4 ms·

The sentence would be correct with a comma, therefore it’s correct with a semicolon, if going by either the Oxford or Wikipedia definitions. Colon works, and it

by dahart 1y ago

The sentence would be correct with a comma, therefore it’s correct with a semicolon, if going by either the Oxford or Wikipedia definitions. Colon works, and it changes the flavor slightly, but it’s certainly not the only way to write this sentence. It’s a subjective and stylistic choice, not a correctness choice. I’m finding more and more often that declaring language misuse, whether words or punctuation, tends to backfire; it’s almost never correct to say someone used language wrong, because language has a broader history with a wider variety of usage than we all learned in school, and we (me included) have a hard time accepting that the way we learned it isn’t the only way. Now I’m trying to enjoy all the fluidity and weirdness of language and study all the ways the rules I learned in school are just wrong.

mmooss 1y ago
> The sentence would be correct with a comma, therefore it’s correct with a semicolon Could you show us where that is said? I'm almost certain that the opposite is true. The only place a semicolon substitutes for a comma or vice versa is in a list, where the list item(s) contain a comma and therefore commas delineation is confusing (like a CSV where data itself contains commas); there you use semicolons. Otherwise, there is no overlap in usage: comma semicolon second clause is, independent N Y dependent Y N list Y N
- pmg101 1y ago
  The sentence would not read well with a comma. It would be an example of the error known as "comma splice": that's why it should be a colon not a semicolon.
  - dahart 1y ago
    Naw, the “it” in the 2nd clause is referring to the first clause, and they are directly related. They are not independent unrelated clauses, and that’s the criteria for a comma splice. Your assertion that a colon should be used contradicts the idea that using a comma would make it a comma splice error. In this case, this sentence’s meaning and point would get across unambiguously no matter what punctuation is used between comma, period, colon or semicolon. What else matters?
- dahart 1y ago
  Googling “semicolon”: “a punctuation mark (;) indicating a pause, typically between two main clauses, that is more pronounced than that indicated by a comma.” Merriam Webster: “A semicolon can also join two statements when the second clause is missing some essential words that are supplied by the first clause. In short sentences, a comma often replaces the semicolon” “A semicolon is also often used before introductory expressions such as for example, that is, and namely, in place of a colon, comma, dash, or parenthesis” https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/a-guide-to-using-semicolons https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/a-guide-to-using-sem... How about for you? What is the source of this chart, and who says it’s the only correct way? I think many people incorrectly jump to the conclusion that the oft-said bit about semicolons replacing commas in a list somehow means it’s the only time semicolons and commas can be swapped.
  - mmooss 1y ago
    It's not based on what is oft-said. And thanks for the Merriam-Webster link, which I agree would seem to be serious evidence. That link has this main summary at the top: > "Semicolons (;) separate independent clauses that are related in meaning, and they separate items in a list when those items themselves are long or include commas. For example, this summary could say "Semicolons are useful; they show that clauses are related in meaning."" Independent clauses are those that can stand alone as sentences; therefore M-W mainly agrees with me. > “A semicolon is also often used before introductory expressions such as for example, that is, ..." Note that the example provided is still two independent clauses: On one important point Harry and Mabel agreed; that is, it would be better for all if Harry found somewhere else to be while Mabel finished cooking. The interesting and surprising part is indeed these bits: > "A semicolon can also join two statements when the second clause is missing some essential words that are supplied by the first clause." (One of their examples is still two independent clauses - no words 'missing' - which is confusing.) I've never seen another serious style guide - and I've seen them all, though I haven't memorized them - say that. I never remember seeing professionally edited writing do that, beyond perhaps in literature where the author is taking literary