Colons only after independent clauses...

[matt1979]

Hello.

I have read that colons should only be used to introduce a list if they are preceded by a complete sentence. That rule seems OK to me, but I came across this example, which is marked as correct, on a well-known website:

We have taken a vacation in the following countries: Philippines, China, Thailand, and Hong Kong.

To my mind the opening clause contains a subject and a predicate, but I don't see how it can be considered complete; after all, it requires the list to make sense, surely.

Can anyone shed any light please?

Thanks in advance.

 

[MikeNewYork]

The "rule" goes too far. Your example sentence is correct.

 

[matt1979]

Thanks for the reply, but I'm still a little stumped because of the following claims.

Two websites state that the following sentences are correct as regards their colon usage, *and* that the first clause in each of them is complete:

For their anniversary they went to the following places: Aruba, St. Martin, Jamaica, and the Bahamas.

To make clam chowder you need the following: minced clams, milk, potatoes, and onions.

Grammar Girl's favorite hobbies are the following: skiing and reading.

How can anyone claim that, 'For their anniversary they went to the following places', 'To make clam chowder you need the following', and 'Grammar Girl's favorite hobbies are the following' are independent clauses/complete sentences that could each end in a period?

Thanks in advance.

 

[MikeNewYork]

You are over-reading the rule. Obviously what follows the colon is important to the meaning of the sentence. Why else would it be there?

 

[matt1979]

The rule says the first clause must be independent. How can I over-read it? If the first clause needs the text that follows the colon to make it complete, then it wasn't independent to begin with, surely?

The inconsistencies within English are bad enough, but to make a firm 'rule' and then break it in the examples given seems even worse to me.

 

[MikeNewYork]

The clauses are grammatically independent. It is just that meaning is not clear without the remainder. If you want to use "rules" you need to understand them.

 

[matt1979]

The clauses are grammatically independent. It is just that meaning is not clear without the remainder. If you want to use "rules" you need to understand them.

I would have thought that by asking questions I was seeking explanations, not condescension. If you don't want to help me, please don't bother to reply.

Wikipedia is as good a reference as anywhere: 'An independent clause (or main clause) is a clause that can stand by itself; also known as a simple sentence. An independent clause contains a subject and a predicate; it makes sense by itself.'

How can, 'For their anniversary they went to the following places', be considered to make sense by itself? What am I missing? I'm trying to explain this to someone else, a teenager, and I'm struggling to do so.

 

[MikeNewYork]

Matt, there is nothing more that I can do for you. You are stuck in your own world. You do not want to listen. Good luck.

 

[matt1979]

I know where your head is stuck. Thanks for all your 'help', Mike.

 

[SoothingDave]

I don't think this is a very good rule. Do you have any examples of colon use that follow this rule?

 

[SoothingDave]

http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/colons.asp

Here is a list of colon rules and it doesn't say anything about having to have a complete, independent sentence before a list of items. It does say that a colon can be used to separate two independent clauses when the second explains or expands upon the first.

Where did you find this rule that is troubling you?

 

[MikeNewYork]

Matt, I suspected that rudeness was soon to follow.

 

[MikeNewYork]

I told him that the "rule" was over-simplified in post #2.

 

[matt1979]

Matt, I suspected that rudeness was soon to follow.

'You are stuck in your own world... You do not want to listen'. Rudeness? Obviously hypocrisy is not in your dictionary.


SOOTHING DAVE: Thanks for the link. The teenager in question brought to me multiple websites, many from universities, plus the Grammar Girl and Wikipedia ones, where it is explicitly stated that the preceding clause to a colon and a following list must be 'independent'. I hadn't heard of this before yesterday, so I thought I would ask on here, especially as I can't see how the examples I quoted previously constitute 'independent clauses'. As far as I can make out, you couldn't use them on their own with, say, a period at the end, and thinking back to when I was at school, that's the 'rule' I recall.

That was all I was asking about before the snotty comments started.

 

[SoothingDave]

I think the definition of "independent clause" that Grammar Girl is using is a little loose. She was trying to point out that you should not follow a verb with a colon.

"I love: ice cream rainbows, and kittens." is wrong.

"I love the following things: ice cream, rainbows and kittens."

 

[riquecohen]

http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/colons.asp

Here is a list of colon rules and it doesn't say anything about having to have a complete, independent sentence before a list of items. It does say that a colon can be used to separate two independent clauses when the second explains or expands upon the first.

Where did you find this rule that is troubling you?

This link reinforces what is stated in the link posted by Dave. http://www.ehow.com/how_5954_colon.html

 

[MikeNewYork]

The meaning of an independent clause was clear.

"I bought these things." That is an independent clause: subject, verb, direct object. If the listener was looking at those things, it would have a complete meaning. If not, the speaker might supplement the clause with "I bought these things: pasta, milk, dog food, and bleach." But in both examples,the first clause is an independent clause.

 

[matt1979]

I can totally see how "I bought these things." or even "I bought these." are independent clauses, but I'm just having a hard time grasping why "I like the following." is considered independent as it seems to be crying out for something extra, even if it were only the word items/things/objects at the end of it. That's what it boils down to.

If "the following" is an object, then that's fine. I can accept that. I just can't envisage ever saying "I like the following." and a listener knowing what I was talking about. It just feels like such an odd formulation.

As a thought, is it that "I bought these things." could be accompanied by a sweep of the arm and me pointing to a table full of stuff?

In the same way, could "I like the following." be accompanied by another sweep of the arm and the same table shown to the listener?

In that sense it's a complete idea in itself, yes?

 

[matt1979]

I have found this here, which seems much more straight forward (as could probably be expected): http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/wocc/ColonSemicolon.asp

[h=1]# 12. Punctuation -- The Colon and Semicolon[/h][h=2]The Colon[/h]

1. The colon introduces the following:
   1. A list, but only after "as follows," "the following," or a noun for which the list is an appositive:
      
      Each scout will carry the following: (colon) meals for three days, a survival knife, and his sleeping bag.
      
      The company had four new officers: (colon) Bill Smith, Frank Tucker, Peter Fillmore, and Oliver Lewis.