Semicolon

[Allen165]

I don't understand why the semicolon in the sentence below is correct; I've been told that it is.

"In 1960 there were 5 lawyers in this county; today there are 125."

For the semicolon to be correct, "today there are 125" must be an independent clause, which is defined as a group of words that contains a subject and verb and expresses a complete thought (Purdue OWL: Independent and Dependent Clauses). I don't think the clause in question fulfills the last criterion. If you were to come up to someone and say, "Today there are 125," he/she would not understand you. He/she might reply, "Today there are 125 what?" Therefore, "today there are 125" does not express a complete thought; it cannot stand on its own.

What do you think?

Thanks!

[Raymott]

I don't understand why the semicolon in the sentence below is correct; I've been told that it is.

"In 1960 there were 5 lawyers in this county; today there are 125."

For the semicolon to be correct, "today there are 125" must be an independent clause, which is defined as a group of words that contains a subject and verb and expresses a complete thought (Purdue OWL: Independent and Dependent Clauses). I don't think the clause in question fulfills the last criterion. If you were to come up to someone and say, "Today there are 125," he/she would not understand you. He/she might reply, "Today there are 125 what?" Therefore, "today there are 125" does not express a complete thought; it cannot stand on its own.

What do you think?

Thanks!

I think the semicolon is acceptable. It joins two closely-related sentences.
The business about a sentence containing a "complete thought" has never been proven by psychoneurolinguists, cognitive scientists or anyone else; it's a conventional definition that is very hard to apply. What's a complete thought?

"I think the semicolon is acceptable." is obviously a sentence, but it is not a complete thought because I must have in mind which semicolon I'm thinking about - and that occurred in your post.

[apex2000]

Semicolon or colon, because you need a longer pause than a comma plus the fact that although related the two parts are separate.
Alternatively you could say: '......in this county, yet today there are 125'.

[Allen165]

I think the semicolon is acceptable. It joins two closely-related sentences.
The business about a sentence containing a "complete thought" has never been proven by psychoneurolinguists, cognitive scientists or anyone else; it's a conventional definition that is very hard to apply. What's a complete thought?

"I think the semicolon is acceptable." is obviously a sentence, but it is not a complete thought because I must have in mind which semicolon I'm thinking about - and that occurred in your post.

Would you say that the semicolon in the following sentence is correct as well?

"Only simple advice can be given as regards unexpected ideas; namely, that you should be ready for them and fasten them to the memory when they appear."

Thanks!

[Raymott]

Would you say that the semicolon in the following sentence is correct as well?

"Only simple advice can be given as regards unexpected ideas; namely, that you should be ready for them and fasten them to the memory when they appear."

Thanks!

I wouldn't use it; I'd use a dash. There are areas where "correctness" becomes a nebulous concept, and I wouldn't argue one way or the other about this example.

[apex2000]

Would you say that the semicolon in the following sentence is correct as well?

"Only simple advice can be given as regards unexpected ideas; namely, that you should be ready for them and fasten them to the memory when they appear."

Thanks!

Personally I would use the colon, but semicolon would be a second choice.

[Allen165]

Personally I would use the colon, but semicolon would be a second choice.

If you were to use the colon, you'd probably have to get rid of "namely."

[bhaisahab]

If you were to use the colon, you'd probably have to get rid of "namely."

Yes, I agree. I like the semi-colon there.

[apex2000]

If you were to use the colon, you'd probably have to get rid of "namely."

Why?

[Allen165]

Why?

Because a colon tells the reader that what follows it explains what precedes it. "Namely" performs the same function, so it would be redundant to write "namely."