Semicolons and dashes- American and English English

[hoo_hoo_boo]

Hi, I'm wondering, since I have been submitting stories to an American site I have been criticised for my punctuation. I am wondering whether there are different punctuation rules for American and English English. (I think that Australian English is the same as English English.) The main problem is, as I see it, American English uses the semicolon extensively and English English doesn't use it nearly as much- instead one can use a dash. I find it all rather mystifying. I find it difficult enough adjusting the spelling between the two. I wonder whether there are other rule differences between the two. I hope I have placed this in the correct category. Thank you

 

[sr71plt]

American English (proper) uses of semicolons are restricted pretty much to (A) linking two (or more) very closely related sentences (stronger than a comma but weaker than a period), (B) the higher separation of a series with commas in the clauses, and (C--rarely used in fiction) separating segments of a bulleted list, where the clauses require more than a comma and less than a period. The British system uses the semicolon for even less than this?

The proper uses of a semicolon in American English really has no relationship to the proper use of an em dash at all. (The em dash related more to the use of parentheses in American English.)

 

[Raisa_Greywood]

It may also be that you've seen stories in which a semicolon is overused - or more likely, incorrectly used in place of a comma. They're tricky little creatures, those semicolons. :-D

Sr71plt's explanation is very good though, and hopefully will help you with this.

Almost forgot... The following is a terrific site I use for grammar questions.

http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/marks/semicolon.htm

The OWL at Purdue University is also good.

 

[hoo_hoo_boo]

American English (proper) uses of semicolons are restricted pretty much to (A) linking two (or more) very closely related sentences (stronger than a comma but weaker than a period), (B) the higher separation of a series with commas in the clauses, and (C--rarely used in fiction) separating segments of a bulleted list, where the clauses require more than a comma and less than a period. The British system uses the semicolon for even less than this?

The proper uses of a semicolon in American English really has no relationship to the proper use of an em dash at all. (The em dash related more to the use of parentheses in American English.)

Thank you sr71plt. I'm not sure whether the British system does use it for less. I'm trying to improve my grammer and found that what I've been doing for a long time is wrong. I always used a dash. When it was a dash it made sense to me, now its a semicolon it doesn't. I find it difficult. A semicolon is much less visible than a dash. I have never been taught grammer.

 

[hoo_hoo_boo]

It may also be that you've seen stories in which a semicolon is overused - or more likely, incorrectly used in place of a comma. They're tricky little creatures, those semicolons. :-D

Sr71plt's explanation is very good though, and hopefully will help you with this.

Almost forgot... The following is a terrific site I use for grammar questions.

http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/marks/semicolon.htm

The OWL at Purdue University is also good.

Thank you Bella_Mariposa, I shall check the sites you suggest. I wonder whether the grammerians you reccomend are giving the same advice as Fowler would. The strange thing is that American English is older than English English; as I understand it.

 

[sr71plt]

The strange thing is that American English is older than English English; as I understand it.

OK, since you're asking about semicolons, that semicolon you used in your posting wouldn't be proper in American English (whereas literary license would permit you to use an em dash there, if you wanted.) That last clause ("as I understand it") isn't a sentence, and the first part is (so the two aren't parallel), so nothing above a comma is proper. Interestingly, literary license would permit you to let it stand alone as a sentence fragment, if you really wanted to make a point with it. It's just that a semicolon isn't a choice at all.

(Consulted Fowler, by the way, which pretty much punts on anything remotely related to this discussion, with a sniff in the air and saying this wasn't the place to be discussing punctuation in depth. [eh what?] Second edition, page 587. That's been my experience with Fowler. When the question gets sticky, it either gets vague or snotty and just goes away.)

 

[Raisa_Greywood]

Agreed sr... Fowler is a pompous ass. I believe he does that for topics for which he doesn't know the answer, or because there is some educational disagreement on the topic, and he doesn't want to take a stand lest someone (gasp) disagree with the great and grand Master. :-D

 

[Firebrain]

I would advise you to read a couple of Victorian novels to get a good feel for grammar; try North and South by Gaskell, Middlemarch, Dickens. The Victorians in particular were very ambitious with their sentence structure and they are great for getting to grips with semi colons, dashes, commas and the like for this very reason. After a few semesters of them, the semi colon was basically instinctive

When I use a semi colon, I'm generally adding another sentence to the last but I am referring back to the last sentence e.g. I didn't think he was boring; I thought he was far more interesting than some of my lifelong friends.

