Le mercredi 1 décembre 2021 à 22:28:59 UTC+1, Metrist2021 a écrit :
> Greetings,
>
> I recently conceived of a usage of semicolons which I don't believe I have
> ever read about or have ever had a real occasion to use. Nevertheless, I
> am so fond of the idea that I have deliberately created a sentence to fit
> the bill. Isn't the following sentence ambiguous?
>
> (1) Although we can't join you Sunday morning, when we have church,
> we will be sure to come and visit.
>
> It seems to me that (1) allows for two interpretations. First, it could mean
> that "we" have church Sunday morning and thus can't join "you" then. (On
> this reading, the "when"-clause is a nonrestrictive adverbial clause
> commenting on "Sunday morning." "We" will come and visit some other time

>
> Second, (1) could mean that "we" will come and visit when "we" have
> church. The implication is, of course, that "we" have church at some time
> other than Sunday morning. "We" can't join "you" on Sunday morning for
> some unmentioned reason, having nothing to do with our having church.
>
> Would you agree that the semicolons below disambiguate each reading?

>
> (1a) Although we can't join you Sunday morning, when we have church;
> we will be sure to come and visit.
> (1b) Although we can't join you Sunday morning; when we have church,
> we will be sure to come and visit.
>
> Thank you. : )

Neither sentence makes sense with the semi-colon, IMO. What strikes me though
is that, grammatically, "when we have church" is an apposition per your first
interpretation and a subordinate clause per the second. As such, the first could
be rephrased as

|Although we can't join you Sunday morning, when we *will* have church,
|we will be sure to come and visit.

for disambiguation as I believe "when" can be followed by the future in appositions,
unlike in subordinate clauses. (I'm not quite sure about that, but I've often seen
such sentences.)

On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 4:04:25 PM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> Le mercredi 1 décembre 2021 à 22:28:59 UTC+1, Metrist2021 a écrit :
> > Greetings,
> >
> > I recently conceived of a usage of semicolons which I don't believe I have
> > ever read about or have ever had a real occasion to use. Nevertheless, I
> > am so fond of the idea that I have deliberately created a sentence to fit
> > the bill. Isn't the following sentence ambiguous?
> >
> > (1) Although we can't join you Sunday morning, when we have church,
> > we will be sure to come and visit.
> >
> > It seems to me that (1) allows for two interpretations. First, it could mean
> > that "we" have church Sunday morning and thus can't join "you" then. (On
> > this reading, the "when"-clause is a nonrestrictive adverbial clause
> > commenting on "Sunday morning." "We" will come and visit some other time
>
>
> >
> > Second, (1) could mean that "we" will come and visit when "we" have
> > church. The implication is, of course, that "we" have church at some time
> > other than Sunday morning. "We" can't join "you" on Sunday morning for
> > some unmentioned reason, having nothing to do with our having church.
> >
> > Would you agree that the semicolons below disambiguate each reading?
>
> >
> > (1a) Although we can't join you Sunday morning, when we have church;
> > we will be sure to come and visit.
> > (1b) Although we can't join you Sunday morning; when we have church,
> > we will be sure to come and visit.
> >
> > Thank you. : )
> Neither sentence makes sense with the semi-colon, IMO. What strikes me though
> is that, grammatically, "when we have church" is an apposition per your first
> interpretation and a subordinate clause per the second. As such, the first could
> be rephrased as
>
> |Although we can't join you Sunday morning, when we *will* have church,
> |we will be sure to come and visit.
> for disambiguation as I believe "when" can be followed by the future in appositions,
> unlike in subordinate clauses. (I'm not quite sure about that, but I've often seen
> such sentences.)

In French, maybe. It does sound foreign. But you're never going
to stop pretending that English is French.

I wonder why you chose to revert to the original message from last
year, but no, in order to get his interpretation (b), he should simply
omit the second comma.

But as I said last year, it's a strange thing to say.

