punctuation marks in a parenthesis

[pinkie9]

Hello.

Could anyone check the punctuation marks in the following parenthesis?

(Group 1: Set 1: Item 1, Item 2, Item 3; Set 2: Item4, Item 5, Item 6)


I'm not sure if I can use two colons in a row, but I don't know what else to use.
This parenthesis is a part of a paragraph and there are sentences before and after it.
I need to use a parenthesis. (I'm sorry I can't describe the context, but the situation is confidential. :-( )

The situation would be as follows if I describe it without a parenthesis:
Group1
Set 1
Item 1
Item 2
Item 3
Set 2
Item 4
Item 5
Item 6

Group 2
Set 1
Item 1
Item 2
Item 3
Set 2
Item 4
Item 5
Item 6

 

[SoothingDave]

I wouldn't even try to describe something with multiple levels of hierarchy on a single line like that.

 

[Raymott]

Hello.

Could anyone check the punctuation marks in the following parenthesis?

(Group 1: Set 1: Item 1, Item 2, Item 3; Set 2: Item4, Item 5, Item 6)


I'm not sure if I can use two colons in a row, but I don't know what else to use.
This parenthesis is a part of a paragraph and there are sentences before and after it.
I need to use a parenthesis. (I'm sorry I can't describe the context, but the situation is confidential. :-( )

You don't have to expose the original. You could think of an analogy:
"Cats: Domestic: shorthair, longhair, exotic; Wild: lion, tiger, jaguar; Fictional: Felix, Garfield, TopCat."
I find that too confusing. The following is clearer:
"Cats: Domestic (shorthair, longhair, exotic), Wild (lion, tiger, jaguar), Fictional (Felix, Garfield, TopCat)."
But if the items are much longer than a siingle word, you'd be better expressing it vertically, with indents:
Cats:
....Domestic
........Longhair, including Persians ...
........Shorthair, including British Shorthair ...
........Exotic, including SIamese, Burmese ...
....Wild
....

 

[pinkie9]

You don't have to expose the original. You could think of an analogy:

Thank you so much for the nice example.
So, you can use two colons in a row. That's what I wanted to know.

I wouldn't even try to describe something with multiple levels of hierarchy on a single line like that.

Personally I wouldn't either, but I sometimes I have to translate a sentence like this written by someone who demands that the original style should not be changed. ;-)

 

[BobSmith]

I would prefer multiple lined indents, but if I had to serialize this, I might try:

(Group 1 (Set 1 (Item 1, Item 2, Item 3)) (Set 2 (Item4, Item 5, Item 6)) Group 2 (...) )

 

[pinkie9]

I would prefer multiple lined indents, but if I had to serialize this, I might try:

(Group 1 (Set 1 (Item 1, Item 2, Item 3)) (Set 2 (Item4, Item 5, Item 6)) Group 2 (...) )

Thank you.
Can we use parentheses in parentheses in a formal document unless otherwise specified in a style guide?

 

[Raymott]

Thank you.
Can we use parentheses in parentheses in a formal document unless otherwise specified in a style guide?

That's a rather mathematical way to write it. I'm sure that in most cases, you'd be asked to try again if you presented that.

 

[BobSmith]

That's a rather mathematical way to write it. I'm sure that in most cases, you'd be asked to try again if you presented that.

"group", "set", "item" ... these are rather mathematical sounding terms. What kind of paper would you be writing with these kinds of things and not be able to write them in a rather mathematical way?

 

[Raymott]

"group", "set", "item" ... these are rather mathematical sounding terms. What kind of paper would you be writing with these kinds of things and not be able to write them in a rather mathematical way?

Well, we don't know. I just assumed that this was how the OP decided to group the items together, not that the items were of a mathematical nature.

 

[pinkie9]

Sorry for the ambiguity. I want to use numbers (values) for only Items, but not for Goups and Sets.