Semi-Colon Confusion

Question

As I understand it, the rules for semi-colon use are:
1. After serial commons to add variety.
2. to bridge two closely related sentences.
This second requirement indicates that both parts on either side must me a sentence, that is, contain their own subject-verb combo and express their own complete thought. And yet, in the sentence directly above this one, a semi-colon would have been correct before "that is" and yet it satisfies neither 1 or 2. And there are other instances when it appears to be used correctly although the usage is not listed anywhere I've found.

Comments?
Prof. Marvel

Usenet · Accepted Answer

[nq:1]As I understand it, the rules for semi-colon use are: 1. After serial commons to add variety.[/nq]
Sorry, no cigar. You don't use any punctuation mark to "add variety." If you have a series in which there are internal commas, you may need semicolons to set off the larger groupings: "I had ham, eggs, and toast for breakfast; a salami sandwich, french fries, and cole slaw for lunch; and roast beef, baked potato, and creamed spinach for dinner." Punctuation in English is flexible (unlike, say, German punctuation, which is strictly rule-governed), but there are limits.
[nq:1]2. to bridge two closely related sentences. This second requirement indicates that both parts on either side must me a ... there are other instances when it appears to be used correctly although the usage is not listed anywhere I've found.[/nq]
This only proves that things are not as simple as you might wish. (We all have that problem at one time or another.) My answer to the "that is" problem is that you don't need a semicolon preceding it (same for its Latin abbreviation "i.e." and the corresponding forms "for example" and "e.g."). For that matter, contemporary usage does not call for the comma following any of them. But if you do use the comma after and the semicolon before, you are simply taking advantage of the flexibility of English punctuation, putting a somewhat heavier stop before the interpolated phrase because you'd take a longer breath before it than after it. You could also regard the part following the semicolon as a complete sentence with the verb elided, the verb being supplied by the preceding clause.

Bob Lieblich
It's often easier to use English than explain it

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]As I understand it, the rules for semi-colon use are: 1. After serial commons to add variety.[/nq]
[nq:1]Sorry, no cigar. You don't use any punctuation mark to "add variety." If you have a series in which there ... spinach for dinner." Punctuation in English is flexible (unlike, say, German punctuation, which is strictly rule-governed), but there are limits.[/nq]
Hmm, if I'm reading you right, the only reason you've included the semicolon above is because what comes after it has "internal" commas, right? That's to say, weren't this the case, you'd have used the comma indefinately.
[nq:2]2. to bridge two closely related sentences. This second requirement ... correctly although the usage is not listed anywhere I've found.[/nq]
[nq:1]This only proves that things are not as simple as you might wish. (We all have that problem at one ... part following the semicolon as a complete sentence with the verb elided, the verb being supplied by the preceding clause.[/nq]
"verb elided"? not sure what this means.
Are you saying there are instances where a complete sentence can exist without a verb?
Marvel

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]Sorry, no cigar. You don't use any punctuation mark to ... German punctuation, which is strictly rule-governed), but there are limits.[/nq]
[nq:1]Hmm, if I'm reading you right, the only reason you've included the semicolon above is because what comes after it has "internal" commas, right? That's to say, weren't this the case, you'd have used the comma indefinately.[/nq]
Yes.
Let me add, since you obviously care about usage that "reason . . . is because" is not as good as "reason . . . is that."
[nq:2]This only proves that things are not as simple as ... verb elided, the verb being supplied by the preceding clause.[/nq]
[nq:1]"verb elided"? not sure what this means. Are you saying there are instances where a complete sentence can exist without a verb?[/nq]
Yes!

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]As I understand it, the rules for semi-colon use are: 1. After serial commons to add variety. 2. to bridge two closely related sentences.[/nq]
No. The principal rule is that two complete sentences must be joined by a semicolon if no such linking word as 'and' or 'or' is present. Example (not as Dickens wrote it):
"It was the best of times; it was the worst of times."

If a suitable connecting word is present, then a comma must be used, and a semicolon is impossible:
"It was the best of times, and it was the worst of times."

The other common use of the semicolon is the one illustrated by Robert Lieblich's example:
"I had ham, eggs, and toast for breakfast; a salami sandwich, french fries, and cole slaw for lunch; and roast beef, baked potato, and creamed spinach for dinner."
Strictly speaking, those semicolons should be commas, and in fact replacing the semicolons with commas would give a perfect result. But the number of commas in this sentence is somewhat alarming, and the point of the semicolons is to break up the sentence into its most important parts. This is an instance in which the ordinary rules of punctuation are overridden for the sake of clarity.

In my book on punctuation, I call this use of the semicolon a "supercomma", and I urge readers to keep this use to a minimum. In many cases, resorting to the supercomma merely means that your sentence is poorly constructed and would profit from rewriting.
[nq:1]This second requirement indicates that both parts on either side must me a sentence, that is, contain their own subject-verb ... above this one, a semi-colon would have been correct before "that is" and yet it satisfies neither 1 or 2.[/nq]
No; I can't agree. The proposal is this:
This second requirement indicates that both parts on either side must be
a sentence; that is, contain their own subject-verb combo and express
their own complete thought.
In my view, this is just plain wrong. Robert seems prepared to tolerate it, but I am not. There is no earthly excuse for that semicolon, and a comma is required. You can't stick a semicolon in just because you've written a lot of words, or just because there's a comma coming up.
If you think the version with the comma is awkward, then the solution is to rewrite the sentence:
This second requirement stipulates that the part on either side must be
a sentence: that is, each must contain its own subject and verb, and each
must express its own complete thought.
This is a perfect opportunity to introduce a colon.
[nq:1]And there are other instances when it appears to be used correctly although the usage is not listed anywhere I've found.[/nq]
Perhaps, but the semicolon, when used at all, is very often used wrongly. In my experience here in Britain, the common error is to use a semicolon where a colon is required. I don't know if this blunder is similarly frequent elsewhere.
Larry Trask