With dashes, I generally add a clause or phrase as opposed to a whole sentence: I didn't think he was boring - not at all. I use the dash rather than a comma here because it denotes a different kind of pause in reading and a different intonation. I would use it in writing dialogue for the same effect.

Grammar is all about shaping your prose to be read. It's about the rhythm and the pattern. If ever you're unsure, read what you have aloud; semi colons are longer pauses than dashes, dashes longer than commas and so forth. Get a feel for these and your punctuation will become instinctive.

 

[Raisa_Greywood]

Great analogy Firebrain! I recently compared prose to a favorite Vivaldi piece of mine. Good prose "breathes" like a master's concerto. In written prose, the punctuation directs the respiration in the same manner as rests and stress direct the respiration of a concerto.

 

[sr71plt]

Of course I'd be a little wary of guidance on semicolons that spells it "semi colon" right off the top.

For writing in this century, I'd suggest the Chicago Manual of Style, the American Heritage Book of English Usage, and Theodore M. Bernstein's The Careful Writer: A Modern Guide to English Usage.

 

[hoo_hoo_boo]

OK, since you're asking about semicolons, that semicolon you used in your posting wouldn't be proper in American English (whereas literary license would permit you to use an em dash there, if you wanted.) That last clause ("as I understand it") isn't a sentence, and the first part is (so the two aren't parallel), so nothing above a comma is proper. Interestingly, literary license would permit you to let it stand alone as a sentence fragment, if you really wanted to make a point with it. It's just that a semicolon isn't a choice at all.

(Consulted Fowler, by the way, which pretty much punts on anything remotely related to this discussion, with a sniff in the air and saying this wasn't the place to be discussing punctuation in depth. [eh what?] Second edition, page 587. That's been my experience with Fowler. When the question gets sticky, it either gets vague or snotty and just goes away.)

Thank you for showing me with that semicolon I used sr71plt. I have always thought that the best way to learn about mistakes is to make them. Your comments about Fowler are interesting too. I never could get my head around him and often thought the best approach for him is to know more than him and then approach him critically. I've never got to the point that I could do that though. (Is "punt" often used that way- I always thought that it means to bet rather than obfuscate.) This language of ours is so complex that it would take a whole lifetime to learn. Its strange when I then realise that even as we are learning it we still manage to use it quite efficiently in that we manage to have our messages understood.

 

[hoo_hoo_boo]

Agreed sr... Fowler is a pompous ass. I believe he does that for topics for which he doesn't know the answer, or because there is some educational disagreement on the topic, and he doesn't want to take a stand lest someone (gasp) disagree with the great and grand Master. :-D

There is one thing I am certain about and it is that I will never be in the position to be pompous about punctuation! Perhaps its just as well.

 

[hoo_hoo_boo]

I would advise you to read a couple of Victorian novels to get a good feel for grammar; try North and South by Gaskell, Middlemarch, Dickens. The Victorians in particular were very ambitious with their sentence structure and they are great for getting to grips with semi colons, dashes, commas and the like for this very reason. After a few semesters of them, the semi colon was basically instinctive

When I use a semi colon, I'm generally adding another sentence to the last but I am referring back to the last sentence e.g. I didn't think he was boring; I thought he was far more interesting than some of my lifelong friends.

With dashes, I generally add a clause or phrase as opposed to a whole sentence: I didn't think he was boring - not at all. I use the dash rather than a comma here because it denotes a different kind of pause in reading and a different intonation. I would use it in writing dialogue for the same effect.

Grammar is all about shaping your prose to be read. It's about the rhythm and the pattern. If ever you're unsure, read what you have aloud; semi colons are longer pauses than dashes, dashes longer than commas and so forth. Get a feel for these and your punctuation will become instinctive.