license. Maybe M-W is describing colloquial usage? I haven't seen much of it there either. As you go through your day, look at professionally edited writing and see if it turns up; I bet not. Missing words are usually a danger to clarity and an invitation to confusion ('imagine your own word here!'), and are seldom advised. > "In short sentences, a comma often replaces the semicolon:' I've seen that done; I've caught myself doing it; I think it's more like a list: e.g., She stretched, she ran, she drank a beer. That was her morning. The first sentence is three independent clauses but three semicolons would seem like a lot of punctuation; and at the same time, it is a list and those are delineated by commas. > "A semicolon is also often used before introductory expressions such as for example, that is, and namely, in place of a colon, comma, dash, or parenthesis ..." Edit: I misread this section before. Mostly this says is that there are places between independent clauses where you can use the other punctuation. However, I don't see how you could use a comma in those situations, including in the example (after "agreed"): 'On one important point Harry and Mabel agreed, that is, it would be better for all if Harry found somewhere else to be while Mabel finished cooking.' That's just bad English. It doesn't say you can use parentheses and em dashes everywhere you use semicolons, nor vice versa; they are not interchangeable. I think it means there are multiple punctuation options in many usages, which isn't saying much. | | > How about for you? A good question. FWIW the leading style guides in American English are generally Chicago Manual of Style for book publishing and general use, AP Stylebook for journalism, and Modern Language Association (MLA) and American Psychological Association (APA) for scholarly papers. In British English, I think Oxford Style (also called "Hart's Rules") is perhaps most authoritative. You can find all or most of them in Internet Archive's lending library (but use a recent edition). I'll start with AP (16th edition is the latest I have access to), which is simpler: * "semicolon (;)" (p.424) has two usages: 1) in a list that has commas in list items, and 2) "To link independent clauses: Use semicolon when a coordination conjunction ... is not present. / If a coordinating conjunction is present, use a semicolon before it only if extensive punctuation also is required in ... the individual clauses: ... / Unless a particular literary effect is desired, however, the better approach is to break independent clauses into separate sentences." I think that agrees with me, with the addition of a slight exception for creating a hierarchy between independent clauses if there's lots of other punctuation (I don't rule out exceptions). Maybe the latter clarifies M-W's mysterious ruling (and Chicago agrees with AP here:) Here's Chicago: * 6.56: In regular prose, a semicolon is most commonly used between two independent clauses not joined by a conjunction to signal a closer connection between them than a period would. * 6.57: Certain adverbs, when they are used to join two independent clauses, should be preceded by a semicolon rather than a comma. These conjunctive adverbs include however, thus, hence, indeed, accordingly, besides, and therefore .... (sec. 6.57) * 6.58: A semicolon may be used before an expression such as that is, for example, or namely when it introduces an independent clause. * 6.59: Normally, an independent clause introduced by a coordinating conjunction is preceded by a comma .... In formal prose, a semicolon may be used instead-either to effect a stronger separation between clauses or when the second independent clause has internal punctuation. 6.56 agrees with me. 6.57 does too: it requires independent clauses, and prepending an adverb to an independent clause still results in an independent clause, afaict: Jamie ran to the store. becomes Therefore, Jamie ran to the store. 6.58 agrees with me for the same reasons as 6.57. 6.59 puts a toe in the grey area an inch further than I expected, with "to effect a stronger separation between clauses". Of course there are exceptions to many rules, including starting a sentence with a conjunction such as 'And ...'. This section perhaps applies that exception to all independent clauses instead of only sentences. But note that it does again require an independent clause that begins with the conjunction. So I'd say that Chicago agrees with me, requiring independent clauses at every step (no "missing words"), but adding the same exception made for sentences. That's my take! It's been fun. :)