On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 1:31:00 PM UTC-7, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 4:04:25 PM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> > Le mercredi 1 décembre 2021 à 22:28:59 UTC+1, Metrist2021 a écrit :
> > > Greetings,
> > >
> > > I recently conceived of a usage of semicolons which I don't believe I have
> > > ever read about or have ever had a real occasion to use. Nevertheless, I
> > > am so fond of the idea that I have deliberately created a sentence to fit
> > > the bill. Isn't the following sentence ambiguous?
> > >
> > > (1) Although we can't join you Sunday morning, when we have church,
> > > we will be sure to come and visit.
> > >
> > > It seems to me that (1) allows for two interpretations. First, it could mean
> > > that "we" have church Sunday morning and thus can't join "you" then. (On
> > > this reading, the "when"-clause is a nonrestrictive adverbial clause
> > > commenting on "Sunday morning." "We" will come and visit some other time
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Second, (1) could mean that "we" will come and visit when "we" have
> > > church. The implication is, of course, that "we" have church at some time
> > > other than Sunday morning. "We" can't join "you" on Sunday morning for
> > > some unmentioned reason, having nothing to do with our having church.
> > >
> > > Would you agree that the semicolons below disambiguate each reading?
> >
> > >
> > > (1a) Although we can't join you Sunday morning, when we have church;
> > > we will be sure to come and visit.
> > > (1b) Although we can't join you Sunday morning; when we have church,
> > > we will be sure to come and visit.
> > >
> > > Thank you. : )
> > Neither sentence makes sense with the semi-colon, IMO. What strikes me though
> > is that, grammatically, "when we have church" is an apposition per your first
> > interpretation and a subordinate clause per the second. As such, the first could
> > be rephrased as
> >
> > |Although we can't join you Sunday morning, when we *will* have church,
> > |we will be sure to come and visit.
> > for disambiguation as I believe "when" can be followed by the future in appositions,
> > unlike in subordinate clauses. (I'm not quite sure about that, but I've often seen
> > such sentences.)
> In French, maybe. It does sound foreign. But you're never going
> to stop pretending that English is French.
>
> I wonder why you chose to revert to the original message from last
> year, but no, in order to get his interpretation (b), he should simply
> omit the second comma.

In other words, instead of this:

(1b) Although we can't join you this Sunday; when we have church, we will
be sure to come and visit.

you would rather read this:

(1b') Although we can't join you this Sunday, when we have church we will
be sure to some and visit.

This approach implies that, rather than allowing the semicolon more freedom,
we should, in situations such as these, chuck a fairly inflexible punctuation rule,
namely, that a fronted subordinate clause should be separated from the main clause
by a comma. Here we say, "Let that comma go."

>
> But as I said last year, it's a strange thing to say.

What about other situations, such as those resembling the Fowlers' example? (I won't
refer back to the other examples I gave which got dissed above, concerning ice cream
topings, on the one hand, and work-supervision situations, on the other.) Let's stick to
Fowler country. Can we let that comma go in sentences like these, or might a semicolon be OK?

(6a) ??? If you pick up my brother, Tom, John will give him a ride home.
(6b) ??!* If you pick up my brother, Tom John will give him a ride home.
(6c) If you pick up my brother, Tom; John will give him a ride home.

(7a) ??? After John is interviewed by the dean, Professor Michaels, Professor Smith, the head of
the department, will interview him.

(7b) ??!* After John is interviewed by the dean, Professor Michaels Professor Smith, the head of
the department, will interview him.

(7c) After John is interviewed by the dean, Professor Michaels; Professor Smith, the head of the
department, will interview him.

The grammaticality judgements are my own: extremely questionable, absurd, and OK, respectively.
I realize that parentheses offer a work-around solution in (6) and (7), but I am interested in the semicolon.

Le dimanche 12 juin 2022 à 22:31:00 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 4:04:25 PM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> > Le mercredi 1 décembre 2021 à 22:28:59 UTC+1, Metrist2021 a écrit :
> > > Greetings,
> > >
> > > I recently conceived of a usage of semicolons which I don't believe I have
> > > ever read about or have ever had a real occasion to use. Nevertheless, I
> > > am so fond of the idea that I have deliberately created a sentence to fit
> > > the bill. Isn't the following sentence ambiguous?
> > >
> > > (1) Although we can't join you Sunday morning, when we have church,
> > > we will be sure to come and visit.
> > >
> > > It seems to me that (1) allows for two interpretations. First, it could mean
> > > that "we" have church Sunday morning and thus can't join "you" then. (On
> > > this reading, the "when"-clause is a nonrestrictive adverbial clause
> > > commenting on "Sunday morning." "We" will come and visit some other time
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Second, (1) could mean that "we" will come and visit when "we" have
> > > church. The implication is, of course, that "we" have church at some time
> > > other than Sunday morning. "We" can't join "you" on Sunday morning for
> > > some unmentioned reason, having nothing to do with our having church.
> > >
> > > Would you agree that the semicolons below disambiguate each reading?
> >
> > >
> > > (1a) Although we can't join you Sunday morning, when we have church;
> > > we will be sure to come and visit.
> > > (1b) Although we can't join you Sunday morning; when we have church,
> > > we will be sure to come and visit.
> > >
> > > Thank you. : )
> > Neither sentence makes sense with the semi-colon, IMO. What strikes me though
> > is that, grammatically, "when we have church" is an apposition per your first
> > interpretation and a subordinate clause per the second. As such, the first could
> > be rephrased as
> >
> > |Although we can't join you Sunday morning, when we *will* have church,
> > |we will be sure to come and visit.
> > for disambiguation as I believe "when" can be followed by the future in appositions,
> > unlike in subordinate clauses. (I'm not quite sure about that, but I've often seen
> > such sentences.)
> In French, maybe.

No, French uses the future for both.

> It does sound foreign. But you're never going
> to stop pretending that English is French.

Examples of native English-speakers using it are plentiful,
e.g.