Good idea Firebrain, I will get a few of the Victorian classics and read them. I think I might be sufficiently mature now to be able to appreciate them. I remember having to read Dickens. I started with "Great Expectations" and finished with "Hard Times". Your advice is most welcome. Thank you.

 

[sr71plt]

Thank you for showing me with that semicolon I used sr71plt. I have always thought that the best way to learn about mistakes is to make them. Your comments about Fowler are interesting too. I never could get my head around him and often thought the best approach for him is to know more than him and then approach him critically. I've never got to the point that I could do that though. (Is "punt" often used that way- I always thought that it means to bet rather than obfuscate.) This language of ours is so complex that it would take a whole lifetime to learn. Its strange when I then realise that even as we are learning it we still manage to use it quite efficiently in that we manage to have our messages understood.

"Punt" in an American sense goes to American football, when a team that can't advance the ball is forced to kick it away (punt it) into the hands of the opposing team. So, "giving up and walking away" is pretty much the most-used definition of the term in American English.

Fowler's dead, by the way, but the snottiness of his book/guidance goes on.

 

[hoo_hoo_boo]

"Punt" in an American sense goes to American football, when a team that can't advance the ball is forced to kick it away (punt it) into the hands of the opposing team. So, "giving up and walking away" is pretty much the most-used definition of the term in American English.

Fowler's dead, by the way, but the snottiness of his book/guidance goes on.

We too have the word punt in our football lexicon but we don't use it that way. Interestingly, we are losing a few players to American football because of their ability to kick a ball. Not so long ago our players were so much better at kicking too- it would seem that the recruitment is a little late. We never see a drop kick now- its always punts.
I knew Fowler was dead- like the decomposing composers mentioned above
Thank you.

 

[JSensei]

As a former English teacher, I thought I'd comment. English Grammar is tricky, but it can be learned. Many people will recommend this style manual or that one. Honestly, I do not care for style manuals. They tend to be very specific sets of rules, and I found that the grammar section of The Chicago Manual was very short compared to the rest of the extensive book. If you're interested in grammar, get a book that teaches grammar, not style.

I recommend this book: A Grammar Book For You and I.... Oops Me

http://www.amazon.com/Grammar-Book-...=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271461956&sr=8-2

When I went to Japan, the second week there, someone asked me about hyphenation of adjectives. My answer? Iunno. You just do. That was not an answer. I was told to bring a grammar book, so I dug it out and read the appropriate section on hyphens. And then I read the entire book. I have since read it twice, and I'm actually due for a rereading to keep my grammar skills sharp.

The main reason I suggest this book over all others is that it's not quite so boring. Style manuals are very much like a textbook. This book is not exactly a thrilling novel, but it is not boring. That means a lot when you're reading grammar.

If you want a style manual, honestly, I would recommend nothing less than Elements of Style by Strunk and White.

http://www.amazon.com/Elements-Styl...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271462134&sr=1-1

It's short, cheap, and pretty spot on in its advice. You can't go wrong with it.

 

[sr71plt]

As a former English teacher, I thought I'd comment. English Grammar is tricky, but it can be learned. Many people will recommend this style manual or that one. Honestly, I do not care for style manuals. They tend to be very specific sets of rules, and I found that the grammar section of The Chicago Manual was very short compared to the rest of the extensive book. If you're interested in grammar, get a book that teaches grammar, not style.

I recommend this book: A Grammar Book For You and I.... Oops Me

http://www.amazon.com/Grammar-Book-...=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271461956&sr=8-2

When I went to Japan, the second week there, someone asked me about hyphenation of adjectives. My answer? Iunno. You just do. That was not an answer. I was told to bring a grammar book, so I dug it out and read the appropriate section on hyphens. And then I read the entire book. I have since read it twice, and I'm actually due for a rereading to keep my grammar skills sharp.

The main reason I suggest this book over all others is that it's not quite so boring. Style manuals are very much like a textbook. This book is not exactly a thrilling novel, but it is not boring. That means a lot when you're reading grammar.

