As a rule of thumb, when the pause between two adjacent sentences implied by the period seems a bit too halting, try a semicolon.
I find it easier to think about the utility of semicolons from the perspective of individual sentences to be combined. And therefore, if a properly used semicolon were to be replaced with a period, the two resulting sentences should still make sense in isolation, they'd just feel ever so slightly too far apart.
"Semicolons bring the drama. That's why I love them." Does it work? Yes. Is there a clear through-line from one sentence to the next? Yes. Does the pause between the sentences feel a bit too abrupt, though? Maybe!
("Establish clear through-line" can be another nice reason to combine sentences with a semicolon.)
I think of semicolons as a sort of silent conjunction. Thus I read TFA's title as something like "Semicolons bring the drama, and that's why I love them".
That silent conjunction is joyful; that's why I use it.
I actually prefer the (grammatically incorrect) sentence-starting “And”.
Sentence-starting “And”s bring the drama. And that’s why I love them.
Or even better:
Sentence-starting “And”s with line breaks bring even more drama.
And that’s why I love them.
Yeah, all kinds of rule breaking with this (pluralized quote word). But that’s how I like to write.
> grammatically incorrect
And he said to them, starting sentences with and is fine and normal. Haven't you read e.g. the bible where it occurs constantly? https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/and#Usage_notes
Further, sentence (or clause) initial "and" can means if/as though, also existing in other Germanic languages:
> wir werden siegen, und wenn wir sterben müssen
> Further, sentence (or clause) initial "and" can means if/as though, also existing in other Germanic languages
Does this exist in English? An can mean "if" - not in the modern language, that's not a possibility at all, but in archaic texts - and this an does apparently derive from the word and, but I've never seen and itself used that way.
Too much drama; too much!
I will sometimes do this when, for whatever reason, I don't want to capitalize that next letter. It's the 'T' in 'That'; too loud!
> I find it easier to think about the utility of semicolons from the perspective of individual sentences to be combined. And therefore, if a properly used semicolon were to be replaced with a period, the two resulting sentences should still make sense in isolation, they'd just feel ever so slightly too far apart.
I find it easier to think about the utility of semicolons from the perspective of individual sentences to be combined; and, therefore, if a properly used semicolon were to be replaced with a period, the two resulting sentences should still make sense in isolation -- they'd just feel ever so slightly too far apart.
Also, when the pause between two adjacent sentence is awkwardly inadequate, try writing a dot above the comma.
;)
> Also, when the pause between two adjacent sentence is awkwardly inadequate, try writing a dot above the comma.
Ah, you missed the chance to refer euphoniously instead to the pause between clauses!
Back in the good old 1980s, I witnessed how a teacher, in front of the whole school assembly in the gym, cracked a joke about Mrs. Claus (of Santa) being the "subordinate Claus". It drew some boos; today it would likely be blood.
If he tried saying that in a shopping maul, near a pair of Claus, it could be a death sentence. Certainly elf abuse.
The join between two phrases has the point that abrases; the pause between the clauses has the clew that is true!
Semicolons are used by people who find highly nested code to be natural and necessary; they add another level to the outline. I love semicolons and couldn't write without them.
But the phrase after the semicolon is at the same level as the initial phrase (I would have loved to employ nesting with parentheses while writing in natural language (though I restrict myself to one level when writing for others (but not at all in private writing)))?
Well, not always; one prominent use of semicolons is as the delimiter of an outer list of inner, comma-delimited lists. They're also used in a similar-but-not-quite-identical way to delimit lists in which the items are extremely long.
To qualify for [some involved definition], the situation must satisfy:
(1) Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah, blah blah; AND
(2) Blah blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah; AND
(3) either
(a) Blah blah blah blah; OR
(b) Blah blah blah blah blah blah, blah blah, blah blah, blah blah blah blah blah.
> But the phrase after the semicolon is at the same level as the initial phrase
If you mean my sentence in the GP, here's how I think it parses:
A1 ; A2 . B
A . B . CI don't think that is a "soft period" as parent is saying is the use of semicolons. I think it is - as the name implies - a semi colon. Or a soft colon, if you will.