----
First of all, I finished up a project I am super excited about! It is my first
submission to a magazine! McCall's Quick Quilts! Check back in June,
when I will be able to share this one in full!

https://in.pinterest.com/pin/71002131606063838/
---

or

--
Hello, my name is Jodie. I'm 16 and looking for babysitting jobs throughout
all of my summer holiday, ending in September, when I will be starting my
A-Level Coursework.

https://yoopies.co.uk/nanny/colchester/babysitter-experience/4501696
---

(Whether it's grammatical is unclear to me, though.)

>
> I wonder why you chose to revert to the original message from last
> year,

Because the point I made was apparently new in the discussion and
therefore only belonged there.

> but no, in order to get his interpretation (b), he should simply
> omit the second comma.

I'm sure he knew that, but the sentence reads awkwardly without
it.

>
> But as I said last year, it's a strange thing to say.

On 13/06/22 15:21, Bebercito wrote:
> Le dimanche 12 juin 2022 à 22:31:00 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit
> :
>> On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 4:04:25 PM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:

>>> |Although we can't join you Sunday morning, when we *will* have
>>> church, |we will be sure to come and visit. for disambiguation
>>> as I believe "when" can be followed by the future in appositions,
>>> unlike in subordinate clauses. (I'm not quite sure about that,
>>> but I've often seen such sentences.)
>> In French, maybe.
>
> No, French uses the future for both.

That's the point. English doesn't. It's a common error in English by
people whose first language is French. As Peter says below, it sounds
foreign.

>> It does sound foreign. But you're never going to stop pretending
>> that English is French.
>
> Examples of native English-speakers using it are plentiful, e.g.
>
> ---- First of all, I finished up a project I am super excited about!
> It is my first submission to a magazine! McCall's Quick Quilts!
> Check back in June, when I will be able to share this one in full!
>
> https://in.pinterest.com/pin/71002131606063838/ ---

That's an interesting example, because here the future is correct. It's
not easy to explain why this one needs a future tense, while the one
above _must_not_ use the future tense. Figuring out the difference
between the two examples might give some insight into the rules.

> or
>
> -- Hello, my name is Jodie. I'm 16 and looking for babysitting jobs
> throughout all of my summer holiday, ending in September, when I
> will be starting my A-Level Coursework.
>
> https://yoopies.co.uk/nanny/colchester/babysitter-experience/4501696
> ---
>
> (Whether it's grammatical is unclear to me, though.)

That example is easier to understand, because the "when I will" refers
to September, not to the babysitting. Compare this with "Come and see me
in August, when I'm babysitting, to see how it worked out".

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

On 6/12/2022 9:23 PM, Metrist2021 wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> Bebercito wrote:
>>> Metrist2021 a écrit:

>>>> Greetings,

>>>> I recently conceived of a usage of semicolons which I don't
>>>> believe I have ever read about or have ever had a real occasion
>>>> to use. Nevertheless, I am so fond of the idea that I have
>>>> deliberately created a sentence to fit the bill. Isn't the
>>>> following sentence ambiguous?

>>>> (1) Although we can't join you Sunday morning, when we have
>>>> church, we will be sure to come and visit.

>>>> It seems to me that (1) allows for two interpretations. First,
>>>> it could mean that "we" have church Sunday morning and thus
>>>> can't join "you" then. (On this reading, the "when"-clause is a
>>>> nonrestrictive adverbial clause commenting on "Sunday morning."
>>>> "We" will come and visit some other time

>>>> Second, (1) could mean that "we" will come and visit when "we"
>>>> have church. The implication is, of course, that "we" have
>>>> church at some time other than Sunday morning. "We" can't join
>>>> "you" on Sunday morning for some unmentioned reason, having
>>>> nothing to do with our having church.

>>>> Would you agree that the semicolons below disambiguate each
>>>> reading?

>>>> (1a) Although we can't join you Sunday morning, when we have
>>>> church; we will be sure to come and visit. (1b) Although we
>>>> can't join you Sunday morning; when we have church, we will be
>>>> sure to come and visit.

>>>> Thank you. : )
>>> Neither sentence makes sense with the semi-colon, IMO. What
>>> strikes me though is that, grammatically, "when we have church"
>>> is an apposition per your first interpretation and a subordinate
>>> clause per the second. As such, the first could be rephrased as

>>> |Although we can't join you Sunday morning, when we *will* have
>>> church, |we will be sure to come and visit. for disambiguation as
>>> I believe "when" can be followed by the future in appositions,
>>> unlike in subordinate clauses. (I'm not quite sure about that,
>>> but I've often seen such sentences.)
>> In French, maybe. It does sound foreign. But you're never going to
>> stop pretending that English is French.

>> I wonder why you chose to revert to the original message from last
>> year, but no, in order to get his interpretation (b), he should
>> simply omit the second comma.

> In other words, instead of this:
>
> (1b) Although we can't join you this Sunday; when we have church, we
> will be sure to come and visit.

> you would rather read this:

> (1b') Although we can't join you this Sunday, when we have church we
> will be sure to some and visit.

