A question on punctuation

[foxanthony]

Are these sentences punctuated correctly?


Knees bent, shoulders back, and a glittering sword held high; the man known as ‘The Ghost Killer’ landed before him.

It swung, and slashed, and jabbed dramatically; illustrating it's master's mortal decree.

Thanks.

 

[sashamerideth]

Are these sentences punctuated correctly?

Knees bent, shoulders back, and a glittering sword held high; the man known as ‘The Ghost Killer’ landed before him.

It swung, and slashed, and jabbed dramatically; illustrating it's master's mortal decree.

Thanks.

Excessive comma use and you really should avoid using the semicolon. Also moral it mortal? I think two 's right after each other also breaks a rule but re-wording both sentences will make punctuation easier.

 

[Theankh]

I'm not exactly an expert on punctuation I'm afraid, but I think you could reword the first sentence as:

"With his knees bent, shoulders back and a glittering sword held high, the man known as 'The Ghost Killer' landed before him."

Or even "The man known as 'The Ghost Killer' landed before him, glittering sword held high."

That makes more sense to me than using the semicolon.

In the second sentence, I would get rid of the 'and slashed' part and just say:

"It swung and jabbed dramatically, illustrating etc etc."

Again, I can't say how correct it is but it'd sound better to me like that

 

[Ravana]

No and no. Both semicolons are incorrect.

Semicolons are the easiest of all punctuation marks to use–if anyone's ever told you how to use them. They have exactly one rule, which has exactly one seldom-encountered exception.

Rule: Semicolons can only be used to join two complete independent clauses. In other words, what is on each side of the semicolon must be a complete sentence, so all you need to do to test it is put a period in its place. In your first example, what precedes the semicolon would be a fragment if you did this; in the second, what follows the semicolon would be a fragment. Whether or not you use them is a matter of style… which is something that ultimately gets negotiated between you, your style guide, and your teachers or editors (and their style guides). Most teachers and editors will tell you to avoid them because they don't know how to tell when one is correct. Which is unforgivable, since all that's required is the ability to recognize a complete sentence when you see one.

Exception: Semicolons can be used to separate items in a list following a colon under certain conditions: if those items are individually long enough that the reader may lose track of where list items begin and end; if those items themselves contain further punctuation, such as commas; or if the independent clauses one habitually employs are of the sort which tend to be exceedingly convoluted and contain multiple nested references which result in sentences that look like the one you're reading right now.…

 

[Ravana]

P.S. Note that in your first example, if it isn't "the Ghost Killer" whose knees are bent, etc., then it will still be grammatically incorrect, even if you change the semicolon to a comma. Many style guides will also tell you not to put a comma before a conjunction; most will also tell you to avoid the repeated "and" in the second sentence, though this is one of those rules that can be violated for effect. (I'd say this isn't one of those times.) The "proper" punctuation for the above sentences, according to the style books I've taught out of, would be:

• "Knees bent, shoulders back and a glittering sword held high, the man known as ‘The Ghost Killer’ landed before him."

• "It swung, slashed, and jabbed dramatically, illustrating its master's mortal decree."

If these don't seem to indicate the action you intend them to, rewrite them.

 

[Kaellpae]

That's the first clear explanation for semicolons that I remember reading. I need to read a book on punctuation, that's my Achille's Heel for writing just about anything.

 

[Ravana]

That's the other thing I find amazing: that as far as I know, I'm the only person who teaches it that way. But that's exactly how it works. (Most people focus on when it's "appropriate," I think, without first explaining when it's an option at all. To me, that's kind of like saying "an adjective is a word that modifies a noun" without bothering to explain what a "noun" is.…)

I have a couple shelves full of writing guides and grammars (for English, that is: you should see what I have for other languages ), most of which are adequate–and few of which you'd ever read through. If you want something that's not only clear, but which is also entertaining and will stick with you, locate Karen Elizabeth Gordon's
- The New Well-Tempered Sentence and
- The Deluxe Transitive Vampire.
The first deals primarily with punctuation, the second with grammar. Examples are presented as if excerpted from Gothic novels (though following contemporary writing conventions). Lucid, hysterical, and easy to sit down and read cover to cover. After that, if you need more "academic" presentations, I can recommend some… though in the end, details on such things as comma usage will depend as much on what style guide your publisher uses as on anything else.

