Help with long sentence and semi colon!

[yawnzz]

Hi all the experts out there!

Could I have some help with my sentence below? Thanks in advance!

1) Having read the articles published by the firm and an inspiring interview of the firm’s founder, Mr Ethan, I witnessed, and am deeply impressed by, the firm’s culture of professionalism and its attitude towards challenging the juniors in the firm.

2) Having read the articles published by the firm and an inspiring interview of the firm’s founder, Mr Ethan; I witnessed, and am deeply impressed by, the firm’s culture of professionalism and its attitude towards challenging the juniors in the firm.

3) Having read the articles published by the firm and an inspiring interview of the firm’s founder, Mr Ethan, I witnessed and am deeply impressed by the firm’s culture of professionalism and its attitude towards challenging the juniors in the firm.

Thanks very much to all!

 

[MikeNewYork]

I strongly prefer #1. The second is incorrect. The semicolon is wrong there. The third is not as bad, but I think the commas after "witnessed" and "by" are needed.

 

[SoothingDave]

I am not sure what the witnessing has to do with reading an article and an interview.

 

[Boris Tatarenko]

Although I'm not a teacher nor a native speaker, I'd highly recommend to make several sentences instead of one. :-D

 

[yawnzz]

I am not sure what the witnessing has to do with reading an article and an interview.

Hi Dave,

Thanks for pointing that out. You're very sharp.

Do you think "resonated" is an appropriate word there?

Thanks loads.

 

[MikeNewYork]

I am not sure what the witnessing has to do with reading an article and an interview.

For me, it meant that the speaker has gained first-hand knowledge of what he/she had read.

 

[SoothingDave]

For me, it meant that the speaker has gained first-hand knowledge of what he/she had read.

To me, it seems to be saying that he would not have understood what he was witnessing if he had not previously read the article/interview.

 

[Barb_D]

Wouldn't you say "interview with" and not "interview of"?

 

[Raymott]

Wouldn't you say "interview with" and not "interview of"?

I wouldn't. An interview in which Mr Ethan is the interviewee is an interview of Mr Ethan. It might have been an interview with Dan Rather.

 

[SoothingDave]

Wouldn't you say "interview with" and not "interview of"?

I thought he read articles and read an interview.

 

[Barb_D]

Yes, so did I. I read an interview (preposition) the founder.

I didn't feel the "of" felt very natural. I guess you all do.

 

[emsr2d2]

I'm with Barb. For me, it's an interview by the interviewer and with the interviewee.

I read an interview with Brad Pitt by Louis Theroux = Louis Theroux interviewed Brad Pitt.

 

[Raymott]

I'm not saying "interview with" is wrong. But if someone used "interview of", which is quite common, I wouldn't change it.
Examples:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/08/07/interview-president-jay-leno-tonight-show
http://www.cbn.com/special/narnia/articles/ans_lewislastinterviewa.aspx
http://www.thestar.com/sports/sochi...miller_should_not_be_controversial_kelly.html
...

I'd also use "of" with questioning, enquiry, interrogation, examination. Sure, it's hard to have an interview without an interviewee, but it's an interview 'of' the interviewee, even if it's 'with' them as well.