> This approach implies that, rather than allowing the semicolon more
> freedom, we should, in situations such as these, chuck a fairly
> inflexible punctuation rule, namely, that a fronted subordinate
> clause should be separated from the main clause by a comma. Here we
> say, "Let that comma go."

>> But as I said last year, it's a strange thing to say.

> What about other situations, such as those resembling the Fowlers'
> example? (I won't refer back to the other examples I gave which got
> dissed above, concerning ice cream topings, on the one hand, and
> work-supervision situations, on the other.) Let's stick to Fowler
> country. Can we let that comma go in sentences like these, or might a
> semicolon be OK?

> (6a) ??? If you pick up my brother, Tom, John will give him a ride
> home. (6b) ??!* If you pick up my brother, Tom John will give him a
> ride home. (6c) If you pick up my brother, Tom; John will give him a
> ride home.

> (7a) ??? After John is interviewed by the dean, Professor Michaels,
> Professor Smith, the head of the department, will interview him.

> (7b) ??!* After John is interviewed by the dean, Professor Michaels
> Professor Smith, the head of the department, will interview him.

> (7c) After John is interviewed by the dean, Professor Michaels;
> Professor Smith, the head of the department, will interview him.

> The grammaticality judgements are my own: extremely questionable,
> absurd, and OK, respectively. I realize that parentheses offer a
> work-around solution in (6) and (7), but I am interested in the
> semicolon.

Your preferred style is your own business, and you have Fowler to cite
in justification. Although I use the semicolon as a super-comma, I will
never use one to mark off a subordinate clause, because (IMO) a
semicolon has an essentially co-ordinating function.

In your sample sentences, I might try to make things clearer by putting
the appositives in parentheses: "(Professor Michaels)". In an extremity
of need I might resort to dashes.

On 6/13/2022 1:41 AM, Peter Moylan wrote:
> Bebercito wrote:
>> Peter T. Daniels a écrit:
>>> Bebercito wrote:

>>>> |Although we can't join you Sunday morning, when we *will*
>>>> have church, |we will be sure to come and visit. for
>>>> disambiguation as I believe "when" can be followed by the
>>>> future in appositions, unlike in subordinate clauses. (I'm not
>>>> quite sure about that, but I've often seen such sentences.)
>>> In French, maybe.

>> No, French uses the future for both.

> That's the point. English doesn't. It's a common error in English by
> people whose first language is French. As Peter says below, it
> sounds foreign.

>>> It does sound foreign. But you're never going to stop pretending
>>> that English is French.

>> Examples of native English-speakers using it are plentiful, e.g.

>> ---- First of all, I finished up a project I am super excited
>> about! It is my first submission to a magazine! McCall's Quick
>> Quilts! Check back in June, when I will be able to share this one
>> in full!

>> https://in.pinterest.com/pin/71002131606063838/ ---

> That's an interesting example, because here the future is correct.
> It's not easy to explain why this one needs a future tense, while the
> one above _must_not_ use the future tense. Figuring out the
> difference between the two examples might give some insight into the
> rules.

>> or

>> -- Hello, my name is Jodie. I'm 16 and looking for babysitting
>> jobs throughout all of my summer holiday, ending in September, when
>> I will be starting my A-Level Coursework.
>>
>> https://yoopies.co.uk/nanny/colchester/babysitter-experience/4501696
>>
>>
---

>> (Whether it's grammatical is unclear to me, though.)

> That example is easier to understand, because the "when I will"
> refers to September, not to the babysitting. Compare this with "Come
> and see me in August, when I'm babysitting, to see how it worked
> out".

I would be willing to see the future tense in that subordinate clause
too, but not in "I'll see you when I'll see you".

I think it's because the other when-clauses are adjectival, explaining
"in June", "in September", or "in August".

On 6/13/2022 6:46 AM, CDB wrote:
> On 6/13/2022 1:41 AM, Peter Moylan wrote:

[see above]

>> That example is easier to understand, because the "when I will"
>> refers to September, not to the babysitting. Compare this with
>> "Come and see me in August, when I'm babysitting, to see how it
>> worked out".

> I would be willing to see the future tense in that subordinate
> clause too, but not in "I'll see you when I'll see you".

> I think it's because the other when-clauses are adjectival,
> explaining "in June", "in September", or "in August".

OK, adverbial.

Le lundi 13 juin 2022 à 14:48:52 UTC+2, CDB a écrit :
> On 6/13/2022 6:46 AM, CDB wrote:
> > On 6/13/2022 1:41 AM, Peter Moylan wrote:
> [see above]
> >> That example is easier to understand, because the "when I will"
> >> refers to September, not to the babysitting. Compare this with
> >> "Come and see me in August, when I'm babysitting, to see how it
> >> worked out".
>
> > I would be willing to see the future tense in that subordinate
> > clause too, but not in "I'll see you when I'll see you".
>
> > I think it's because the other when-clauses are adjectival,
> > explaining "in June", "in September", or "in August".
> OK, adverbial.