It could sooner be replaced by a colon than a full stop. And I agree with your usage.
> Semicolons are used by people who find highly nested code to be natural and necessary: They add another level to the outline.
> It could sooner be replaced by a colon than a full stop.
Use it as you like, of course, but by the rules of grammar that is quite misleading. A semicolon must separate (or connect) two independent clauses, just like a period; a colon has many uses. Here is the Chicago Manual of Style:
"A colon introduces an element or a series of elements illustrating or amplifying what has preceded the colon. Between independent clauses it functions much like a semicolon (see 6.56), and in some cases either mark may work as well as the other; use a colon sparingly, however, and only to emphasize that the second clause illustrates or amplifies the first. (The colon usually conveys or reinforces the sense of "as follows"; see also 6.64.) The colon may sometimes be used instead of a period to introduce a series of related sentences (as in the third example below)."
This reminds me of a "debate" I had with RMS. Back in '98 I was involved with the Gnu Documentation Project, which was about improving the often very out-of-date Gnu documentation.
RMS tends to use semi-colons where others use commas, with _MANY_ subordinate clauses. I suggested he use shorter sentences, and commas. His response:
"But I like semicolons"
That's when I realised that regardless of his bizarre brilliance, there was no way to discuss some issues with him. I still respect him, but he's a shocking writer.
> RMS tends to use semi-colons where others use commas, with _MANY_ subordinate clauses.
There are grammatical rules to using semicolons and using them with a subordinate clause on one side is a definite error. I can't think of how that would be valid. (Maybe that's what you meant.)
Grammar rules need to be more descriptive than prescriptive. Some people like to introduce new styles of writing that would lead prescriptivists to scream "witch!!"; it's fun to watch prescriptivist meltdowns.
You are such the rebel - using semicolons ilicitly!
> Grammar rules need to be more descriptive than prescriptive.
The style guides - and dictionaries - are way ahead of you, and have long said that.
However, we do need some consistency in order to have clear meaning. Otherwise, you'll write it your new radical way, and others will understand it in the generally understood way.
You can create your own protocols and syntaxes for your computer, but interoperation can be tricky.
Right, so if you're going to be an innovator, make it clear, otherwise it's not the same language. For example I'm pretty sure that RMS is not completely opaque in his use of semicolons.
> so if you're going to be an innovator, make it clear, otherwise it's not the same language.
Agreed.
Maybe I'm just being overly pedantic about a simplified anecdote, but that's the moment that you decided some issues couldn't be discussed with him? That seems like a fairly innocuous response. Couldn't you have pushed back, rather than assuming that the issue was entirely unresolvable?
The debate ran for about 3 months. He refused to acknowledge the validity of style guides and grammar. I tried, but he was resolute that because _he_ likes semicolons, other people could easily read his long and rambling sentences.
No assumptions involved, except the one that RMS wanted people to be able to read and comprehend his writing. I'm not sure that he did though.
Related: Marked decline in semicolons in English books, study suggests (10 points, 6 days ago) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44056344
Unrelated: The origin and virtues of semicolons in programming languages (46 points, 2024, 19 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40038712
The title misuses a semicolon and should use a colon to join two somewhat-related ideas where there is a directional causality.
> Prescriptive grammar brings the drama: that's why I love it
I feel a semicolon is more appropriate; I would not declare misuse.
Prescriptive grammar brings the drama; that’s why I love it. The second clause is more a continuation than an explanation.
This works, though. There is one reason I love prescriptive grammar: it brings the drama.
It's the "that's" that's the issue.
Prescriptive grammar brings the drama; no matter what I do, I can't stop loving it.
> There is one reason I love prescriptive grammar: it brings the drama.
Masterclass.
The structure is backwards for a colon. The colon precedes the explanation, but the explanation is first here. You'd need something like
> I love semicolons: they bring the drama.
