Semicolons -- how, when, and where

[Ursa major]

“Presently, as I went on, still gaining velocity, the palpitation of night and day merged into one continuous greyness; the sky took on a wonderful deepness of blue, a splendid luminous color like that of early twilight; the jerking sun became a streak of fire, a brilliant arch, in space; the moon a fainter fluctuating band; and I could see nothing of the stars, save now and then a brighter circle flickering in the blue.”

Where this sentence fails for me is that, in a list** ***, semicolons are often used to separate possible (exclusive or non-exclusive) alternatives. What the sentence above is doing is describing a sequence of actions, which would be better separated by full stops and/or conjuctions (with or without supporting commas).


** - By "list", I mean that there are two or more semicolons in the sentence so that, list or not, the sentence gives the appearance of containing one.

*** - The other main use of semicolons is to separate opposites, e.g. "Most would run away from such danger; members of the emergency services would run towards it."

 

[Ursa major]

That's simply not true. Odd uses of the typography - like the use of an @mpersand in a word - quite definitely cause the reader to become aware of how the prose appears on the page rather than simply what the prose says.

You have created a rather extreme case of the use of punctuation, one that could be created using any punctuation mark...

...which hardly fits (and, to be honest, rather undermines) what Astro Pen wrote --

[Semicolons] are monsters that drag your attention from the story to the typography

-- which focuses specifically on semicolons (on any use of them) and widens Astro Pen's reaction to them to include those reading the comment (by using the second person pronoun "your").

 

[Star-child]

You have created a rather extreme case of the use of punctuation, one that could be created using any punctuation mark...

...which hardly fits (and, to be honest, rather undermines) what Astro Pen wrote ---- which focuses specifically on semicolons (on any use of them) and widens Astro Pen's reaction to them to include those reading the comment (by using the second person pronoun "your").

I cannot parse this last sentence of yours. Conspicuous punctuation is a relatively simple idea, and which bits are conspicuous or not merely opinion. Yours doesn't erase my opinion, no matter how often or bluntly you state it. And certainly not when you refer reactions getting wider - because I doubt anyone followed that.

 

[Astro Pen]

Where this sentence fails for me is that, in a list** ***, semicolons are often used to separate possible (exclusive or non-exclusive) alternatives. What the sentence above is doing is describing a sequence of actions, which would be better separated by full stops and/or conjuctions (with or without supporting commas).


** - By "list", I mean that there are two or more semicolons in the sentence so that, list or not, the sentence gives the appearance of containing one.

*** - The other main use of semicolons is to separate opposites, e.g. "Most would run away from such danger; members of the emergency services would run towards it."

Don't start me off on asterisks! LoL

 

[Ursa major]

I am not erasing your opinion (), but merely pointing out that Astro Pen was talking about any semicolon being a distraction.

I'm pretty sure that almost all of us would, on seeing a semicolon in a word, have to put extra effort (not necessarily all of it conscious) into working out why it might be there and if it was really meant to be there.

 

[-K2-]

Where this sentence fails for me is that, in a list** ***, semicolons are often used to separate possible (exclusive or non-exclusive) alternatives. What the sentence above is doing is describing a sequence of actions, which would be better separated by full stops and/or conjuctions (with or without supporting commas).
** - By "list", I mean that there are two or more semicolons in the sentence so that, list or not, the sentence gives the appearance of containing one.
*** - The other main use of semicolons is to separate opposites, e.g. "Most would run away from such danger; members of the emergency services would run towards it."

Uhhhh...duhhhh...is it? I don't read it as that. I don't disagree that periods could be used, but...I'll grant you that all the red CAN be read as individual actions of individual aspects, and it all makes a list of sorts...but 'I' read it as one action resulting in a number of simultaneous changes due to that singular action.

“Presently, as I went on, still gaining velocity, the palpitation of night and day merged into one continuous greyness; the sky took on a wonderful deepness of blue, a splendid luminous color like that of early twilight; the jerking sun became a streak of fire, a brilliant arch, in space; the moon (became) a fainter fluctuating band; and I could see nothing of the stars, save now and then a brighter circle flickering in the blue.”

Without the verbs, however, then it really becomes a list (verbs removed):
“Presently, as I went on, still gaining velocity, the palpitation of night and day merged into: one continuous greyness; the sky a wonderful deepness of blue, a splendid luminous color of early twilight; the jerking sun a streak of fire, a brilliant arch, in space; the moon a fainter fluctuating band; no stars except a brighter circle in the blue.”

(with some glue added):
“Presently, as I went on, still gaining velocity, the palpitation of night and day merged into: one continuous greyness; the sky was (became) a wonderful deepness of blue that was a splendid luminous color like that of early twilight; the jerking sun was (became) a streak of fire, a brilliant arch, in space; the moon a fainter fluctuating band; no stars except a brighter circle flickering in the blue.”