Yes, "appositions" by my terminology (as opposed to subordinate
clauses).

On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 9:23:06 PM UTC-4, Metrist2021 wrote:

> Let's stick to
> Fowler country. Can we let that comma go in sentences like these, or might a semicolon be OK?
>
> (6a) ??? If you pick up my brother, Tom, John will give him a ride home.
> (6b) ??!* If you pick up my brother, Tom John will give him a ride home.
> (6c) If you pick up my brother, Tom; John will give him a ride home.

Asinine. "Tom" is not an appositive or any sort of non-restrictive modifier.
Speaker clearly has more than one brother.

More than a century ago, the Fowlers had not heard of Grice (who hadn't
been born yet).

No comma after "brother." At all. Period.

> (7a) ??? After John is interviewed by the dean, Professor Michaels, Professor Smith, the head of
> the department, will interview him.
>
> (7b) ??!* After John is interviewed by the dean, Professor Michaels Professor Smith, the head of
> the department, will interview him.
>
> (7c) After John is interviewed by the dean, Professor Michaels; Professor Smith, the head of the
> department, will interview him.

Why do you think the addressee doesn't even know who the dean --
or for that matter, the department head -- is? Or that "John" doesn't
deserve the respect of a last name or a title?

If those examples have something to do with the Fowler brothers,
then the Fowler brothers were arthur-Navi _avant la lettre_.

If not, then shame on you for attributing such nonsense to them.

> The grammaticality judgements are my own: extremely questionable, absurd, and OK, respectively.
> I realize that parentheses offer a work-around solution in (6) and (7), but I am interested in the semicolon.

Absolutely completely wrong in every ridiculous example.

On Monday, June 13, 2022 at 1:21:15 AM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> Le dimanche 12 juin 2022 à 22:31:00 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> > On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 4:04:25 PM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> > > Le mercredi 1 décembre 2021 à 22:28:59 UTC+1, Metrist2021 a écrit :

> > > > I recently conceived of a usage of semicolons which I don't believe I have
> > > > ever read about or have ever had a real occasion to use. Nevertheless, I
> > > > am so fond of the idea that I have deliberately created a sentence to fit
> > > > the bill. Isn't the following sentence ambiguous?
> > > > (1) Although we can't join you Sunday morning, when we have church,
> > > > we will be sure to come and visit.
> > > > It seems to me that (1) allows for two interpretations. First, it could mean
> > > > that "we" have church Sunday morning and thus can't join "you" then.. (On
> > > > this reading, the "when"-clause is a nonrestrictive adverbial clause
> > > > commenting on "Sunday morning." "We" will come and visit some other time
> > > > Second, (1) could mean that "we" will come and visit when "we" have
> > > > church. The implication is, of course, that "we" have church at some time
> > > > other than Sunday morning. "We" can't join "you" on Sunday morning for
> > > > some unmentioned reason, having nothing to do with our having church.
> > > > Would you agree that the semicolons below disambiguate each reading?
> > > > (1a) Although we can't join you Sunday morning, when we have church;
> > > > we will be sure to come and visit.
> > > > (1b) Although we can't join you Sunday morning; when we have church,
> > > > we will be sure to come and visit.
> > > > Thank you. : )
> > > Neither sentence makes sense with the semi-colon, IMO. What strikes me though
> > > is that, grammatically, "when we have church" is an apposition per your first
> > > interpretation and a subordinate clause per the second. As such, the first could
> > > be rephrased as
> > > |Although we can't join you Sunday morning, when we *will* have church,
> > > |we will be sure to come and visit.
> > > for disambiguation as I believe "when" can be followed by the future in appositions,
> > > unlike in subordinate clauses. (I'm not quite sure about that, but I've often seen
> > > such sentences.)
> > In French, maybe.
>
> No, French uses the future for both.

You mean, like in the example?

> > It does sound foreign. But you're never going
> > to stop pretending that English is French.
>
> Examples of native English-speakers using it are plentiful,
> e.g.
>
> ----
> First of all, I finished up a project I am super excited about! It is my first
> submission to a magazine! McCall's Quick Quilts! Check back in June,
> when I will be able to share this one in full!

Not remotely the same thing. That corresponds to the _second_
"will" in your example, not the first one, which is the one in question.

> https://in.pinterest.com/pin/71002131606063838/
> ---
>
> or
>
> --
> Hello, my name is Jodie. I'm 16 and looking for babysitting jobs throughout
> all of my summer holiday, ending in September, when I will be starting my
> A-Level Coursework.

Ditto.

> https://yoopies.co.uk/nanny/colchester/babysitter-experience/4501696
> ---
>
> (Whether it's grammatical is unclear to me, though.)
> >
> > I wonder why you chose to revert to the original message from last
> > year,
>
> Because the point I made was apparently new in the discussion and
> therefore only belonged there.

Half a year late.