This should be an em-dash or should be parenthesized, adding supplemental information.
> Semicolons bring the drama -- that's why I love them.
The entire article, probably quite intentionally, seems to overuse semicolons (in my opinion). I say this as a semicolon enjoyer, but I think the overuse of semicolons in this article leads the reader to a bit of semicolon fatigue by the end of it.
The title is pretty awkward and probably wrong, but your alternative here is at least as awkward and probably even more wrong.
Both of these bad sentences begin their second clause(s) with "that's...", which obviously doesn't work, structurally, in either case. But that's an interesting observation! I've learned something here today. Thank you.
The sentence would be correct with a comma, therefore it’s correct with a semicolon, if going by either the Oxford or Wikipedia definitions. Colon works, and it changes the flavor slightly, but it’s certainly not the only way to write this sentence. It’s a subjective and stylistic choice, not a correctness choice. I’m finding more and more often that declaring language misuse, whether words or punctuation, tends to backfire; it’s almost never correct to say someone used language wrong, because language has a broader history with a wider variety of usage than we all learned in school, and we (me included) have a hard time accepting that the way we learned it isn’t the only way. Now I’m trying to enjoy all the fluidity and weirdness of language and study all the ways the rules I learned in school are just wrong.
> The sentence would be correct with a comma, therefore it’s correct with a semicolon
Could you show us where that is said? I'm almost certain that the opposite is true. The only place a semicolon substitutes for a comma or vice versa is in a list, where the list item(s) contain a comma and therefore commas delineation is confusing (like a CSV where data itself contains commas); there you use semicolons.
Otherwise, there is no overlap in usage:
comma semicolon
second clause is,
independent N Y
dependent Y N
list Y NGoogling “semicolon”: “a punctuation mark (;) indicating a pause, typically between two main clauses, that is more pronounced than that indicated by a comma.”
Merriam Webster:
“A semicolon can also join two statements when the second clause is missing some essential words that are supplied by the first clause. In short sentences, a comma often replaces the semicolon”
“A semicolon is also often used before introductory expressions such as for example, that is, and namely, in place of a colon, comma, dash, or parenthesis”
https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/a-guide-to-using-sem...
How about for you? What is the source of this chart, and who says it’s the only correct way? I think many people incorrectly jump to the conclusion that the oft-said bit about semicolons replacing commas in a list somehow means it’s the only time semicolons and commas can be swapped.
It's not based on what is oft-said. And thanks for the Merriam-Webster link, which I agree would seem to be serious evidence. That link has this main summary at the top:
> "Semicolons (;) separate independent clauses that are related in meaning, and they separate items in a list when those items themselves are long or include commas. For example, this summary could say "Semicolons are useful; they show that clauses are related in meaning.""
Independent clauses are those that can stand alone as sentences; therefore M-W mainly agrees with me.
> “A semicolon is also often used before introductory expressions such as for example, that is, ..."
Note that the example provided is still two independent clauses: On one important point Harry and Mabel agreed; that is, it would be better for all if Harry found somewhere else to be while Mabel finished cooking.
The interesting and surprising part is indeed these bits:
> "A semicolon can also join two statements when the second clause is missing some essential words that are supplied by the first clause."
(One of their examples is still two independent clauses - no words 'missing' - which is confusing.) I've never seen another serious style guide - and I've seen them all, though I haven't memorized them - say that. I never remember seeing professionally edited writing do that, beyond perhaps in literature where the author is taking literary license. Maybe M-W is describing colloquial usage? I haven't seen much of it there either. As you go through your day, look at professionally edited writing and see if it turns up; I bet not. Missing words are usually a danger to clarity and an invitation to confusion ('imagine your own word here!'), and are seldom advised.
> "In short sentences, a comma often replaces the semicolon:'
I've seen that done; I've caught myself doing it; I think it's more like a list: e.g., She stretched, she ran, she drank a beer. That was her morning. The first sentence is three independent clauses but three semicolons would seem like a lot of punctuation; and at the same time, it is a list and those are delineated by commas.