If you want a style manual, honestly, I would recommend nothing less than Elements of Style by Strunk and White.

http://www.amazon.com/Elements-Styl...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271462134&sr=1-1

It's short, cheap, and pretty spot on in its advice. You can't go wrong with it.

The Chicago Manual of Style grammar section appeared for the first time in the latest, 15th, edition. It's still being refined.

Other than that:

The standard rules it espouses (and it includes some flexibility and hazy guidance--sometimes maddenly) are there for the commercial publishing industry, which is more concerned with the reader understanding what they are reading than the author playing cutsy. So, yes, they offer some pretty specific guidance.

And Literotica is part of the commercial publishing industry. And if you read comments on stories and a lot of the discussion on these boards, you'll see the same "what's more important: the reader's understanding or the writer's freeform style?" discussions--with the reader having the upperhand, because they can (and often do) decide just to dump and walk away from something that they felt like they had to fight with to understand.

Strunk and White is just fine for high school English papers. It's incomplete, and, in some cases, not in agreement with the adult publishing world (and CMA is actually less restrictive than Strunk and White is on many issues).

So, if what you want to post here is high school English level . . .

There's no mystery to hyphenation in the commercial publishing world--and this is spelled out in the Chicago Manual of Style. If you find it hypenated in the dictionary (Webster's Collegiate preferred--because it's so accessible and is a descriptive dictionary--keeping up fairly well with the changes in the langue) in the position in the sentence you have it (it usually makes a difference if it's before the verb or in apposition to the verb), then hyphenate it. Or if two word elements make a combined adjective to a noun that might make the reader wonder whether the center word is part of the adjective or part of the noun, then hyphenate it. If not, don't. Which, in most cases, means don't. If you err on the side of "don't" you'll do better than otherwise. Spell check will give you no help whatsoever on hyphenation, because it ignores the existence of hyphens.

 

[AsylumSeeker]

As a former English teacher, I thought I'd comment. English Grammar is tricky, but it can be learned. Many people will recommend this style manual or that one. Honestly, I do not care for style manuals. They tend to be very specific sets of rules, and I found that the grammar section of The Chicago Manual was very short compared to the rest of the extensive book. If you're interested in grammar, get a book that teaches grammar, not style.

I recommend this book: A Grammar Book For You and I.... Oops Me

http://www.amazon.com/Grammar-Book-...=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271461956&sr=8-2

When I went to Japan, the second week there, someone asked me about hyphenation of adjectives. My answer? Iunno. You just do. That was not an answer. I was told to bring a grammar book, so I dug it out and read the appropriate section on hyphens. And then I read the entire book. I have since read it twice, and I'm actually due for a rereading to keep my grammar skills sharp.

The main reason I suggest this book over all others is that it's not quite so boring. Style manuals are very much like a textbook. This book is not exactly a thrilling novel, but it is not boring. That means a lot when you're reading grammar.

If you want a style manual, honestly, I would recommend nothing less than Elements of Style by Strunk and White.

http://www.amazon.com/Elements-Styl...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271462134&sr=1-1

It's short, cheap, and pretty spot on in its advice. You can't go wrong with it.

I followed the link and Amazon says there are 44 at seventeen cents. Not sure if this includes free shipping.

 

[JSensei]

The Chicago Manual of Style grammar section appeared for the first time in the latest, 15th, edition. It's still being refined.

Other than that:

The standard rules it espouses (and it includes some flexibility and hazy guidance--sometimes maddenly) are there for the commercial publishing industry, which is more concerned with the reader understanding what they are reading than the author playing cutsy. So, yes, they offer some pretty specific guidance.

And Literotica is part of the commercial publishing industry. And if you read comments on stories and a lot of the discussion on these boards, you'll see the same "what's more important: the reader's understanding or the writer's freeform style?" discussions--with the reader having the upperhand, because they can (and often do) decide just to dump and walk away from something that they felt like they had to fight with to understand.

Strunk and White is just fine for high school English papers. It's incomplete, and, in some cases, not in agreement with the adult publishing world (and CMA is actually less restrictive than Strunk and White is on many issues).

So, if what you want to post here is high school English level . . .