> > but no, in order to get his interpretation (b), he should simply
> > omit the second comma.
>
> I'm sure he knew that, but the sentence reads awkwardly without
> it.

No. Maybe in French.

> > But as I said last year, it's a strange thing to say.

On Monday, June 13, 2022 at 1:42:04 AM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 13/06/22 15:21, Bebercito wrote:
> > Le dimanche 12 juin 2022 à 22:31:00 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit
> > :
> >> On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 4:04:25 PM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
>
> >>> |Although we can't join you Sunday morning, when we *will* have
> >>> church, |we will be sure to come and visit. for disambiguation
> >>> as I believe "when" can be followed by the future in appositions,
> >>> unlike in subordinate clauses. (I'm not quite sure about that,
> >>> but I've often seen such sentences.)
> >> In French, maybe.
> >
> > No, French uses the future for both.
> That's the point. English doesn't. It's a common error in English by
> people whose first language is French. As Peter says below, it sounds
> foreign.
> >> It does sound foreign. But you're never going to stop pretending
> >> that English is French.
> >
> > Examples of native English-speakers using it are plentiful, e.g.
> >
> > ---- First of all, I finished up a project I am super excited about!
> > It is my first submission to a magazine! McCall's Quick Quilts!
> > Check back in June, when I will be able to share this one in full!
> >
> > https://in.pinterest.com/pin/71002131606063838/ ---
> That's an interesting example, because here the future is correct. It's
> not easy to explain why this one needs a future tense, while the one
> above _must_not_ use the future tense. Figuring out the difference
> between the two examples might give some insight into the rules.

My guess is (as we say in Semitic grammar) punctual vs. durative.
The ok examples refer to a specific event in the future, the wrong
ones to a habitual event (going to church).

I'm not aware that anyone has come up with a satisfactory account
of aspect in English, even though Talmy Givon has devoted his
entire career to it. (His first language is Israeli Hebrew, but Israeli
Hebrew has "Standard Average European" past/present/future
tenses.)

> > or
> >
> > -- Hello, my name is Jodie. I'm 16 and looking for babysitting jobs
> > throughout all of my summer holiday, ending in September, when I
> > will be starting my A-Level Coursework.
> >
> > https://yoopies.co.uk/nanny/colchester/babysitter-experience/4501696
> > ---
> >
> > (Whether it's grammatical is unclear to me, though.)
>
> That example is easier to understand, because the "when I will" refers
> to September, not to the babysitting. Compare this with "Come and see me
> in August, when I'm babysitting, to see how it worked out".

On Monday, June 13, 2022 at 6:39:05 AM UTC-4, CDB wrote:

> Your preferred style is your own business, and you have Fowler to cite
> in justification. Although I use the semicolon as a super-comma, I will
> never use one to mark off a subordinate clause, because (IMO) a
> semicolon has an essentially co-ordinating function.

Good point! Could it have been so obvious that it has gone without saying?

> In your sample sentences, I might try to make things clearer by putting
> the appositives in parentheses: "(Professor Michaels)". In an extremity
> of need I might resort to dashes.

(They shouldn't be there at all, see my comment on that message.)

Le lundi 13 juin 2022 à 17:07:11 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> On Monday, June 13, 2022 at 1:21:15 AM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> > Le dimanche 12 juin 2022 à 22:31:00 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> > > On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 4:04:25 PM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> > > > Le mercredi 1 décembre 2021 à 22:28:59 UTC+1, Metrist2021 a écrit :
>
> > > > > I recently conceived of a usage of semicolons which I don't believe I have
> > > > > ever read about or have ever had a real occasion to use. Nevertheless, I
> > > > > am so fond of the idea that I have deliberately created a sentence to fit
> > > > > the bill. Isn't the following sentence ambiguous?
> > > > > (1) Although we can't join you Sunday morning, when we have church,
> > > > > we will be sure to come and visit.
> > > > > It seems to me that (1) allows for two interpretations. First, it could mean
> > > > > that "we" have church Sunday morning and thus can't join "you" then. (On
> > > > > this reading, the "when"-clause is a nonrestrictive adverbial clause
> > > > > commenting on "Sunday morning." "We" will come and visit some other time
> > > > > Second, (1) could mean that "we" will come and visit when "we" have
> > > > > church. The implication is, of course, that "we" have church at some time
> > > > > other than Sunday morning. "We" can't join "you" on Sunday morning for
> > > > > some unmentioned reason, having nothing to do with our having church.
> > > > > Would you agree that the semicolons below disambiguate each reading?
> > > > > (1a) Although we can't join you Sunday morning, when we have church;
> > > > > we will be sure to come and visit.
> > > > > (1b) Although we can't join you Sunday morning; when we have church,
> > > > > we will be sure to come and visit.
> > > > > Thank you. : )
> > > > Neither sentence makes sense with the semi-colon, IMO. What strikes me though
> > > > is that, grammatically, "when we have church" is an apposition per your first
> > > > interpretation and a subordinate clause per the second. As such, the first could
> > > > be rephrased as
> > > > |Although we can't join you Sunday morning, when we *will* have church,
> > > > |we will be sure to come and visit.
> > > > for disambiguation as I believe "when" can be followed by the future in appositions,
> > > > unlike in subordinate clauses. (I'm not quite sure about that, but I've often seen
> > > > such sentences.)
> > > In French, maybe.
> >
> > No, French uses the future for both.
> You mean, like in the example?

