, yet without proper safety-wear you could seriously hurt yourself when mixing two chemicals."
Basically, two sentences joined together with a comma and conjunction, but the two sentences don't relate to each other at all.
Thanks.
EDIT: I would normally select a best answer, although all of your answers are very good. Since I can't pick multiple Best Answers, I'm not going to try and figure out which is best, as they are all very good.

Comments

[acidbass]

grammar is good but i do not think it would pass on an SAT test because there are two totally different topics

[Wasagi]

 Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.


Also, I would go with Knex_Lover and say you should add a semicolon.

[travw]

I would have put a ";" in there, but I'm none too great at that sort of stuff.

Speallin iz moar mie fortay. =P

[Rock Soldier]

Spelling, I'm afraid, is not my forte. I have always found it horrendously challenging for me. Grammar forte it is mine.

[Kiteman]

The content is surreal, but the grammar is sound.

[Rock Soldier]

Okay, thanks.

[cyberpageman]

I agree with what all your respondents say.  I would just like to add that I like to approach such questions by defining terms.  Here is a definition of "grammar:"

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_grammar)
"A formal grammar (sometimes simply called a grammar) is a set of rules of a specific kind, for forming strings in a formal language. The rules describe how to form strings from the language's alphabet that are valid according to the language's syntax. A grammar does not describe the meaning of the strings or what can be done with them in whatever context —only their form."

If you agree with this definition, then your question is answered.  It is good grammar.  But you may not agree with the definition, so the argument would become not about your sentence, but what the word "grammar" means.

As for the word "yet,"  it implies that the two halves of the sentence belong to the same class of events:
(http://www.yourdictionary.com/yet)
conjunction: but; regardless of this
"she seems happy, yet she is troubled"

Substituting "regardless of this" for "but" in your sentence gives "A train makes a loud sound, regardless of this without proper safety-wear you could seriously hurt yourself when mixing two chemicals."  This is a clear non-sequatur, as Orksecurity says.

Thank you for your interesting and provocative question.

[Rock Soldier]

I see what you mean. Thanks.
And you're welcome.

[seandogue]

RE:  "a formal grammar..."

idk. The use of yet as a conjunction implies (grammatically) the joining of two contrasting ideas. Since there is no contrast (the two topics have no correlation to each other, rather than a contrasting correlation), it seems an unambiguous grammatical violation.

That is...

The salient portion of the wiki "grammar" definition is: 

"The rules describe how to form strings from the language's alphabet that are valid according to the language's syntax."

Because the premise (statement) and modifier (unrelated statement) that form the string are uncorrelated,

<Statement>, yet <Contrasting statement(s)>

(the required syntax for use of "yet" conjunction)

is not executed in the original example, since there is no actual contrasting statement, and therefore it violates the language's syntax and subsequently, by definition, the grammar.

One *could liken it to the mathematical

Y = str(5) + num(6),

s.t.  "+" is either conjunctive (str) or summing (num) operator

Were they both strings or both numbers, the statement would be fine, but they're not, so the operation fails.

[cyberpageman]

Nice argument, "[yet] is not executed in the original example, since there is no actual contrasting statement, and therefore it violates the language's syntax and subsequently, by definition, the grammar. " 

I notice you quoted "The rules describe how to form strings from the language's alphabet that are valid according to the language's syntax" but not, "A grammar does not describe the meaning of the strings or what can be done with them in whatever context —only their form."  Doesn't this weaken your argument?

[seandogue]

Well, idk...technically, I don't think so, since the second statement is a clarification of the first, a sub-definition of its function form, if you will. It's almost as though there's an unspoken "That is to say..." , "To continue...", or "To be clear,... ", in between the first and second sentences in the definition of  "a grammar".

(This "A grammar" thing kinda annoys me though...seems grammatically incorrect"  ;-)  I get it, but I don't like it. Sounds klutzy.

Further, I'm not so sure the "whatever context" really means that nonsequatur (sp) constructions are allowed, but more that the basic concept of a grammar and its...erm...corollaries... are valid no matter whether the example is a mathematical equation, a common sentence, a statement of Logic (the philosophy) or any other construct that falls within "grammar's" pervue (sp).