(Looking at her Amazon listing, I see I've fallen behind on her guidebooks: there are at least two more I want, probably four… plus a collaboration between her, Barbara Hodgson and Nick Bantock that appears to defy categorization altogether. Time to get the credit card out again.…)

 

[pskelding]

Knees bent and shoulders back with glittering sword held high, the Ghost Killer landed before him.

It slashed and jabbed dramatically; illustrating it's master's mortal decree.

(Hope you don't mind me working on it...)

I would drop dramatically because isn't all jabbing with a pointy thing dramatic? It's also one of those dreaded adverbs that we really should only use when really really required. Also maybe can replace mortal with deadly, that being closer to a required adverb than the former.

 

[foxanthony]

I would drop dramatically because isn't all jabbing with a pointy thing dramatic? It's also one of those dreaded adverbs that we really should only use when really really required. Also maybe can replace mortal with deadly, that being closer to a required adverb than the former.

Really? Without seeing how the sentence fits into the rest of the piece?

I see people giving this sort of advice, and it can be useful at times, but blindly stripping all the color out of a story doesn't make it better.

 

[Shadoe]

Does it bother anyone else that "it's" in the second example should be "its"?

 

[Ravana]

Well, yeah, actually, it does. Bothers me even more that I missed it.…

 

[Xanados]

Hello, everyone. I'm sorry that I'm resurrecting a dead thread, but I have a question on the usage of semi-colons.

"In these ancient times magic was in common use; it was a cherished thing, a powerful thing."

In this sentence is the use of the semi-colon correct? I have heard that they can be used for emphasis and are also used to provide a strong connection between two sentences. I understand that to use a semi-colon you need to have two independent clauses, which I think that sentence has.

 

[Devor]

Hello, everyone. I'm sorry that I'm resurrecting a dead thread, but I have a question on the usage of semi-colons.

"In these ancient times magic was in common use; it was a cherished thing, a powerful thing."

In this sentence is the use of the semi-colon correct? I have heard that they can be used for emphasis and are also used to provide a strong connection between two sentences. I understand that to use a semi-colon you need to have two independent clauses, which I think that sentence has.

This was a weird dead thread to look through. I've just had four years of semicolons vindicated, but I've mostly stopped using them.

You would use a semicolon to link two sentences instead of a conjunction; typically the sentences should be closely related. Your sentence is correct.

Now I wish someone could vindicate my usage of the colon: It would heal my last grammatical bruise. But alas, I cannot use it correctly on the internet: There are two spaces after the colon.

 

[Xanados]

This was a weird dead thread to look through. I've just had four years of semicolons vindicated, but I've mostly stopped using them.

You would use a semicolon to link two sentences instead of a conjunction, but typically the sentences should be closely related. Your sentence is correct.

Now I wish someone could vindicate my usage of the colon: It would heal my last grammatical bruise. But alas, I cannot type two spaces on the internet.

Thank you for the reply, Devor. I could’ve obviously replaced the semi-colon with a period, but I would like to show a connection between the two sentences. Doesn't a colon fulfil the same role? I'm trying to give, in the second clause, a deeper meaning to the first. I'm still a little confused. Something isn't clicking!

 

[Devor]

The sentence is correct? I could obviously replace the semi-colon with a period, but I would like to show a connection between the two. I'm still a little confused. Doesn't the colon have the same purpose? I'm trying to give, in the second clause, a deeper meaning to the first. Something isn't clicking!

Your sentence is grammatically correct. The semicolon is just that simple. Of course you can replace it with a period; you could also stop using conjunctions. Don't worry about it.

If you just want it were me, looking at writing instead of punctuation, I would go with:

"In these ancient times, magic was in common use; it was a cherished and powerful thing."

I normally like parallelism, but "thing" is just too boring a word to repeat. Also I think the comma after "times" helps in this case because "these" feels like it's in the present tense (yes, I know that it's not, but the word makes it feel like something's right there in front of you). The comma helps break it off from the rest of the sentence which is in the past tense.