French makes no distinction in general between whether
"when" introduces an apposition or a subordinate clause,
and uses the future in both cases.

> > > It does sound foreign. But you're never going
> > > to stop pretending that English is French.
> >
> > Examples of native English-speakers using it are plentiful,
> > e.g.
> >
> > ----
> > First of all, I finished up a project I am super excited about! It is my first
> > submission to a magazine! McCall's Quick Quilts! Check back in June,
> > when I will be able to share this one in full!
> Not remotely the same thing. That corresponds to the _second_
> "will" in your example, not the first one, which is the one in question.

Not at all:

|Although we can't join you Sunday morning, [which is the day] when
|we *will* have church, we will be sure to come and visit.

|Check back in June, [which is the month] when I *will be* able
|to share this on in full!

My claim is that the future can (or maybe must?) be used when
"when" introduces an apposition, as is the case in the two
sentences above.

> > https://in.pinterest.com/pin/71002131606063838/
> > ---
> >
> > or
> >
> > --
> > Hello, my name is Jodie. I'm 16 and looking for babysitting jobs throughout
> > all of my summer holiday, ending in September, when I will be starting my
> > A-Level Coursework.
> Ditto.

Indeed.

> > https://yoopies.co.uk/nanny/colchester/babysitter-experience/4501696
> > ---
> >
> > (Whether it's grammatical is unclear to me, though.)
> > >
> > > I wonder why you chose to revert to the original message from last
> > > year,
> >
> > Because the point I made was apparently new in the discussion and
> > therefore only belonged there.
> Half a year late.

Better late than never. Precisely, that crucial point had been overlooked
all the while.

> > > but no, in order to get his interpretation (b), he should simply
> > > omit the second comma.
> >
> > I'm sure he knew that, but the sentence reads awkwardly without
> > it.
> No. Maybe in French.

No possible English-French distinction here as the syntaxes are
identical. The impression the presence or absence of the comma
makes on the reader is purely subjective in the two languages.

> > > But as I said last year, it's a strange thing to say.

On Monday, June 13, 2022 at 8:02:41 AM UTC-7, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 9:23:06 PM UTC-4, Metrist2021 wrote:
>
> > Let's stick to
> > Fowler country. Can we let that comma go in sentences like these, or might a semicolon be OK?
> >
> > (6a) ??? If you pick up my brother, Tom, John will give him a ride home.
> > (6b) ??!* If you pick up my brother, Tom John will give him a ride home.
> > (6c) If you pick up my brother, Tom; John will give him a ride home.
> Asinine. "Tom" is not an appositive or any sort of non-restrictive modifier.
> Speaker clearly has more than one brother.

I'm an only child. If I had one brother, named Tom, he would be my only brother,
and his name would thus need to be represented as a nonrestrictive appositive
in contexts like this. "My brother John" indicates that the speaker has more than
one brother; "my brother, John" indicates that the speaker has only one brother.
In any case, the same problem can be posed by putting "Tom" first.

- If you pick up Tom, my brother; John will give him a ride home.

I fail to see why the semicolon should not be allowable there. I realize that it is
nonconventional in the twenty-first century to use the semicolon thus; however,
I maintain that a "supercomma," as someone here calls it, is needed in contexts
like this (at least if one doesn't wish to resort to parentheses, and parentheses
are not an available solution to all the forms in which the problem has been seen
to arise in this thread). It is possible to say sentences like that. They don't sound
bad. They are perfectly grammatical. Why shouldn't it be possible to write them? (!!!)

>
> More than a century ago, the Fowlers had not heard of Grice (who hadn't
> been born yet).
>
> No comma after "brother." At all. Period.
> > (7a) ??? After John is interviewed by the dean, Professor Michaels, Professor Smith, the head of
> > the department, will interview him.
> >
> > (7b) ??!* After John is interviewed by the dean, Professor Michaels Professor Smith, the head of
> > the department, will interview him.
> >
> > (7c) After John is interviewed by the dean, Professor Michaels; Professor Smith, the head of the
> > department, will interview him.
> Why do you think the addressee doesn't even know who the dean --
> or for that matter, the department head -- is? Or that "John" doesn't
> deserve the respect of a last name or a title?
>
> If those examples have something to do with the Fowler brothers,
> then the Fowler brothers were arthur-Navi _avant la lettre_.
>
> If not, then shame on you for attributing such nonsense to them.
> > The grammaticality judgements are my own: extremely questionable, absurd, and OK, respectively.
> > I realize that parentheses offer a work-around solution in (6) and (7), but I am interested in the semicolon.
> Absolutely completely wrong in every ridiculous example.

