 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / July 2009American semicolons
An entertaining article/thread/blogpost/whatever they're called about Godwin's Law at The Blackboard, a climate blog, includes a claim that Americans 'only use ";" to separate two things that would otherwise individually qualify as full sentences'. Comment #15342 (by Lucia, the blog's author): <http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/godwins-law-alert-monckton/> *** Now that I think of it, I think you all will enjoy the fact that this is supposedly one sentence: 'With tired, tedious mendacity, it recites the UN’s profitable but baseless mantra that warming of the world’s climate is “unequivocal”; that the industries and enterprises of humankind are principally to blame; and that unless World Government mends our ways the planet is doomed to an ineluctable cascade of difficulties, disasters, catastrophes, cataclysms, Armageddons, and apocalypses worthier of St. John the Divine at his most imaginative than of a businesslike Elliptical Office facing the real and pressing problems that will shortly arise from the President’s gleeful, Peronistic Zimbabweanization of what was once the world’s greatest economy.' Are there any punctuation police here? *** Comments? -- VB Skitt's Law also gets a mention, though it isn't named > An entertaining article/thread/blogpost/whatever they're called about > Godwin's Law at The Blackboard, a climate blog, includes a claim that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > <http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/godwins-law-alert-monckton/> Untrue. We also use them to separate parallel phrases or clauses that would normally be separated by commas but contain commas as below. > *** > Now that I think of it, I think you all will enjoy the fact that this [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Comments? I don't object to the semicolons for clauses that long, though I think commas would work too. -- Jerry Friedman >> An entertaining article/thread/blogpost/whatever they're called about >> Godwin's Law at The Blackboard, a climate blog, includes a claim that [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > I don't object to the semicolons for clauses that long, though I think > commas would work too. I think there are several commas missing, but I won't bother with putting them in. Some Rightpondians might disagree.  SignatureSkitt (AmE) > >> An entertaining article/thread/blogpost/whatever they're called about > >> Godwin's Law at The Blackboard, a climate blog, includes a claim that [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > I think there are several commas missing, but I won't bother with putting > them in. Some Rightpondians might disagree. Intriguing. I reckon there's one comma too many. Like most Brits, I use Oxford commas only when there's a possibility of transient ambiguity, which is never the case in single-word lists like that, or when a pause is needed and I can't use a semicolon (as below). I might have used one if only the apocalypses were worthy of St J the D, but then there would have to have been an 'and' after 'cataclysms' (and no preceding comma); and I might have put one after 'apocalypses ... Divine' if that item had been earlier in the list, if I thought there was a possibility of the reader assuming there was a St. John the Divine & Armageddons, and if I thought such readers deserved special consideration. So where are the missing American commas? -- VB > > >> An entertaining article/thread/blogpost/whatever they're called about > > >> Godwin's Law at The Blackboard, a climate blog, includes a claim that [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > So where are the missing American commas? I might put one after "unless World Government mends our ways". You could also have one before it, but unlike Skitt, I don't do those. -- Jerry Friedman is speaking only for himself. [...] >>>>> Now that I think of it, I think you all will enjoy the fact that >>>>> this is supposedly one sentence: [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > I might put one after "unless World Government mends our ways". You > could also have one before it, but unlike Skitt, I don't do those. That's the ones I was talking about, and I should have said "a couple", not "several". I have a pentiful supply of commas, so I put them everywhere they'd be helpful to the reader. I grew up with a language that has strict rules regarding commas, much unlike English. As a result, my punctuation might be questioned by some of the English persuasion, but hey, it's not like there are some hard and fast rules to back them up. SignatureSkitt (AmE) [...] > >> So where are the missing American commas? > > > I might put one after "unless World Government mends our ways". You > > could also have one before it, but unlike Skitt, I don't do those. Ah! I didn't see that. That's also legitimate British punctuation. I was probably blinded by cowardice. I don't use such commas as often as I should, largely because they make me nervous. Your single-comma method lets things flow nicely but it's illogical and looks incomplete on the page. Skitt's logical version often constricts the flow and can look a bit precious. Funk is my friend. I generally look the other way and leave such clauses to fend for themselves. > That's the ones I was talking about, and I should have said "a