> "A semicolon is also often used before introductory expressions such as for example, that is, and namely, in place of a colon, comma, dash, or parenthesis ..."
Edit: I misread this section before. Mostly this says is that there are places between independent clauses where you can use the other punctuation.
However, I don't see how you could use a comma in those situations, including in the example (after "agreed"): 'On one important point Harry and Mabel agreed, that is, it would be better for all if Harry found somewhere else to be while Mabel finished cooking.' That's just bad English.
It doesn't say you can use parentheses and em dashes everywhere you use semicolons, nor vice versa; they are not interchangeable. I think it means there are multiple punctuation options in many usages, which isn't saying much.
|
|
> How about for you?
A good question. FWIW the leading style guides in American English are generally Chicago Manual of Style for book publishing and general use, AP Stylebook for journalism, and Modern Language Association (MLA) and American Psychological Association (APA) for scholarly papers. In British English, I think Oxford Style (also called "Hart's Rules") is perhaps most authoritative. You can find all or most of them in Internet Archive's lending library (but use a recent edition).
I'll start with AP (16th edition is the latest I have access to), which is simpler:
* "semicolon (;)" (p.424) has two usages: 1) in a list that has commas in list items, and 2) "To link independent clauses: Use semicolon when a coordination conjunction ... is not present. / If a coordinating conjunction is present, use a semicolon before it only if extensive punctuation also is required in ... the individual clauses: ... / Unless a particular literary effect is desired, however, the better approach is to break independent clauses into separate sentences."
I think that agrees with me, with the addition of a slight exception for creating a hierarchy between independent clauses if there's lots of other punctuation (I don't rule out exceptions). Maybe the latter clarifies M-W's mysterious ruling (and Chicago agrees with AP here:)
Here's Chicago:
* 6.56: In regular prose, a semicolon is most commonly used between two independent clauses not joined by a conjunction to signal a closer connection between them than a period would.
* 6.57: Certain adverbs, when they are used to join two independent clauses, should be preceded by a semicolon rather than a comma. These conjunctive adverbs include however, thus, hence, indeed, accordingly, besides, and therefore .... (sec. 6.57)
* 6.58: A semicolon may be used before an expression such as that is, for example, or namely when it introduces an independent clause.
* 6.59: Normally, an independent clause introduced by a coordinating conjunction is preceded by a comma .... In formal prose, a semicolon may be used instead-either to effect a stronger separation between clauses or when the second independent clause has internal punctuation.
6.56 agrees with me. 6.57 does too: it requires independent clauses, and prepending an adverb to an independent clause still results in an independent clause, afaict: Jamie ran to the store. becomes Therefore, Jamie ran to the store. 6.58 agrees with me for the same reasons as 6.57.
6.59 puts a toe in the grey area an inch further than I expected, with "to effect a stronger separation between clauses". Of course there are exceptions to many rules, including starting a sentence with a conjunction such as 'And ...'. This section perhaps applies that exception to all independent clauses instead of only sentences. But note that it does again require an independent clause that begins with the conjunction.
So I'd say that Chicago agrees with me, requiring independent clauses at every step (no "missing words"), but adding the same exception made for sentences.
That's my take! It's been fun. :)
The sentence in question fits Chicago’s rules. While M-W and Chicago may agree with you about when semicolons are allowed, they also agree with me about when semicolons are allowed. Specifically, 6.56 (and the AP rule 2) fits the sentence perfectly. It could have been “Semicolons bring the drama and that’s why I love them”. You could put a comma before ‘and’, you could replace ‘and’ with ‘therefore’ and use 6.57. It could be a period instead. The example replaced the connecting conjunction with a semicolon; 6.56 applies perfectly. There is no wrong here in this case, and nothing in that very long comment demonstrates the semicolon in the original sentence is not correct.
You’ve emphasized “independent”, so what does “independent” mean to you, exactly? Your comment seems to imply the 2 clauses in this case are not independent enough? How do you reconcile the idea that the clauses should be both independent and related? The two clauses in question are grammatically independent and conceptually related.