There's no mystery to hyphenation in the commercial publishing world--and this is spelled out in the Chicago Manual of Style. If you find it hypenated in the dictionary (Webster's Collegiate preferred--because it's so accessible and is a descriptive dictionary--keeping up fairly well with the changes in the langue) in the position in the sentence you have it (it usually makes a difference if it's before the verb or in apposition to the verb), then hyphenate it. Or if two word elements make a combined adjective to a noun that might make the reader wonder whether the center word is part of the adjective or part of the noun, then hyphenate it. If not, don't. Which, in most cases, means don't. If you err on the side of "don't" you'll do better than otherwise. Spell check will give you no help whatsoever on hyphenation, because it ignores the existence of hyphens.

Your explanation on proper hyphenation is correct. I learned as much after reading the first book I linked. I only mentioned that story as an example of something I learned from reading it. As it was, I was a fresh-off-the-boat native speaker that had very little understanding of the proper rules of grammar. I could speak the language. I could read the language, but I could not TEACH the language. I found this was common amongst my peers. We were given a grammar test about three months after we got to Japan, and I was the only one that aced it. We're not talking hard questions here. Some of the questions were nothing more than "Give the simple past and past participle of the following verbs." I was shocked to see that none of the other five teachers could correctly conjugate 'to beat.'

I also see you have some disdain for Elements of Style. I suppose you're quite welcome to your opinion. Is it the best style manual I've ever read? Honestly? No. Did I learn a few things from it? Absolutely. It was concise and offered good advice. One must also consider its length. Most people are not going to be able to stomach a large grammar manual. Elements of style contains fewer than 100 pages and is just short enough to be palatable for the average reader. But I find that most people go to style manuals hoping to learn grammar. Style manuals are exactly what they sound like; they are books to improve your writing style. If you want to learn grammar, a book on the subject is probably a better choice. That is why I recommend A Grammar Book For You and I so highly.

In the end, you can debate 'proper' grammar vs artistic license all day long. This is where I draw the line between the two; If you know you're breaking grammar at the time you wrote it, you're probably using your artistic license. And the rest of your work will probably reflect that. If you didn't know any better, well, that's another story. Back when I used to write for one of the larger gaming news sites, I was Chief Editor of the New Updates section. As such, I had the authority to approve reviews. One of our reviewers was a particularly good writer, and he loved to break grammatical rules for emphasis. I was always more of a purist, and he always wanted to push the envelope. We always had the best debates about which of his sentences were too egregious to be left in the review. Suffice it to say, so long as you do not start sentences with 'However,' when you mean 'But' I will not complain too much. That's a pet peeve of mine.

 

[sr71plt]

I also see you have some disdain for Elements of Style.

Not disdain. It's more that writers have to grow up if they are going to write in the commercial publishing world. S&W doesn't cut it there. And holding it up as a Bible for post-high school writing is putting shackles on a writer.

And neither does having been a high school English teacher cut it as an editor in the commercial publishing world. I was the managing editor for an international news agency--and I had to go back to the university to learn how to be an editor in the commerical publishing world.

In fact, CMA isn't limiting to a writer--it gives more freedom to the professional writer than S&W gives. You can get away with a heck of a lot more in the commercial world than you can in high school. You just have to put in the effort to learn to use it. (And a dictionary.)

As far as "debate" you haven't really latched into my main point--and the point of commercial publishing--it's not the writer who comes first; it's the reader/buyer. Publishing is a business first; an art secondarily. To do otherwise is to fail and go bankrupt--and away.

 

[snoopercharmbrights]

In UK English the Oxford English dictionary defines as follows:

Semi-colon: A punctuation mark … indicating a discontinuity of grammatical construction greater than that indicated by a comma but less than that indicated by a full stop.

Firebrain's example is perfect.

For UK grammar try:

http://www.informatics.sussex.ac.uk/department/docs/punctuation/node00.html
http://www.correctpunctuation.co.uk/index.htm
http://www.grammaticallycorrect.co.uk/
http://www.askoxford.com/betterwriting/?view=uk

 

[Firebrain]

Of course I'd be a little wary of guidance on semicolons that spells it "semi colon" right off the top.