couple", not > "several". I have a pentiful supply of commas, so I put them everywhere > they'd be helpful to the reader. I grew up with a language that has strict > rules regarding commas, much unlike English. As a result, my punctuation > might be questioned by some of the English persuasion, but hey, it's not > like there are some hard and fast rules to back them up. No, alas. We cowards need rules. -- VB [...] > 'With tired, tedious mendacity, it recites the UN’s profitable but > baseless mantra that warming of the world’s climate is “unequivocal”; [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Comments? Satisfactory. For ordinary use, the sentence would be messy, but for the sort of Philippic it is, it is unexceptionable (save, as elsewhere noted, for perhaps a wanted comma or two). Semicolons are often used (at least by careful writers) to separate items in a series when those items are complex, and especially if one or more themselves contain internal commas. Messy as it is, the sentence is still of the basic form "It recites a, b, and c"; but because a, b, and c are each a complex, punctuated term, the semicolon assists comprehension. The more common use is, of course, to tie two clauses that as separate sentences would inappropriately disjoin what amounts to a single thought or proposition. They also assist in separating propositions that at first reading can lead to a stumble. An example from Follett clarifies: "He agreed with Victor Hugo that Germany would become a republic in time, and that she had the power to invade other countries was of little interest, since she herself would be invaded in turn." The reader cruises along thinking that the "and that" is leading to a clause parallel to the first, but will experience cervical strain when he or she hits "was of little interest". Dropping a semicolon in relieves the strain: "He agreed with Victor Hugo that Germany would become a republic in time; her power to invade other countries was of little interest, since she herself would be invaded in turn." The clauses could be made separate sentences, but the ideas in them are really two facets of a single thought. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ > Now that I think of it, I think you all will enjoy the fact that this > is supposedly one sentence ... Are there any punctuation police here? I see nothing wrong with the punctuation in the quoted sentence, or anything else about it in relation to English usage. SignatureMark Brader, Toronto "Unjutsly malinged? I think not." msb@vex.net -- Ross Howard > An entertaining article/thread/blogpost/whatever they're called > about Godwin's Law at The Blackboard, a climate blog, includes a > claim that Americans 'only use ";" to separate two things that would > otherwise individually qualify as full sentences'. I was taught in school, and I think most Americans are, that a semicolon can be a strong comma as well as weak period. If there ever was a need for strong commas, it is in the sentence quoted. > *** Now that I think of it, I think you all will enjoy the fact that > this is supposedly one sentence: It is one sentence. > 'With tired, tedious mendacity, it recites the UN’s profitable but > baseless mantra that warming of the world’s climate is “unequivocal”; [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > shortly arise from the President’s gleeful, Peronistic > Zimbabweanization of what was once the world’s greatest economy.' That sort of thing is out of fashion nowadays, and people who attempt it usually don't do it well. To see it done well, open Gibbon's _Decline and Fall_ to any page: The battlements or bastions were shaped in sharp angles; a ditch, broad and deep, protected the foot of the rampart; and the archers on the rampart were assisted by military engines: the _balista_, a powerful cross-bow, which darted short but massy arrows; the _onagri_, or wild a.ses, which, on the principle of a sling, threw stones and bullets of an enormous size. Signature--- Joe Fineman joe_f@verizon.net ||: It's not who you know, it's whom. :|| > > An entertaining article/thread/blogpost/whatever they're called > > about Godwin's Law at The Blackboard, a climate blog, includes a [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > ||: It's not who you know, it's whom. :|| We, yes, it can be a "strong comma", but only in a situation in which there are a lot of commas already and it's necessary to distinguish one bunch of comma-related phrases from another. In that case, the (would-be) comma between them gets brevetted to a semicolon. But mostly it's used in the way Lewis Thomas says in his deathless 'Notes on Punctuation' (http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler/punctuation.html) "I have grown fond of semicolons in recent years. The semicolon tells you that there is still some question about the preceding full sentence; something needs to be added; it reminds you sometimes of the Greek usage. It is almost always a greater pleasure to come across a semicolon than a period. The period tells you that that is that; if you didn't get all the meaning you wanted or expected, anyway you got all the writer intended to parcel out and now you have to move along. But with a semicolon there you get a pleasant little feeling of expectancy; there is more to come; to read on; it will get clearer." -John Lawler * Linguistics @ umich.edu "The great thing about human language