I suppose you could add 'simultaneously, while, as, at the same time, etc.' cluttering it up further, but I already read it as that. More so, to add periods instead of the semicolons, looses (for me) the connection to the whole. The result is instead of simultaneous changes taking place, 'to me' it reads more like one-after-the-other:
“Presently, as I went on, still gaining velocity, the palpitation of night and day merged into one continuous greyness. The sky took on a wonderful deepness of blue, a splendid luminous color like that of early twilight. The jerking sun became a streak of fire, a brilliant arch, in space. The moon (became) a fainter fluctuating band. I could see nothing of the stars, save now and then a brighter circle flickering in the blue.”

Just my take... *shrug*

K2

 

[Ursa major]

resulting in a number of simultaneous changes

If "the palpitation of night and day merged into one continuous greyness", how can this be happening at the same time as:

1. "the sky took on a wonderful deepness of blue, a splendid luminous color like that of early twilight" (grey not being blue and vice versa)
2. "the jerking sun became a streak of fire, a brilliant arch, in space" (a streak of fire not really being compatible with "one continous greyness")
3. "the moon a fainter fluctuating band" (so again not continuous greyness)
4. "save now and then a brighter circle flickering in the blue" (so neither grey nor continuous).

Obviously, the things I've numbered can be present at at the same time -- so they could be separated by semicolons -- but the "one continuous greyness" is what the time traveller sees before that (i.e. before "the sky took on a wonderful deepness of blue".


Actually, the more I read it, the more trouble I'm having with it as a description of what the time traveller sees, but as we're not re-editing the book, I'm not going to attempt to provide a better one. I can, though, see the sentence working for the first readers of the book. First of all. they hadn't seen any of the attempts to film the story (where we, the viewers, got to see what might be seen by the time traveller), so they had to construct the image in their heads with no more than the words you've quoted to guide them. Second, they were probably used to seeing more semicolons in a text than we are.

 

[DannMcGrew]

Is it possible that one's reaction to semicolons may in large part be a factor of one's reading experience. Those steeped in "older" literature are often completely comforatable with them while those who read only contemporary writing find them odd.

 

[-K2-]

If "the palpitation of night and day merged into one continuous greyness", how can this be happening at the same time as:

1. "the sky took on a wonderful deepness of blue, a splendid luminous color like that of early twilight" (grey not being blue and vice versa)
2. "the jerking sun became a streak of fire, a brilliant arch, in space" (a streak of fire not really being compatible with "one continous greyness")
3. "the moon a fainter fluctuating band" (so again not continuous greyness)
4. "save now and then a brighter circle flickering in the blue" (so neither grey nor continuous).

Obviously, the things I've numbered can be present at at the same time -- so they could be separated by semicolons -- but the "one continuous greyness" is what the time traveller sees before that (i.e. before "the sky took on a wonderful deepness of blue".

Not arguing, simply discussing, if you combined: the blue sky+yellow arch of sun+white arch of moon+circle (halo maybe?) of starlight = you get a gray...not grey hehe.

K2

 

[mosaix]

I must say, after reading: Check out this example from The Time Machine, by H.G. Wells:
“Presently, as I went on, still gaining velocity, the palpitation of night and day merged into one continuous greyness; the sky took on a wonderful deepness of blue, a splendid luminous color like that of early twilight; the jerking sun became a streak of fire, a brilliant arch, in space; the moon a fainter fluctuating band; and I could see nothing of the stars, save now and then a brighter circle flickering in the blue.”

The article's author then states, "See how far you get into that monstrosity before your brain checks out." Beforehand he states, "So why are you trying to suffocate them?"

Well, I don't know about the author of that article, but I tend to pause--and breathe--even at commas sometimes. Yes, periods could be substituted for the semicolons, and yes, I would never mimic that example...but I have no problem with it. It's an all-inclusive description of a singular thing, the sky. Each individual aspect separated by a semicolon, yet each detail of each aspect separated by commas.

The initial semicolon could be replaced by a period, perhaps even a colon(?). But, it works for me. I pause--breathe--and then continue at each semicolon when reading it aloud. In the end, however, instead of being left with numerous related though disconnected images, I'm left with a singular image of the sky in all its detail.

Okay, I'm convinced. I need to use more semicolons.

K2

Slightly OT @-K2- but that piece from the Time Machine brought back the first time I read it as if it was yesterday. I couldn't have quoted it to save my life but reading it (and I read it before anything else in your post) I knew exactly where it had come from. Thanks for jogging my memory of an enjoyable reading experience.

 

[-K2-]

Anywho... I got lists and descriptions that might benefit from semicolon use like above:

An appendices list:
Regional CASE P-say dialects include: Sowfee-say (South Philadelphia); V-tahk (New Venice (New York City)); Jeabe’ (New Jersey influenced areas); Bawlmar (Baltimore region); C-tahk/C-say/Chop/Carney (Homestead Capital (District of Columbia surrounding)); Smugs (various cultural or regional pre-Gathering dialects and slang still in use where a P-say direct replacement exists).

