Semicolons (Part 2)
In Part 1 we looked at separating items in a complex list. That kind of instance is one of the few where, as an editor, I would actively insert a semicolon into someone else’s text. (This is because it’s to do with improving clarity, which is one of the main jobs of a copyeditor.) This second use is more to do with style and nuance, which is something I’d usually leave to the author.
Using a semicolon to link two independent clauses.
Er… what the heck is an independent clause?
If you want the grammar-tastic explanation, I’ve put one at the bottom of the page. However, for the purposes of simplicity (and of not scaring off the SPAG-shy) let’s just define it here as a simple sentence.
Right, so why would we use a semicolon to link two independent thingummy whatsits?
It’s a way of showing the reader that those sentences have some kind of correlation with each other. It marks a ‘mental pause’, but not quite such a big one as a full stop would provide.
What’s wrong with just using a full stop?
Nothing at all! But a full stop marks a clear break between one sentence and another, and sometimes you don’t want that separation.
There are basically two things a semicolon can add to your writing when used in this way:
1) The semicolon implies that there’s some kind of link, comparison or contrast to be made between the two sentences.
2) It creates a better sense of flow between the two linked sentences.
Take this example:
‘He had an adorable cat and an extensive lego collection; he was definitely a keeper.’
The semicolon implies there is a direct correlation between the man’s lego collection and choice of pets and the fact that he’s considered something of a catch. There’s also a nice flow as one idea links to the next.
If we use a full stop instead of the semicolon, it’s still grammatically correct; there’s simply a bigger mental pause between the two sentences.
He had an adorable cat and an extensive lego collection. He was definitely a keeper.
You see what I mean? It’s not a case of which one is right or wrong, it’s about which one you (as the writer) prefer.
Here are two more couple more examples to illustrate:
‘Bob was soaked to the skin when he got to the hotel; apparently the Spanish rain does not mainly fall on the plain.’
‘She was rather surprised to see her corgi riding the unicycle; she thought Fifi was still at the groomer’s.’
Now read them with full stops instead:
‘Bob was soaked to the skin when he got to the hotel. Apparently the Spanish rain does not mainly fall on the plain.’
‘She was rather surprised to see her corgi riding the unicycle. She thought Fifi was still at the groomer’s.’
See how there’s slightly more flow to the examples with the semicolons? And how the second sentence in each case is more obviously linked as the ‘punchline’ of the previous one? But the versions with the full stops work too, and maybe you prefer them!
And that’s all it is really! As I said, it’s more a case of style, so with this use of the semicolon, I’d only really query or correct it in one of two instances:
1) The relation between the two sentences was actually very not clear and the semicolon would therefore cause confusion for the reader.
‘It was raining outside; she needed to worm the cat.’
Um… sorry, what has the rain got to do with cat worming?
2) The semicolon wasn’t linking two independent clauses.
‘She gasped as Mr Leadingman emerged from the lake; water dripping from his soggy cravate.’
Can ‘water dripping from his soggy cravate’ stand alone as a sentence and make sense? Nope. I’d therefore change the semicolon to a comma here.
This brings us to the end of the semicolon mini-series. I hope it’s been helpful! If you’d like more bite-sized grammar tutorials and editing tips, follow me on Instagram.
Independent clauses: the grammar-tastic explanation:
A clause is a group of words containing a verb and a subject (the person or thing ‘doing’ the verb). An independent clause can stand on its own two feet as a sentence, while a dependent clause requires an independent clause to give it meaning. (There’s probably a self-help book in there somewhere!)
‘I love cake’ is an independent clause, containing the subject ‘I’ and verb ‘love’.
‘If I eat cake, I will be happy’ is a sentence containing the independent clause, ‘I will be happy’ (works on its own as a standalone sentence) and a dependent clause, ‘if I eat cake’ (doesn’t make sense unless you have the other part of the sentence).
Want some practice? Which parts of these sentences are independent clauses?
Gerald checked his watch, which was a fancy gold Rolex that he’d stolen from a tourist.
If everything goes to plan I will be having cake for dinner.
Answers (independent clauses in bold):
Gerald checked his watch, which was a fancy gold Rolex that he’d stolen from a tourist.
If everything goes to plan I will be having cake for dinner.
This article is adapted from one originally posted on Substack. You can read the original here.