I was just goofing off the with the colon. They are not the same though. With a colon, the second sentence actually has to explain or somehow justify the first. Either sentence, by itself, should feel like something is missing that's provided in its counterpart.

 

[Xanados]

Your sentence is grammatically correct. The semicolon is just that simple. Of course you can replace it with a period; you could also stop using conjunctions. Don't worry about it.

If you just want it were me, looking at writing instead of punctuation, I would go with:

"In these ancient times, magic was in common use; it was a cherished and powerful thing."

I normally like parallelism, but "thing" is just too boring a word to repeat. Also I think the comma after "times" helps in this case because "these" feels like it's in the present tense (yes, I know that it's not, but it feels like it's right there in front of you). The comma helps break it off from the rest of the sentence which is in the past tense.

I was just goofing off the with the colon. They are not the same though. With a colon, the second sentence actually has to explain or somehow justify the first. Either sentence, by itself, should feel like something is missing that's provided in its counterpart.

Thank you, Devor, for this informative post. I'm actually rather embarrassed that I didn't use a comma after the word "times." I’m a native English speaker, so I feel pretty clumsy when I miss small things like that. I understand the point you've made about the repetition of the word "thing", as well. You've cleared up most of the questions boggling my mind.

Thanks again.

 

[Devor]

Thank you, Devor, for this informative post. I'm actually rather embarrassed that I didn't use a comma after the word "times." I’m a native English speaker, so I feel pretty clumsy when I miss small things like that. I understand the point you've made about the repetition of the word "thing", as well. You've cleared up most of the questions boggling my mind.

Thanks again.

Don't feel embarrassed; the comma after "times" technically is optional.

 

[Ravana]

Actually, colons are generally used to connect a dependent clause with an independent one–in other words, if you replace it with a period, one of the two will not be a complete sentence. (And it should be the second one: the first should always be an independent clause.) And, yes, this can be trickier, since you can use a colon to link two independent clauses–but only where the second one is serving as an explanation of the first, as I did in the preceding parenthesized sentence, or is quoted material.

The colon's other main function is to introduce lists; here again, what precedes the list must be a complete sentence in its own right, though what follows it may be single words, phrases, clauses, or some mix thereof… and may be separated by either commas, or by semicolons if the phrases/clauses themselves contain commas. (Which is the only exception to the rule about semicolons joining independent clauses.)

Only a few style guides still call for two spaces after a colon, by the way… most consider it as archaic as putting two spaces after a period.

 

[Devor]

Actually, colons are generally used to connect a dependent clause with an independent one—in other words, if you replace it with a period, one of the two will not be a complete sentence. (And it should be the second one: the first should always be an independent clause.) And, yes, this can be trickier, since you can use a colon to link two independent clauses—but only where the second one is serving as an explanation of the first, as I did in the preceding parenthesized sentence, or is quoted material.

The colon's other main function is to introduce lists; here again, what precedes the list must be a complete sentence in its own right, though what follows it may be single words, phrases, clauses, or some mix thereof… and may be separated by either commas, or by semicolons if the phrases/clauses themselves contain commas. (Which is the only exception to the rule about semicolons joining independent clauses.)

Only a few style guides still call for two spaces after a colon, by the way… most consider it as archaic as putting two spaces after a period.

I can only say one thing: Thanks.

Although, to be precise, I'm pretty sure you can also use colons to introduce other items which are being inserted into the text. You had said: "The colon's other main function is to introduce lists." But I'm pretty sure using the colon to introduce short quotes can be correct as well.

Given the modern age, I would imagine that if I wracked the brain a little bit, I could use it correctly to introduce other elements as well. In fact, if I could be so creative as to think of such an example, I think I would be happy enough to describe the feeling as follows: .

 

[Benjamin Clayborne]

I always thought the "two spaces" thing was because of typefaces. Two spaces when you're using a non-proportional font (Courier, etc.), one space when proportional (Times, etc.). I still do that when I'm typing (e.g. writing comments in code, versus writing normal prose on, say, MS).