Spots where I'm trying to combine a number of aspects at one time to render a singular effect--currently (needs a LOT of cleaning up)--reads like this:
Reminiscent of a failing fluorescent lamp, moonlight diffused through the ever-present, thin overcast, lighting up the sky. The shroud’s pale glow flickered when higher clouds passed, blotting out the moon. Intense lighting from surrounding zones reflected down from all-points off the low hazy veil, increased the illumination. Granting no respite from the day, the bright nights made it easier to see, but also seen.

That simultaneous connection does seem lost.

With semicolons possibly implies simultaneously(?):
Reminiscent of a failing fluorescent lamp, moonlight diffused through the ever-present, thin overcast, lighting up the sky; the shroud’s pale glow flickered when higher clouds passed, blotting out the moon; intense lighting from surrounding zones reflected down from all-points off the low hazy veil, increased the illumination; granting no respite from the day, the bright nights made it easier to see, but also seen.

I could clean that up by removing some of the nouns/adj. used for the overcast and a verb:
Reminiscent of a failing fluorescent lamp, moonlight diffused through the ever-present, thin overcast, lighting up the sky; the shroud’s pale glow flickered when higher clouds passed, blotteding out the moon; intense lighting from surrounding zones reflected down from all-points off the low hazy veil, increasinged the illumination; granting no respite from the day, the bright nights made it easier to see, but also seen.

With a colon it does become a list:
Reminiscent of a failing fluorescent lamp: moonlight diffused through the ever-present, thin overcast, lighting up the sky; the shroud’s pale glow flickered when higher clouds passed, blotting out the moon; intense lighting from surrounding zones reflected down from all-points off the low hazy veil, increased the illumination; granting no respite from the day, the bright nights made it easier to see, but also seen.

Anywho, just messin' around,

K2

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Far from being clunky, I think that for the vast majority of readers semicolons are invisible. I suspect they are only clunky to writers who are still trying to figure out how to use them (which I admit encompasses a lot of beginning and intermediate writers) and are reminded of their own confusion each time they see them. Writers who know how to use them may notice them, also, but are unlikely to be bothered by them. On the contrary, they may appreciate their presence.

 

[AMB]

Not arguing, simply discussing, if you combined: the blue sky+yellow arch of sun+white arch of moon+circle (halo maybe?) of starlight = you get a gray...not grey hehe.

K2

I read the passage as "the palpitation of day and night turned to this grey thing, here is a list of the stages it went through to achieve this". If they all belong to "the palpitation of night and day" then I don't think they can really stand on their own unless you move the grey ( ) to the end of the sequence.

 

[tegeus-Cromis]

Semicolons are lovely things. Banning them is as absurd as saying that in music you can have only full-note or eighth-note pauses, but not half- or quarter-note ones; or as saying that you are only allowed to play adagio or alllegro, but not andante.

The best argument for the semicolon I know is Nabokov's analysis of how Flaubert uses them, in Lectures on Literature. He makes it clear that the semicolon is an essential component of Flaubert's style, and that no other punctuation mark could be substituted for it.

 

[DannMcGrew]

Those steeped in "older" literature are often completely comforatable with them

The argument against writing like you speak.

 

[tegeus-Cromis]

Semicolons had been used for centuries without anybody objecting, until the development of a certain post-Hemingway modernist macho rhetoric in American writing. The famous Vonnegut quote makes that very clear: "First rule: Do not use semicolons. They are transvestite hermaphrodites representing absolutely nothing. All they do is show you've been to college." Translation (not that it needs much of one): real men don't use semicolons; only overeducated sissies do.

 

[CTRandall]

Step 3 of my editing process is a search for semicolons. I call it a semicolonoscopy.

I think I might copy this post into the forum thread on "the worst joke you know".

 

[Ursa major]

I read the passage as "the palpitation of day and night turned to this grey thing, here is a list of the stages it went through to achieve this".

That does seem to make more sense: the faster he travelled into the future, the more what he would be seeing would be a grey blur.

 

[chrispenycate]

I tend to hear the words while I'm engrossed in a story, and punctuation is the rests that build the rhythm. Thus a full stop (period) is about a minim, A paragraph change is about a breve (though it can be longer), and a chapter change is at least a bar. A comma is about a quaver, while a semicolon is a dotted quaver. That leaves a colon at about a crotchet, and quotation marks - possibly only a semiquaver?

But I am a pedant - and I can get totally lose my suspension of disbelieve in full reading stampede - Um, anyone upset by mixed metaphors? - by a single comma splice in place of a semicolon. Oh, you can chop the sentences into grammatical sausage slices, if you can take the machine-gun rhythm, but a misplced apostrophe can get me foaming at the mouth.

And rhythm can effect the pace, as well as the mood. Not that I've entirely mastered the structural details, but I'm a reader, not really a writer.

 

[-K2-]

Here is a question;

I have a primary subject, Bob, W because of X , Y because of Z... Could I write: Bob W X; or Y Z.

The question is, can 'or' be used and is it okay to not include Bob in the second half?

I don't want 'and or but,' because it is an either/or.

K2