Hi - I love that someone cares as much as I do! :)
> You’ve emphasized “independent”, so what does “independent” mean to you, exactly? ... The two clauses in question are grammatically independent and conceptually related.
I think this may clarify a lot: 'Independent clause' has a specific, technical meaning in grammar, not much subject to interpretation. Essentially, it's a clause that could stand alone as a sentence. That meaning applies only to grammar.
Regarding semantics or meaning, rarely are two consecutive phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs, chapters, etc. conceptually unrelated - unless written by an LLM; that's why they are written consecutively in the same text.
> nothing in that very long comment demonstrates the semicolon in the original sentence is not correct.
Yes. I think we've drifted a bit apart on what the topic is here. I wasn't talking about the OP title anymore, but responding to:
"The sentence would be correct with a comma, therefore it’s correct with a semicolon"
My point was that they are hardly ever interchangeable; one does not imply the other. And then we began talking about M-W's article. Sorry if I wasn't clear about what I was addressing.
Regarding your points about the title: Overall, I generally agree that the actual title is a valid sentence (if we append a period).
Semicolons bring the drama; that's why I love them.
> It could have been “Semicolons bring the drama and that’s why I love them”. You could put a comma before ‘and’, you could replace ‘and’ with ‘therefore’ and use 6.57.
We'd have to swap the comma back to a semicolon, because 6.57 says the second clause beginning with 'therefore', "should be preceded by a semicolon rather than a comma". (I suspect that's what you meant? I'm a bit lost on this one.)
To be complete, beginning a sentence with that's feels awkward except as a sort of collquial shorthand. I can't think of what's actually wrong though; <pronoun> is ... should be valid. Still, one can follow grammars rules and be awkward.
I do like nerding out on language, yes, and I feel I’m in good company now. ;) Right, so independent as a term of grammatical art (or ‘improper noun’ as suggested by an article posted to HN once https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32673100) suggests that you can simply replace a semicolon with a period and get two grammatically valid sentences. That’s basically what rule 6.56 is saying. It’s possible I exaggerated a tiny bit, and commas aren’t literally always swappable for semicolons in every single case. I’d concede that professional writing has stricter limits. But I do believe semicolon in literature and poetry and casual writing is almost interchangeable with a comma, and it’s far more a matter of degree and style than of correctness. Outside of publishing where an editor is involved, I would argue the vast majority of writers and readers use and interpret semicolons as emphatic commas, and I would argue that written language is descriptive anyway, despite any claims to the contrary. Only constructed languages are prescriptive, all others are formed through usage.
Anyway, yes you’re right, when I suggested ‘therefore’, I was implicitly suggesting 6.57’s “; therefore”. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if a style guide said that starting a sentence with “That’s” is to be avoided, but as far as I’m concerned it’d be in the same bucket as starting a sentence with “And” or “But”: a rule just begging to be broken as often as possible, in beautiful ways. Pretty sure that’s how poets treat the semicolon already. :P
The problems with style guides are they don’t represent most writing, and they often represent publishing fads, and they change. Things that were in the style guide when I was a kid aren’t the same anymore. They try to be prescriptive, but that doesn’t work long term. Reread Google’s definition; I think it’s very intentionally vague and devoid of tricky rules. It almost says a semicolon is a double comma. And it’s probably used (I speculate) a lot more often than M-W, Chicago, or Wikipedia or any good source we can find. Also be sensitive to whether Chicago or M-W or anyone else talks about what you can’t do with a semicolon, as opposed to what you can do. It’s not an accident that they mostly avoid drawing hard negative bounds.
One of my college English professors taught the class to think of a semicolon as a mid-sentence question mark where the answer is immediately provided in the remainder of the sentence. I’m kicking myself for not grilling my grandfather about all things English before he passed. He taught English, specializing in Shakespeare and poetry.
Part of my attitude just comes from other examples where there are fads to nitpick language, and these fads are often wildly popular and yet completely and totally incorrect, historically. People who harp on the figurative use of the word ‘literally’ are incorrect. People who claim that ‘less’ must be used instead of ‘fewer’ are incorrect. ‘Myriad’ can be followed by ‘of’; ‘really’ can be used as emphatic rhetoric; sentences can be separated by either one or two spaces; and semicolons are used in a very wide variety of ways. There was a great piece on This American Life about vocal fry and how so many people become sticklers only after learning the term. This seems to be what some people do with grammar - learn something and then want to show off their knowledge by policing others without realizing they only have a tiny slice and don’t know the whole story. Language is necessarily vast and changing and fluid in super interesting ways!
> Part of my attitude just comes from other examples where there are fads to nitpick language, and these fads are often wildly popular and yet completely and totally incorrect, historically.
Oh yes, I agree here. I remember a science class where we wrote review papers and passed them around for critique. Everyone jumped on mine for using 'However' (I think, something like it); I knew I used it correctly, but they were focused on the only thing they kind-of knew.
I wouldn't be writing all that about semicolons and grammar rules except for the geek exploration of it. You won't find me correcting people's grammar - I might ask a question if it's unclear to me, but that's it. This thread is about grammar, so it's different.
One thing I've found is that grammar 'rules' are often essentially universal theories of clarity - follow them and you're writing will have clarity. For a simple example, omit the subject, verb, or object, and people will misinterpret those missing pieces.
> The problems with style guides are they don’t represent most writing, and they often represent publishing fads, and they change. Things that were in the style guide when I was a kid aren’t the same anymore. They try to be prescriptive
That isn't my experience: They seem relatively conservative about change, descriptive, and flexible. If you want them to be descriptive, they should have changed since you were a kid.
The sentence would not read well with a comma. It would be an example of the error known as "comma splice": that's why it should be a colon not a semicolon.
Naw, the “it” in the 2nd clause is referring to the first clause, and they are directly related. They are not independent unrelated clauses, and that’s the criteria for a comma splice. Your assertion that a colon should be used contradicts the idea that using a comma would make it a comma splice error.
In this case, this sentence’s meaning and point would get across unambiguously no matter what punctuation is used between comma, period, colon or semicolon. What else matters?
Agreed, I would have used either em dash or parens here:
Semicolons bring the drama (that’s why I love them)
Semicolons bring the drama — that’s why I love them.
The semicolon somewhat works here but IMO not the best use of it (though perhaps intentional, to bring the drama).
Could you cite something here? Afaik the rules for colons are pretty loose.
Maybe the author doesn't mean what you think they mean - maybe the semicolon should cause you to rethink your interpretation rather than their grammar.
I love semicolons; because, they bring the drama.
Maybe?
Nah, this is pretty awkward.
"I love semicolons; they bring the drama!"
"I love semicolons, because they bring the drama"
"Semicolons: I love them for their drama"
"Semicolons, drama, love: an incoherent journey through language and LLMs"
You don't need the incorrect comma after because.
The title correctly uses a semicolon to divide two independent clauses that are used in a single sentence; a colon is sometimes an option for this (but never to the exclusion of the semicolon), such as where the second independent clause is a summary, explanation, or example of the first—in this case, the first explains the second, which is the inverse of a relationship for which a colon would be appropriate.
Delightfully meta at times, a fun read! I recently binged all of Jane Austen’s novels, and her dense prose is so chock full of clauses and sub clauses, that I like feel she uses semicolons and emdashes the same way programmers might nest with braces.
I know it's at best not quite off topic, but, if you like meta and you haven't already read it, then you will be delighted by "This is the title of this story, which is also found several times in the story itself" (https://stuff.mit.edu/people/dpolicar/writing/prose/text/tit...).
And Austen's writing is an all-time landmark of clarity. Maybe the issue is that clarity depends not on punctuation but on the writer.