by dahart 1y ago

mmooss 1y ago

> The sentence would be correct with a comma, therefore it’s correct with a semicolon Could you show us where that is said? I'm almost certain that the opposite is true. The only place a semicolon substitutes for a comma or vice versa is in a list, where the list item(s) contain a comma and therefore commas delineation is confusing (like a CSV where data itself contains commas); there you use semicolons. Otherwise, there is no overlap in usage: comma semicolon second clause is, independent N Y dependent Y N list Y N

pmg101 1y ago
The sentence would not read well with a comma. It would be an example of the error known as "comma splice": that's why it should be a colon not a semicolon.
- dahart 1y ago
  Naw, the “it” in the 2nd clause is referring to the first clause, and they are directly related. They are not independent unrelated clauses, and that’s the criteria for a comma splice. Your assertion that a colon should be used contradicts the idea that using a comma would make it a comma splice error. In this case, this sentence’s meaning and point would get across unambiguously no matter what punctuation is used between comma, period, colon or semicolon. What else matters?
dahart 1y ago
Googling “semicolon”: “a punctuation mark (;) indicating a pause, typically between two main clauses, that is more pronounced than that indicated by a comma.” Merriam Webster: “A semicolon can also join two statements when the second clause is missing some essential words that are supplied by the first clause. In short sentences, a comma often replaces the semicolon” “A semicolon is also often used before introductory expressions such as for example, that is, and namely, in place of a colon, comma, dash, or parenthesis” https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/a-guide-to-using-semicolons https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/a-guide-to-using-sem... How about for you? What is the source of this chart, and who says it’s the only correct way? I think many people incorrectly jump to the conclusion that the oft-said bit about semicolons replacing commas in a list somehow means it’s the only time semicolons and commas can be swapped.
- mmooss 1y ago
  It's not based on what is oft-said. And thanks for the Merriam-Webster link, which I agree would seem to be serious evidence. That link has this main summary at the top: > "Semicolons (;) separate independent clauses that are related in meaning, and they separate items in a list when those items themselves are long or include commas. For example, this summary could say "Semicolons are useful; they show that clauses are related in meaning."" Independent clauses are those that can stand alone as sentences; therefore M-W mainly agrees with me. > “A semicolon is also often used before introductory expressions such as for example, that is, ..." Note that the example provided is still two independent clauses: On one important point Harry and Mabel agreed; that is, it would be better for all if Harry found somewhere else to be while Mabel finished cooking. The interesting and surprising part is indeed these bits: > "A semicolon can also join two statements when the second clause is missing some essential words that are supplied by the first clause." (One of their examples is still two independent clauses - no words 'missing' - which is confusing.) I've never seen another serious style guide - and I've seen them all, though I haven't memorized them - say that. I never remember seeing professionally edited writing do that, beyond perhaps in literature where the author is taking literary license. Maybe M-W is describing colloquial usage? I haven't seen much of it there either. As you go through your day, look at professionally edited writing and see if it turns up; I bet not. Missing words are usually a danger to clarity and an invitation to confusion ('imagine your own word here!'), and are seldom advised. > "In short sentences, a comma often replaces the semicolon:' I've seen that done; I've caught myself doing it; I think it's more like a list: e.g., She stretched, she ran, she drank a beer. That was her morning. The first sentence is three independent clauses but three semicolons would seem like a lot of punctuation; and at the same time, it is a list and those are delineated by commas. > "A semicolon is also often used before introductory expressions such as for example, that is, and namely, in place of a colon, comma, dash, or parenthesis ..." Edit: I misread this section before. Mostly this says is that there are places between independent clauses where you can use the other punctuation. However, I don't see how you could use a comma in those situations, including in the example (after "agreed"): 'On one important point Harry and Mabel agreed, that is, it would be better for all if Harry found somewhere else to be while Mabel finished cooking.' That's just bad English. It doesn't say you can use parentheses and em dashes everywhere you use semicolons, nor vice versa; they are not interchangeable. I think it means there are multiple punctuation options in many usages, which isn't saying much. | | > How about for you? A good question. FWIW the leading style guides in American English are generally Chicago Manual of Style for book publishing and general use, AP Stylebook for journalism, and Modern Language Association (MLA) and American Psychological Association (APA) for scholarly papers. In British English, I think Oxford Style (also called "Hart's Rules") is perhaps most authoritative. You can find all or most of them in Internet Archive's lending library (but use a recent edition). I'll start with AP (16th edition is the latest I have access to), which is simpler: * "semicolon (;)" (p.424) has two usages: 1) in a list that has commas in list items, and 2) "To link independent clauses: Use semicolon when a coordination conjunction ... is not present. / If a coordinating conjunction is present, use a semicolon before it only if extensive punctuation also is required in ... the individual clauses: ... / Unless a particular literary effect is desired, however, the better approach is to break independent clauses into separate sentences." I think that agrees with me, with the addition of a slight exception for creating a hierarchy between independent clauses if there's lots of other punctuation (I don't rule out exceptions). Maybe the latter clarifies M-W's mysterious ruling (and Chicago agrees with AP here:) Here's Chicago: * 6.56: In regular prose, a semicolon is most commonly used between two independent clauses not joined by a conjunction to signal a closer connection between them than a period would. * 6.57: Certain adverbs, when they are used to join two independent clauses, should be preceded by a semicolon rather than a comma. These conjunctive adverbs include however, thus, hence, indeed, accordingly, besides, and therefore .... (sec. 6.57) * 6.58: A semicolon may be used before an expression such as that is, for example, or namely when it introduces an independent clause. * 6.59: Normally, an independent clause introduced by a coordinating conjunction is preceded by a comma .... In formal prose, a semicolon may be used instead-either to effect a stronger separation between clauses or when the second independent clause has internal punctuation. 6.56 agrees with me. 6.57 does too: it requires independent clauses, and prepending an adverb to an independent clause still results in an independent clause, afaict: Jamie ran to the store. becomes Therefore, Jamie ran to the store. 6.58 agrees with me for the same reasons as 6.57. 6.59 puts a toe in the grey area an inch further than I expected, with "to effect a stronger separation between clauses". Of course there are exceptions to many rules, including starting a sentence with a conjunction such as 'And ...'. This section perhaps applies that exception to all independent clauses instead of only sentences. But note that it does again require an independent clause that begins with the conjunction. So I'd say that Chicago agrees with me, requiring independent clauses at every step (no "missing words"), but adding the same exception made for sentences. That's my take! It's been fun. :)