is that it prevents us from sticking to the matter at hand." -- Lewis Thomas John Lawler filted: >We, yes, it can be a "strong comma", but only in a situation in >which there are a lot of commas already and it's necessary to [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >But with a semicolon there you get a pleasant little feeling of >expectancy; there is more to come; to read on; it will get clearer." As fond as I am of semicolons in their proper habitat, Thomas's penultimate one should be a comma.... "Proper habitat", by the way, should not routinely include lists of lists, where the inner lists are comma-delimited, requiring some stronger glyph to hold apart the elements of the outer list...a writer who makes too much use of this dodge is likely to start employing sets of nesting parentheses, and then where are you?...r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? ... >"Proper habitat", by the way, should not routinely include lists of lists, where >the inner lists are comma-delimited, requiring some stronger glyph to hold apart >the elements of the outer list...a writer who makes too much use of this dodge >is likely to start employing sets of nesting parentheses, and then where are >you?...r Well to start with, you end up with huge flocks of soiled baby heses, flying around infringing people's personal freedom. SignatureRichard Bollard Canberra Australia To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT. > We, yes, it can be a "strong comma", but only in a situation in > which there are a lot of commas already and it's necessary to > distinguish one bunch of comma-related phrases from another. Sometimes, indeed, one comma is enough to make a semicolon helpful. For example, If he said that, he is an idiot; but I suppose you have figured that out for yourself. Signature--- Joe Fineman joe_f@verizon.net ||: Truth is not stranger than fiction. It is sillier. :|| >> We, yes, it can be a "strong comma", but only in a situation in >> which there are a lot of commas already and it's necessary to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > If he said that, he is an idiot; but I suppose you have figured > that out for yourself. I would not use a semicolon there, especially not followed by a "but". SignatureSkitt (AmE) > >>> We, yes, it can be a "strong comma", but only in a situation in which [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I would not use a semicolon there, especially not followed by a "but". Why not? "But" can certainly start a clause. And the break in thought does seem bigger than a comma, but smaller than a period (indeed, one could as well insert a dash). SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ >>>> We, yes, it can be a "strong comma", but only in a situation in >>>> which there are a lot of commas already and it's necessary to [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > thought does seem bigger than a comma, but smaller than a period > (indeed, one could as well insert a dash). Yes, it can, but it just does not feel right to me. Here is what Dr. Darling wrote at http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/marks/semicolon.htm It is rare, but certainly possible, that you will want a semicolon to separate two independent clauses even when those two independent clauses are connected by a coordinating conjunction. This is especially true when the independent clauses are complex or lengthy and when there are commas within those independent clauses. You might consider breaking those two independent clauses into separate sentences° when this happens. Joe's example above was neither complex nor lengthy, and as noted above, the usage is rare. To me, the "but" after a semicolon is similar to a sentence-starting "but" (as a conjunction) -- it is acceptable, but not recommended. SignatureSkitt (AmE) >>>>> We, yes, it can be a "strong comma", but only in a situation in >>>>> which there are a lot of commas already and it's necessary to [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > sentence-starting "but" (as a conjunction) -- it is acceptable, but not > recommended. While to some extent that is a matter of personal taste, there seems no obvious defect. Garner, the most recent of the major authorities, states that "It is a gross canard that beginning a sentence with _but_ is stylistically slipshod. In fact, doing so is highly desirable in any number of contexts, and many stylebooks that discuss the question quite correctly say that _but_ is better than _however_at the beginning of a sentence . . . ." (Followed by several such citations, then more discussion in the same vein.) As to its being "rare, but certainly possible, that you will want a semicolon to separate two independent clauses even when those two independent clauses are connected by a coordinating conjunction", I suppose that, for some value of "rare", that is so, but I reckon that anywhere one could reasonably use a dash to set off the second such clause, as in the instant case, is one of those "rare" instances. Here is another, from Aldous Huxley (extracted from Garner's book): There is never anything sexy about Lautrec's art; but there also is never anything deliberately, sarcastically anti-feminist in it. That sort of use--"simply to give a weightier pause than a comma would"-- Garner classes, rightly, I think, as "discretionary". I think it looks, sounds, feels right; but others may disagree, and none of us will be right or wrong. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ >>>>>> We, yes, it can be a "strong comma", but only in a situation in >>>>>> which there are a lot of commas already and it's necessary to [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > think it looks, sounds, feels right; but others may disagree, and > none of us will be right or wrong. Agreed. It's a matter of style, and using a semicolon-plus-coordinating-conjunction sequence is simply not my style. SignatureSkitt (AmE) Skitt wrote, in <h2bedv$i1s$1@news.albasani.net> on Mon, 29 Jun 2009 15:15:24 -0700: > > >> We, yes, it can be a "strong comma", but only in a situation in [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I would not use a semicolon there, especially not followed by a "but". Yes, with the semicolon the "but" is redundant, and vice versa. SignatureNick Spalding BrE/IrE >>> We, yes, it can be a "strong comma", but only in a situation in >>> which there are a lot of commas already and it's necessary to [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I would not use a semicolon there, especially not followed by a > "but". This has turned out to be a bad example; I couldn't invent a better one at the time. The point I was trying to make was that a semicolon could clarify the scope of a contrast: She made a fool of herself, and so did he; but I could live with that. She made a fool of herself; and so did he, but I could live with that. In speech, the semicolons would be rendered by long pauses & perhaps raised eyebrows. Signature--- Joe Fineman joe_f@verizon.net ||: Perhaps even this you will someday remember with pleasure. :|| > "Skitt" writes: >>>> We, yes, it can be a "strong comma", but only in a situation in >>>> which there are a lot of commas already and it's necessary to [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > In speech, the semicolons would be rendered by long pauses & perhaps > raised eyebrows. Hmm. I still see no need for the semicolons. Commas would do nicely. SignatureSkitt (AmE) >> She made a fool of herself, and so did he; but I could live with >> that. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Hmm. I still see no need for the semicolons. Commas would do > nicely. The two sentences should be written identically, tho they have different meanings? Here is a real-life example, from a grossly underpunctuated book, as copyedited by me: However, if the line is in state S, then it must be put in state M, because it is modified by the writing; and all other copies in the system must be invalidated. This sentence originally contained no punctuation after "However,". I could have made it bombproof by putting the "because" clause in parentheses, but IMO the semicolon does the job of walling the last clause off from "because". Signature--- Joe Fineman joe_f@verizon.net ||: w.nking is fine, but f.cking you can actually meet people. :|| >>> She made a fool of herself, and so did he; but I could live with >>> that. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > The two sentences should be written identically, tho they have > different meanings? I don't see different meanings. Oh, OK, I see them now. Those then are cases for separate senteces. She made a fool of herself, and so did he. I could live with that. She made a fool of herself. So did he, but I could live with that. > Here is a real-life example, from a grossly underpunctuated book, as > copyedited by me: > > However, if the line is in state S, then it must be put in state > M, because it is modified by the writing; and all other copies in > the system must be invalidated. I'd make that into two separate sentences, dropping the "and". > This sentence originally contained no punctuation after "However,". I > could have made it bombproof by putting the "because" clause in > parentheses, but IMO the semicolon does the job of walling the last > clause off from "because". SignatureSkitt (AmE) [...] > The point I was trying to make was that a semicolon could > clarify the scope of a contrast: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > In speech, the semicolons would be rendered by long pauses & perhaps > raised eyebrows. The first is, I would say, just fine; in the second, the "and" after the semicolon seems unwanted. Consider how you would write the same clauses as separate sentences, because the semicolon is merely tying them together a little closer than a period after the first would. In the first case, the disjunctive "but" at the opening of the clause is required for the intended thought to be properly expressed; in the second case, the conjunctive "and" is implied merely by the conjoining of the two statements, making the "and" redundant. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ >> She made a fool of herself, and so did he; but I could live with >> that. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > merely by the conjoining of the two statements, making the "and" > redundant. "Unwanted" does not follow from "redundant". *Any* sentence consisting of two main clauses connected by "and" could be rewritten as two separate sentences ("He studied, and I slept" -> "He studied; I slept"); but that's a matter of taste. Signature--- Joe Fineman joe_f@verizon.net ||: A fatal error! I should live so long! :|| >>> She made a fool of herself, and so did he; but I could live with >>> that. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > separate sentences ("He studied, and I slept" -> "He studied; I slept"); > but that's a matter of taste. Granted; but would you write "He studied; and I slept"? I doubt it. Yet "He studied, but I slept" is slightly altered in sense if written as "He studied; I slept" instead of "He studied; but I slept." SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ >> "Unwanted" does not follow from "redundant". *Any* sentence >> consisting of two main clauses connected by "and" could be >> rewritten as two separate sentences ("He studied, and I slept" -> >> "He studied; I slept"); but that's a matter of taste. > > Granted; but would you write "He studied; and I slept"? No, because the clauses are so simple that the extra stiffening supplied by the semicolon would be pointless; indeed, that example could even do without the comma. But in the examples we have been considering, where one or the other clause is complex, the semicolon may have useful work to do. Signature--- Joe Fineman joe_f@verizon.net ||: Angels are no saints. :|| >>> "Unwanted" does not follow from "redundant". *Any* sentence >>> consisting of two main clauses connected by "and" could be rewritten [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > one or the other clause is complex, the semicolon may have useful work > to do. The crux, though, is "'Unwanted' does not follow from 'redundant'". I think that in most instances where a semicolon joins two independent clauses, an "and" after the mark is both redundant and unwanted--the latter owing to the former. Complexity is not the issue: He studied diligently, fervidly, as if his entire life, his ambitions, his very self depended on his achievements; and I uncaringly slept, feeling that my sense of self-worth and accomplishment ought to derive from matters other than a simple memorizing of material of no great ultimate interest to me. The "and" is still redundant, and unwanted. The point of the semicolon, in either the above or in the simpler "He studied; I slept" is to define the degree or nature of relation of the two ideas expressed in the corresponding clauses: to show that they are distinct thoughts, yet to some degree interlock more closely or balance more neatly than might seem the case were they expressed as separate sentences (but are not so integral as a simple comma+"and" would indicate). SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ >>>> "Unwanted" does not follow from "redundant". *Any* sentence >>>> consisting of two main clauses connected by "and" could be rewritten [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > sentences (but are not so integral as a simple comma+"and" would > indicate). The point of a semi-colon is to make sense of a clumsily written sentence. SignatureRob Bannister Joe Fineman: > That sort of thing is out of fashion nowadays, and people who attempt > it usually don't do it well. To see it done well, open Gibbon's [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > arrows; the _onagri_, or wild a.ses, which, on the principle of a > sling, threw stones and bullets of an enormous size. "Massy" surprises me. I only remember seeing the word used in science fiction. (When you have to deal with varying levels of gravity, it is important to distinguish weight from mass, and "heavy" might be taken to refer to weight.) So also does "balista" with a single L, in view of how we spell "ballistics". SignatureMark Brader "How can we believe that?" Toronto "Because this time it's true!" msb@vex.net -- Lynn & Jay: YES, PRIME MINISTER My text in this article is in the public domain. [...] > That sort of thing is out of fashion nowadays, and people who attempt > it usually don't do it well. To see it done well, open Gibbon's [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > arrows; the _onagri_, or wild a.ses, which, on the principle of a > sling, threw stones and bullets of an enormous size. OK. Page 252, Volume IV, Folio Society, 1986. A wild, winking orgy of semicolons. Ten of the eleven sentences in the main narrative rely on at least of them. It's too much. We po-faced moderns prefer punctual chastity. Sure, each of Gibbon's sentences is a beautiful artefact but together they form a parade of self- advertising strumpets. Gibbon is clearly having far too much fun with his punctuation* and after a while the modern reader finds such showiness distracting. > ||: It's not who you know, it's whom. :|| Nice. -- VB *Except in the footnotes, where the trend is reversed: only one of six sentences includes a semicolon. Perhaps the footnotes, which are notoriously snide and irreverent, show the real Gibbon: unbuttoned content, unbuttoned punctuation. > A wild, winking orgy of semicolons. Ten of the eleven sentences in the > main narrative rely on at least of them. It's too much. We po-faced > moderns prefer punctual chastity. ... Better than punctual chastitationy, is it? SignatureMark Brader | "This website offers to conjugate your French verb. Toronto | Trust the French to come up with something kinky msb@vex.net | like that." --Al Kriman > > A wild, winking orgy of semicolons. Ten of the eleven sentences in the > > main narrative rely on at least of them. It's too much. We po-faced > > moderns prefer punctual chastity. ... > > Better than punctual chastitationy, is it? Affirmativationalisation. -- VB |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.