I highly doubt that my argument is 100% solid, so someone could probably attack it from a dozen different angles (use of premise being only one of a few I can see right off...the math example is a bit sketchy). But it was my easiest way to put a "fix" on what I'd otherwise chock up to a "feeling of flow"...like that judge who said something along the lines of

"Well, I can't define porn, but I know it when I see it"

[cyberpageman]

You make good points.   The position I wanted to make is that when arguing, terms should be defined.  I don't particularly like the definition of "grammar" I cited.  To me, grammar somehow has to be connected to meaning, but the "rules of strings" definition seems to be the accepted one, so  "black is white" is deemed correct, at least grammatically. 

Rock Soldier, who asked the question, must be thoroughly fed up by now. 

[seandogue]

If you mean the wiki article's definition...It's kinda fuzzy for me, so it's all a bit heady. I'm no expert, just going on gut and the words contained in the definition.

lolz wrt Rock Soldier. he's opened a

cwormsn
awormsa
n-c-a-n-n

[seandogue]

erm...I used the word "premise" VERY loosely....I couldn't think of a better word to describe the initial portion of the sentence... "Initiator" maybe?

[seandogue]

As Burf said, the sentence is nonsensical, which is it's fundamental flaw. Had you said, "yet without proper safety-wear you could still listen to it without too much harm." it would have been fine, since the two portions are related.

Having said that, it's not always necessary to follow the "law" to the tee, and sometimes (imo) it's less effective to do so.

For instance, any use of the second person is frowned on in some circles, (Hey, I don't do that! why are you accusing ME of doing that?!!), the use of "we" is considered to be "wrong" by some, because it attempts to establish a sense of community that can't be counted on, not using spaces between paragraphs, etc... Personally, I find those rules can be a bit uptight, since their use sometimes "feels" more friendly than saying everything in the "proper" way....

( I just read a blog post the other day, wrt writing a programming help page, in which the author stated that his grammar coach abhorred the use of "we" for the reason cited above...silly, imo..I like it when a teacher uses "we")

[orksecurity]

Grammar only refers to syntax. Your example has correct syntax but broken semantics, akin to the standard example "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously."

"Join the American Nonsequatur Society. We don't make much sense, but we like pizza."

[Re-design]

I know Kelsey personally and He would not utter that sentence even in a script.  He is much too proper for that.  You get a zero for today.

[Rock Soldier]

He doesn't have to. Like I said, it was just an example....A zero's good right?

[AngryRedhead]

You can use "yet" as a conjunction when connecting two sentences together and treat it in the same way as "and" with regard to commas.

 

[Rock Soldier]

I know, that isn't my question (I forgot to add an important part of my question.) My question is if you join together two sentences without them having anything to do with each other without it being a comma splice, is it still correct grammer?

[AngryRedhead]

It would heavily depend on the context and everything leading up to that point.  If you're doing some crazy satirical thing, it might be fine.  However, you shouldn't join two sentences that do not relate to one another in anyway.  I don't know if there's an actual grammatical "rule" about it, but an English professor would have a fit over it because it's stylistically wrong, wrong, wrong.

 

[Rock Soldier]

Okay, thank you.

[Burf]

Well, the comma is used correctly in that it separates two independent clauses.  However, the sentence is nonsensical because the clauses have no relation to each other.
"My dog is black and white, but the blueberry pie is much too sweet."
You cannot join just any two sentences together with a comma and a conjunction and then say the sentence is grammatically correct.
And, why deliberately misspell a word? It only makes you look silly when you then explain you know it is wrong.

[Rock Soldier]

You cannot join just any two sentences together with a comma and a conjunction and then say the sentence is grammatically correct.
Thanks. That all I wanted to know.

And, why deliberately misspell a word? It only makes you look silly when you then explain you know it is wrong.
I don't think so. And if so, I could care less.

[Re-design]

Ain't that the twooth!

[lemonie]

That's a weird sentence. But I would hyphenate safety-wear, because as individual words they don't make sense grammatically. Missing hyphens are possibly as common as inappropriate apostrophes. While the sentence is an example I don't see a fault in it's construction & punctuation.

L

[Rock Soldier]

I didn't know about the hyphens. Thanks for pointing that out. The main point of this two sentences being joined together, although the two sentences don't go together. (I forgot to add that last part)

[lemonie]

A lot of writing is looking at it from someone else's view (which is why you asked the question). You can write total-cack and people can still discipher what you meant, but you appreciate that good comunication is a valuable skill. W/ref the hyphen, (fixed) the construction needs safety & wear to be connected to a single noun - which you did. We know what you meant but in gramatical terms it reads differently when they're not tied to each other.

L