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]Marvel[/nq]
Yes, well, of course, this is true, but what I think I meant is, what's the rule of thumb for knowing which ones can be used and which ones should be tossed?
Prof Marvel

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]As I understand it, the rules for semi-colon use are: 1. After serial commons to add variety. 2. to bridge two closely related sentences.[/nq]
[nq:1]No. The principal rule is that two complete sentences must be joined by a semicolon if no such linking word ... important parts. This is an instance in which the ordinary rules of punctuation are overridden for the sake of clarity.[/nq]
As I understood it, Lieblich's point was the semicolon was required due to the internal commas in the phrase "a salami sandwich, frecnch fries, and cole slaw for lunch..."
Yet you suggest "perfect" usage would eliminate the semicolon even here. Why? The passage certainly isn't clearer with the removal you suggest. In addition, let me make sure I have you right: use of the semicolon is restricted to linking two sentences when a linking word is not used. That's it? In your own writing you abide by this rule religiously?

Speaking of the colon, I've seen wildly different uses of it by professional writers. Journalists, for example, seem to hardly use it, while 19th century writers appear to have had a great love affair with it. Moreover, it seems to me a practicable argument could be made that it can never be wrongly used. In any event, what's your opinion?

Prof Marvel

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]As I understood it, Lieblich's point was the semicolon was required due to the internal commas in the phrase "a ... sentences when a linking word is not used. That's it? In your own writing you abide by this rule religiously?[/nq]
[nq:1]Speaking of the colon, I've seen wildly different uses of it by professional writers. Journalists, for example, seem to hardly ... practicable argument could be made that it can never be wrongly used. In any event, what's your opinion? Prof Marvel[/nq]
Recently I edited a right pondian whose use of the colon seemed idiosyncratic. She used it on two occasions where the semicolon would be called for. At first I thought perhaps the convention on the right side of the pond might justify her using the colon. (As an editor/proofer the goal is to change nothing that doesn't need it, to defer to the writer as often as possible of course.) But upon closer scrutiny her use of the colon was plainly inconsistent: she used it "correctly" twice and twice "incorrectly"; that is, in constructions that bore no resemblance. However, I do wonder if there is a pondian difference. Fowler seems to sanction its use where left pondians would not.
On another note (should this be a different thread?), in fiction the semicolon is an ugly mark, rarely justified. Almost always a period would serve better. In fact, I've never seen an instance where the period wouldn't serve better in fiction.
Fiction gets into the mind and often approximates the way the mind works, so many rhetorical conventions may not apply. For instance, the incomplete sentence is very friendly in fiction. The semicolon, on the other hand, is looked at by many writers and editors of fiction is so ugly as to remind them of a pig with a hemorrhoid.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]As I understood it, Lieblich's point was the semicolon was required due to the internal commas in the phrase "a salami sandwich, frecnch fries, and cole slaw for lunch..."[/nq]
I don't recall that he used the word 'required'. He merely provided his example as an instance of one use of the semicolon.
[nq:1]Yet you suggest "perfect" usage would eliminate the semicolon even here.[/nq]
No; I said no such thing, and I didn't use the words "perfect usage". You are putting words into my mouth.
What I said was this: the use of the semicolon as a supercomma is not appealing, and it should be avoided when possible. I did not say that it could always be avoided.
[nq:1]Why? The passage certainly isn't clearer with the removal you suggest.[/nq]
I didn't say it would be "clearer". I merely said that there was nothing wrong with the version using commas instead of semicolons. Please stop putting words into my mouth.
[nq:1]In addition, let me make sure I have you right: use of the semicolon is restricted to linking two sentences when a linking word is not used.[/nq]
Look, I didn't say this either, and I'm getting tired of your misrepresentations. Go back and read my posting, in which I expressly mention two uses of the semicolon.
[nq:1]That's it? In your own writing you abide by this rule religiously?[/nq]
In my own wrting I am careful to use semicolons in a manner that I believe would be considered appropriate by those who understand good punctuation.
(I'm afraid this sounds pompous, but I have strong views about the importance of good punctuation.)
[nq:1]Speaking of the colon, I've seen wildly different uses of it by professional writers. Journalists, for example, seem to hardly use it, while 19th century writers appear to have had a great love affair with it.[/nq]
Correct. Fashions change in punctuation, as elsewhere, and the writers of a few generations ago favored a style that most of us today would regard as overpunctuated. Modern journalists use few semicolons for two reasons: (1) journalistic style makes a point of avoiding the long and complex sentences in which semicolons are at home; (2) many journalists don't know how to use semicolons.
[nq:1]Moreover, it seems to me a practicable argument could be made that it can never be wrongly used. In any event, what's your opinion?[/nq]
Sorry; this is nonsense. Any punctuation mark can be wrongly used, and my students use the semicolon wrongly more often than not. Here is a typical example of a wrongly used semicolon:
"The Confederacy had only two advantages; higher morale and better generals."
If you can't see what's wrong with this, then you need to work on your punctuation.
Larry Trask

Usenet · Answer

The entire first paragraph was lost to me because I don't know what "pondian" means and haven't the time to look it up.

Marvel

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]As I understood it, Lieblich's point was the semicolon was ... "a salami sandwich, frecnch fries, and cole slaw for lunch..."[/nq]
No, I was talking about the colon here.
Marvel

Semi-Colon Confusion

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions