[dahart]

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.

[mmooss]

> 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       N

[dahart]

Googling “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.

[mmooss]

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. :)

[dahart]

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.

[mmooss]

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.

[dahart]

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!

[pmg101]

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.

[dahart]

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?