Semicolon

[Coolfootluke]

I hope the others will tell us why they think the semicolon is correct.

If I've understood you correctly, "namely" and "that is" can never be preceded by a semicolon. I don't mean to disrespect you, but I doubt that's the case.

I didn't say that. I try never to say never. I've been doing this a long time, and somebody almost always comes up with an exception that makes me look like a jackass. That said, those words probably never can, and it is becoming clear that you haven't got the first clue about the purpose of the semicolon, no offense. There are many good books on style that will introduce it to you far better than I could, such as The Elements of Style.

I don't think "namely" and "for example" have to always be followed by a comma.

Ummm ... yes, they do.

Would you put a comma after "for example" in this sentence?

The work of other DGs also touches on sport, for example that of DG Competition, which investigates breaches of EC competition law.

Of course.

All this is about typographical style. We don't say semicolons. There are universal established conventions, more or less, that the observant reader picks up on in a lifetime of reading, and there are the dictates of a stylebook when you need details. The only right answer to any such question as yours is, "Pick a stylebook, and do what it says." The American bibles are the Chicago Manual of Style for general writing and the AP Stylebook and Libel Manual for journalism.

 

[Allen165]

All this is about typographical style. We don't say semicolons. There are universal established conventions, more or less, that the observant reader picks up on in a lifetime of reading, and there are the dictates of a stylebook when you need details. The only right answer to any such question as yours is, "Pick a stylebook, and do what it says." The American bibles are the Chicago Manual of Style for general writing and the AP Stylebook and Libel Manual for journalism.

I didn't say that. I try never to say never. I've been doing this a long time, and somebody almost always comes up with an exception that makes me look like a jackass. That said, those words probably never can, and it is becoming clear that you haven't got the first clue about the purpose of the semicolon, no offense. There are many good books on style that will introduce it to you far better than I could, such as The Elements of Style.

I'm sorry, but I think you're wrong. "Namely" and "that is" can indeed be preceded by a semicolon. See below.

http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/semicolons.asp (See Rule 2)

http://academics.smcvt.edu/writingctr/semicolon.htm (See Rule 2)

http://www.myrnham.co.uk/manuals/cc2-ug-100/id1099442302609.html

http://testfunda.com/examprep/mba-resource/lessons-and-resources/article/the-semicolon-rules.htm?assetid=6b600b53-324e-4338-9b22-41f3f26296ca

http://www.wvup.edu/jcc/pam/semicolons.htm

 

[Coolfootluke]

Hey, I can link you to irrefutable proof that gin and tonic was invented by aliens. The "rules" you cite are incorrect. But every single scrap of punctuation is there or not by convention, and if you consistently follow an established convention, you will avoid surprising and irritating your readers with it. If you fish around and pick and choose "rules" that win you arguments in forums, your readers will be distracted by your eccentric markings. Good punctuation is invisible, and this reader, for one, stops and says to himself, "What's that doing there?" when he sees a semicolon before "namely".

 

[Allen165]

Hey, I can link you to irrefutable proof that gin and tonic was invented by aliens. The "rules" you cite are incorrect. But every single scrap of punctuation is there or not by convention, and if you consistently follow an established convention, you will avoid surprising and irritating your readers with it. If you fish around and pick and choose "rules" that win you arguments in forums, your readers will be distracted by your eccentric markings. Good punctuation is invisible, and this reader, for one, stops and says to himself, "What's that doing there?" when he sees a semicolon before "namely".

I asked Pat O'Conner of grammaphobia.com whether it is true that the expressions "namely," "that is," and "for example" should never be preceded by a semicolon, and here's what she replied:

"The Chicago Manual of Style (16th ed.), says that when “namely,” “that is,” “for example,” and similar expressions introduce a phrase, they’re traditionally followed by a comma and preceded by a dash or a semicolon. Or the entire phrase they introduce may be enclosed in parentheses or dashes, as when the phrase is inserted in the middle of a sentence. (Section 6.43.)

The manual says that when these expressions introduce an independent clause, they’re preceded by a semicolon. (Section 6.56.)