I love dramatically separating the sardonic Wayne's World postfix not from the sentence... Not!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..._Not!
https://youtu.be/MCapEm8Nu7c?t=104
There's nothing intrinsically wrong with the insincere disclaimer but prefix, but people always use it to falsely claim they're not racist.
As an aside, I’ve noticed that ChatGPT uses em dashes (“—”) quite frequently — much more often than I’m used to seeing on the web. It’s a bit surprising, considering it's largely trained on web-based data.
It's pretty easy to explain; Apple devices turned the double dash (--) into an em dash by default. (Not sure if they still do.)
You probably won't encounter it in professional(-ish) writing very often (since that's premeditated and usually written on a computer, and most computer users are still on Windows), but in more informal situations (microblogs, text chat) most people don't really care as much to correct the behavior and nobody turns it off, meaning that the frequency of em dashes is unintentionally way higher than it probably should be.
Does anybody know why? How was ChatGPT able to develop a style that's so different from its training data?
My personal theory is that they do it for watermarking purposes, which would also correlate well with the brown tint of their AI-generated images.
em dashes aren't cool—you know what's cool? en dashes, like maybe 10–15 of them?
I think you misued the em dash. It shouldn't separate two independent clauses (I think).
I love side-bangs: dot-em-dash and em-dash-dot horizontal exclamation marks •— like aroused upside-down question mark parentheticals, thrust sideways at ±90° —• to cleave and erect an exciting, turgid sub-clause from an otherwise limp, boring sentence.
It also uses them correctly—with no spaces. I have never seen anyone do that on the web.
Almost everyone I’ve seen using them on the web (myself included) does that. Very few people I’ve seen set them open.
(Lots of people use en-dashes set open instead of em-dashes set closed for the uses for which they are interchangeable as a matter of stylistic preference, though.)
I believe this is specific to the US. Writing from other English-speaking countries often uses an en dash surrounded by spaces instead of an em dash.
I didn't know that was the correct way to use them. It feels incorrect in a space delimited language. Interesting.
English is not actually a space-delimited language; that's an approximation which is, in this case, throwing you off.
Punctuation is usually set closed on at least one, if not both, sides, though there are exceptions.
I think this is misinformation, a red herring or stalking horse. It's also a bit anti-intellectual, as if people haven't been using em dashes for forever, long before LLMs existed.
I'm fairly confident it's true. I just asked ChatGPT to generate a 1000 words comment for HN[0] and it used 15 em dashes. Now scroll through HN comments and count how many em dashes you encounter[1]. You can go multiple pages without encountering a single one.
[0] https://chatgpt.com/share/6836f23d-9b58-800b-8cea-0a86a58076...
Arguments against: 1. Most people don't use them correctly. 2. How long a pause should "feel" is lost nuance. Non-native English speakers and people without academic degrees can't feel the difference between semi-colons and periods so why bother? 3. A small set of orthogonal letters and symbols is better for writing than sets with redundancies. 4. Long sentences suck.
These semicolons are my light inside the dark
Oh, I hadn't seen that before. I thought this was going to be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yup8gIXxWDU
I strongly recommend reading the book 'Semicolon' by Cecelia Watson. My review of the book: https://bookwyrm.social/user/pivic/review/3310502/s/review-o...
During high school the consensus from our English teachers was “we know these things are hard to use properly. We’ll teach you how to do it, but it is usually better just to rewrite what you are trying to say using two sentences and avoid them.”
That being said, we were also advised to “use at most one semicolon in the writing section of the SAT. Proper usage will help your score. But, you better make sure you’ve used it correctly.”
I love a good semicolon, and it tickled me that your quote could be rewritten to include one.
> We know these things are hard to use properly; we’ll teach you how to do it, but it is usually better just to rewrite what you are trying to say using two sentences and avoid them.
Although it does make the sentence a bit long and unwieldy.
EDIT: hah, so can your second quote!
> Proper usage will help your score; you’d better make sure you’ve used it correctly.
But in that instance I think the dropped “but” is more important.
EDIT2: even better…
> Use at most one semicolon in the writing section of the SAT; proper usage will help your score. But you’d better make sure you’ve used it correctly.
Did you just start a sentence with "But"!?!? My 7th grade english teacher is not happy with you!
(I know there is nothing wrong with it, but some teachers really dislike it)
And don't even think about starting a sentence with 'and'.
I think we're taught rules like this to prevent us developing bad habits at the outset. Then, once we have more experience, we know when it's okay to break the rules.
One of my partners' favourite schooltime memories is of a teacher boldly proclaiming:
> "Me" can never be the first word of a sentence
Want to know something crazy? In Greek, the question mark looks like a semicolon
;
;
In the Greek New Testament, many sentences and paragraphs begin with "Kai" which means "And". In English, discouraged just as much as "But".
I tend to type breathlessly, as if speaking; I've done a lot of time in chat rooms. These days, when I'm composing a message, I'll rewind to proofread it, insert commas and semicolons, and break up sentences and paragraphs.
I believe what really drove home the importance of punctuation was singing from sheet music and watching the director. Now there's a job where timing is everything, and it was eventually revealed that a comma (or semicolon) in the lyric text implied a pause in the sung phrase as well. You could take a breath at a comma. In fact, there's a sheet music breath mark that's like a comma above the staff line.
What's more, when a poem or lyrics are presented line-by-line, at the end of a line where there is no punctuation, this does not necessarily mean you can pause or take a breath, because poetry is divided by meter, not by sentence structure. So, when singing with your favorite band, or reciting your favorite poetry slam, try not to insert semicolons where they don't belong!
> EDIT: hah, so can your second quote!
;)
Even the wink emoticon includes a semicolon.
When I worked in a job that required a civil service test. One of the keys to the best scores was being able to wield the semi-colon.
In always wondered what affect if any that had in the leadership of that organization.
Maybe it demonstrates your ability to understand even simple concepts and execute on them under pressure.
They struggled with civil rights lawsuits because the previous versions were correlated with IQ, which was deemed problematic in the courts. So they transitioned to grammar and other stuff that mapped to objective facts.
Pretty sure now they use documentation of education and experience in most cases.
This is mostly an Internet legend; IQ tests in employment are broadly fine, and lots of huge companies with lots to lose in employment litigation use them, openly and proudly. They're not more widely used because they're not very effective.
The semicolon followed by that very, very important word called "however" are often cruicial in abstracts of scientific papers: turn.sh finds you where the authors of a paper switch to critizizing:
#!/bin/sh
grep -C2 -n -i -E "[.;.][\n\t\ ]however" # scan where the paper takes a critical turnI love the English language; it feels like a declining art -- drowned out by memes, typos, and algorithm-approved brevity. I use semicolons in my personal journal all the time. Probably incorrectly, but who cares?
Some comments here reminded me of this, https://youtu.be/vtIzMaLkCaM?si=pjratCwL75XR3iUt
I’m not likely to watch an 80 minute video so I can understand what you mean, perhaps you can add some additional context?
It's been quite awhile since I've seen a real honest actual "too long, didn't read" comment in the wild, hats off to you, my good and intellectually disinclined friend.
If you are interested in writing, it might change your life.
It’s ok if you don’t trust my judgement.
I thank my Mom for trying to instill enough Grammatical knowledge where I use the semicolon from time to time.
I assumed this would be about JavaScript and struggled to process the actual article for a good 10s. :)
writing is all about prescriptive grammar. The written language has no native speakers about whom to form and validate hypotheses.
"precriptive" even has "script" in it; i.e. writing was itself was invented for codifying rules, so course it imposes rules upon itself first.
It annoys me to see so many marketing slogans and material using commas terribly.
All! Punctuation! Brings! Drama! :P
this whole piece is a massive punctuation-of-all-stripes flex, and i’m here for it
Maybe it’s selection bias, but it’s amazing how the comments section for this post has so much more punctuation than a typical HN post; fascinating
Shortest sentence with a semicolon:
tl;dr