For writing in this century, I'd suggest the Chicago Manual of Style, the American Heritage Book of English Usage, and Theodore M. Bernstein's The Careful Writer: A Modern Guide to English Usage.

I don't claim to be an expert; we're all writers just helping each other out (since my daughter was born, I have been unable to spell neccessary. I have to check it every time. Sigh).

Getting a feel for the richness and complexity of the English language is way easier - and more fun - if one reads lots of texts from different periods. Grammar guides can be useful when we're stuck and need to refer; just reading a list of rules does not neccessarily help one to apply them. You have to see them in action.

I learned most about grammar when I was studying a) French and b) Old English (during my degree course). The French enabled me to look at language as composed rather than something that just fell out of my mouth, and Old English showed me how sentences were once composed, how they have progressed and why certain words sit in certain places. Both languages taught me appreciation of tense. These were things that I had never been taught explicitly about my mother tongue and I would otherwise never have thought to analyse them, even though I devoured books at an early age.

I still hope to learn Latin at some point in order to increase my understanding of etymology. Language is ever evolving but the roots remain the same, and shamefully, they are untouched by many of us (see, I'm not even sure if that sentence is correct but I'll figure it out eventually. I quite like that I'll have to work to crack it - don't pee on my picnic).

 

[Firebrain]

Good idea Firebrain, I will get a few of the Victorian classics and read them. I think I might be sufficiently mature now to be able to appreciate them. I remember having to read Dickens. I started with "Great Expectations" and finished with "Hard Times". Your advice is most welcome. Thank you.

Oh, you don't need to read the whole novels if you find them awful (I hate Dickens if I'm honest, but he and others in his time are stylistically important - even now). Just read a couple of chapters.

Grammar is part of developing your own style; if you only read current authors then you are only informing yourself in a two-dimensional fashion. Many of said authors will have read older works but the visible influence will be diluted at best.

 

[JSensei]

Not disdain. It's more that writers have to grow up if they are going to write in the commercial publishing world. S&W doesn't cut it there. And holding it up as a Bible for post-high school writing is putting shackles on a writer.

And neither does having been a high school English teacher cut it as an editor in the commercial publishing world. I was the managing editor for an international news agency--and I had to go back to the university to learn how to be an editor in the commerical publishing world.

In fact, CMA isn't limiting to a writer--it gives more freedom to the professional writer than S&W gives. You can get away with a heck of a lot more in the commercial world than you can in high school. You just have to put in the effort to learn to use it. (And a dictionary.)

As far as "debate" you haven't really latched into my main point--and the point of commercial publishing--it's not the writer who comes first; it's the reader/buyer. Publishing is a business first; an art secondarily. To do otherwise is to fail and go bankrupt--and away.

For being such a professional writer yourself, I would have assumed that you'd have some semblance of reading comprehension. When did I ever say I was a high school English teacher? I merely said teacher. In fact, I taught at a language academy to students whose English levels ranged from almost non-existant to nearly fluent.

Also, I don't really know where you get off criticizing my editing talents. I worked for a very large news site that got tens of thousands of readers daily. (I'd mention it, but since the owner and I had some personal disagreements, I left with the bulk of his staff to form a new company. As such, I'd hate to give him the traffic.)

But I'm sure that my work as a journalist or an editor as a news site matters little to you. After all, I like Strunk and White, therefore I'm a high school hack or some such. I never claimed it was a Bible of style. I said I liked it, and I think most people can make it through it. Other style manuals can seem a bit imposing, and if you're going to start, perhaps beginning at a high school level is a good place to begin. But I'm just a former high school teacher. What do I know? Maybe some day I too, will be published in the corporate world. Oh wait. That already happened.

hoo_hoo_boo, I apologize for slightly threadjacking there. No harm was meant. I merely wanted to offer what I thought to be decent aids to help most anyone become a better writer that I used myself to improve my writing. Best of luck to you.

 

[Firebrain]

I don't really see a problem in people accessing grammar at "high school level," since one can safely assume that a writer's skill will evolve as they do. In fact it seems like the logical place to start.