I would use a semicolon in the sentence you ask about."

The sentence I'd asked about was:

"It appears more probable, though, that rules justified on non-economic grounds are, in fact, rules justified on grounds of purely sporting interest, given the parallel the Court drew between non-economic reasons and purely sporting interest in paragraph 14 of Donà, namely, that 'reasons which are not of an economic nature ... are thus of sporting interest only.'"

Just thought I'd let you know.

 

[5jj]

Pat O'Conner would do what the Chicago Manual of style recommends. Others wouldn't. I go along with Coolfootluke: "...every single scrap of punctuation is there or not by convention, and if you consistently follow an established convention, you will avoid surprising and irritating your readers with it. "

It doesn't really matter which convention you follow, (there are not many absolute rights or wrongs with punctuation in English), so long as you are consistent, your readers will be happy.

 

[Allen165]

Pat O'Conner would do what the Chicago Manual of style recommends. Others wouldn't. I go along with Coolfootluke: "...every single scrap of punctuation is there or not by convention, and if you consistently follow an established convention, you will avoid surprising and irritating your readers with it. "

It doesn't really matter which convention you follow, (there are not many absolute rights or wrongs with punctuation in English), so long as you are consistent, your readers will be happy.

My point is that when "namely," "that is," and "for example" are followed by an independent clause, they should be preceded by a semicolon (or dash). Why? Because you connect two independent clauses with a semicolon (or dash); that is a rule, at least as far as formal English goes. I don't see why one would make an exception for independent clauses introduced by any of the expressions in question. Do you?

 

[5jj]

My point is that when "namely," "that is," and "for example" are followed by an independent clause, they should be (?) preceded by a semicolon (or dash). Why? Because you connect two independent clauses with a semicolon (or dash); that is a rule (?), at least as far as formal English goes. I don't see why one would make an exception for independent clauses introduced by any of the expressions in question. Do you?

I am not making exceptions - I simply don't accept 'should' and 'rules' in this case. In your example in post #3, I would accept any of the following:

"Only simple advice can be given as regards unexpected ideas, namely, that you should be ready for them (,) and should fasten them to the memory when they appear."
"Only simple advice can be given as regards unexpected ideas - namely, that you should be ready for them (,) and should fasten them to the memory when they appear."
"Only simple advice can be given as regards unexpected ideas:[STRIKE]that[/STRIKE] you should be ready for them(,/;) and should fasten them to the memory when they appear."
"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."

I said in my last post that I went along with Coolfootluke; I now add that I also agree with Raymott: "There are areas where 'correctness' becomes a nebulous concept, and I wouldn't argue one way or the other about this example".

 

[Allen165]

I am not making exceptions - I simply don't accept 'should' and 'rules' in this case. In your example in post #3, I would accept any of the following:

"Only simple advice can be given as regards unexpected ideas, namely, that you should be ready for them (,) and should fasten them to the memory when they appear."
"Only simple advice can be given as regards unexpected ideas - namely, that you should be ready for them (,) and should fasten them to the memory when they appear."
"Only simple advice can be given as regards unexpected ideas:[STRIKE]that[/STRIKE] you should be ready for them(,/;) and should fasten them to the memory when they appear."
"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."

I said in my last post that I went along with Coolfootluke; I now add that I also agree with Raymott: "There are areas where 'correctness' becomes a nebulous concept, and I wouldn't argue one way or the other about this example".

Are you disputing my statement about there being a rule on joining two independent clauses with a semicolon? Here's what Bryan A. Garner has to say in this regard:

"Use a semicolon between independent clauses that are not linked by any transitional word or phrase. In informal writing, a comma alone may join two short and closely related independent clauses despite the general grammatical disfavour toward the comma splice. Although this use is traditional and defensible, avoid it in legal writing."
(Source: The Redbook: A Manual on Legal Style, 2nd ed., p. 12.)

I think you'll find that most grammarians consider two independent clauses joined by a comma to be a mistake, so yes, I would say we're dealing with a rule here. But of course, that doesn't mean you have to follow it. You are at liberty to punctuate as you wish, and as long as your punctuation doesn't muddy the meaning of your sentences, no one can really argue against it.

 

[5jj]

Are you disputing my statement about there being a rule on joining two independent clauses with a semicolon?

Well, if by 'rule' you mean 'instructions that must be obeyed' - yes.

There are certain apparently unbreakable rules such as the one about ending a a non-emphatic, affirmative sentence with a full stop (period), though we do have the annoying problem that it appears to be impossible to find a definition of the word 'sentence' that satisfies everybody. If we can't define 'sentence', how can we always be sure about where to put full stops?

The various manuals of style disagree on many points. The 'rules' of any one may be regarded as absolute - by the publishers who accept them as absolute rules; they may be accepted as good advice by others. That's all.

"Use a semicolon between independent clauses that are not linked by any transitional word or phrase." Fine - but what is a transitional word? The first site I looked at one minute ago listed 'namely' and 'that is' as transitional words/phrases (Writer's Web: Transitional Words and Phrases). If that site is correct, then presumably we do not need to use a semi-colon when these words link independent clauses.

 

[Allen165]

Well, if by 'rule' you mean 'instructions that must be obeyed' - yes.

There are certain apparently unbreakable rules such as the one about ending a a non-emphatic, affirmative sentence with a full stop (period), though we do have the annoying problem that it appears to be impossible to find a definition of the word 'sentence' that satisfies everybody. If we can't define 'sentence', how can we always be sure about where to put full stops?

The various manuals of style disagree on many points. The 'rules' of any one may be regarded as absolute - by the publishers who accept them as absolute rules; they may be accepted as good advice by others. That's all.

"Use a semicolon between independent clauses that are not linked by any transitional word or phrase." Fine - but what is a transitional word? The first site I looked at one minute ago listed 'namely' and 'that is' as transitional words/phrases (Writer's Web: Transitional Words and Phrases). If that site is correct, then presumably we do not need to use a semi-colon when these words link independent clauses.

I wasn't citing Garner to back up my point about putting a semicolon before "namely," "that is," and "for example." In fact, he probably wouldn't put a semicolon there because here's what he wrote on page 236 of his Legal Manual:

"the Framers insulated Article III judges from the political fray, i.e., they are appointed for life."

 

[Allen165]

Well, if by 'rule' you mean 'instructions that must be obeyed' - yes.

There are certain apparently unbreakable rules such as the one about ending a a non-emphatic, affirmative sentence with a full stop (period), though we do have the annoying problem that it appears to be impossible to find a definition of the word 'sentence' that satisfies everybody. If we can't define 'sentence', how can we always be sure about where to put full stops?

The various manuals of style disagree on many points. The 'rules' of any one may be regarded as absolute - by the publishers who accept them as absolute rules; they may be accepted as good advice by others. That's all.

"Use a semicolon between independent clauses that are not linked by any transitional word or phrase." Fine - but what is a transitional word? The first site I looked at one minute ago listed 'namely' and 'that is' as transitional words/phrases (Writer's Web: Transitional Words and Phrases). If that site is correct, then presumably we do not need to use a semi-colon when these words link independent clauses.

"Use a semicolon between independent clauses that are not linked by any transitional word or phrase."

I don't think one should infer from that sentence that a semicolon cannot connect two independent clauses already linked by a transitional word. Isn't "however" a transitional word? When "however" is followed by an independent clause, it is preceded by a semicolon.

"The engineers claimed that the bridge was safe; however, they were still not prepared to risk crossing it."
(Source: http://www.sonoma.edu/users/f/farahman/subpages/utilities/however.pdf.)

 

[5jj]

"Use a semicolon between independent clauses that are not linked by any transitional word or phrase."

I don't think one should infer from that sentence that a semicolon cannot connect two independent clauses already linked by a transitional word.

You don't think one should; I think one could. If one wants a rule to be absolute, then it needs to be absolutely clear, in my opinion. If it is not, then it cannot safely be used as 'proof' that a particular punctuation mark must, or should, be used in certain cases.