On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 4:31:00 PM UTC-4, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 4:04:25 PM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> > Le mercredi 1 décembre 2021 à 22:28:59 UTC+1, Metrist2021 a écrit :
> > > Greetings,
> > >
> > > I recently conceived of a usage of semicolons which I don't believe I have
> > > ever read about or have ever had a real occasion to use. Nevertheless, I
> > > am so fond of the idea that I have deliberately created a sentence to fit
> > > the bill. Isn't the following sentence ambiguous?
> > >
> > > (1) Although we can't join you Sunday morning, when we have church,
> > > we will be sure to come and visit.
> > >
> > > It seems to me that (1) allows for two interpretations. First, it could mean
> > > that "we" have church Sunday morning and thus can't join "you" then. (On
> > > this reading, the "when"-clause is a nonrestrictive adverbial clause
> > > commenting on "Sunday morning." "We" will come and visit some other time
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Second, (1) could mean that "we" will come and visit when "we" have
> > > church. The implication is, of course, that "we" have church at some time
> > > other than Sunday morning. "We" can't join "you" on Sunday morning for
> > > some unmentioned reason, having nothing to do with our having church.
> > >
> > > Would you agree that the semicolons below disambiguate each reading?
> >
> > >
> > > (1a) Although we can't join you Sunday morning, when we have church;
> > > we will be sure to come and visit.
> > > (1b) Although we can't join you Sunday morning; when we have church,
> > > we will be sure to come and visit.
> > >
> > > Thank you. : )
> > Neither sentence makes sense with the semi-colon, IMO. What strikes me though
> > is that, grammatically, "when we have church" is an apposition per your first
> > interpretation and a subordinate clause per the second. As such, the first could
> > be rephrased as
> >
> > |Although we can't join you Sunday morning, when we *will* have church,
> > |we will be sure to come and visit.
> > for disambiguation as I believe "when" can be followed by the future in appositions,
> > unlike in subordinate clauses. (I'm not quite sure about that, but I've often seen
> > such sentences.)
>
> In French, maybe. It does sound foreign. But you're never going
> to stop pretending that English is French.

And rightly so to those who have always dealt with French while dealing with English often enough.

On Monday, June 13, 2022 at 12:33:05 PM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> Le lundi 13 juin 2022 à 17:07:11 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> > On Monday, June 13, 2022 at 1:21:15 AM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> > > Le dimanche 12 juin 2022 à 22:31:00 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :

> French makes no distinction in general between whether
> "when" introduces an apposition or a subordinate clause,
> and uses the future in both cases.

Please stop misusing the term "appositive."

> > > > It does sound foreign. But you're never going
> > > > to stop pretending that English is French.
> > > Examples of native English-speakers using it are plentiful,
> > > e.g.
> > > ----
> > > First of all, I finished up a project I am super excited about! It is my first
> > > submission to a magazine! McCall's Quick Quilts! Check back in June,
> > > when I will be able to share this one in full!
> > Not remotely the same thing. That corresponds to the _second_
> > "will" in your example, not the first one, which is the one in question..
>
> Not at all:

"Not at all" what?

> |Although we can't join you Sunday morning, [which is the day] when
> |we *will* have church, we will be sure to come and visit.
> |Check back in June, [which is the month] when I *will be* able
> |to share this on in full!

Well, sure, if you're going to invent words that are not in the
sentence, you can come up with whatever you want.

> My claim is that the future can (or maybe must?) be used when
> "when" introduces an apposition, as is the case in the two
> sentences above.

In French, maybe. Not in English. You invented ungrammatical
insertions above.

> > > https://in.pinterest.com/pin/71002131606063838/
> > > ---
> > > or
> > > --
> > > Hello, my name is Jodie. I'm 16 and looking for babysitting jobs throughout
> > > all of my summer holiday, ending in September, when I will be starting my
> > > A-Level Coursework.
> > Ditto.
> Indeed.
> > > https://yoopies.co.uk/nanny/colchester/babysitter-experience/4501696
> > > ---
> > > (Whether it's grammatical is unclear to me, though.)
> > > > I wonder why you chose to revert to the original message from last
> > > > year,
> > > Because the point I made was apparently new in the discussion and
> > > therefore only belonged there.
> > Half a year late.
>
> Better late than never. Precisely, that crucial point had been overlooked
> all the while.

Better never, since whatever you think your point is has nothing
to do with English.

> > > > but no, in order to get his interpretation (b), he should simply
> > > > omit the second comma.
> > > I'm sure he knew that, but the sentence reads awkwardly without
> > > it.
> > No. Maybe in French.
>
> No possible English-French distinction here as the syntaxes are
> identical. The impression the presence or absence of the comma
> makes on the reader is purely subjective in the two languages.

Obviously they are not "identical," since your interpolations above
are ungrammatical.

> > > > But as I said last year, it's a strange thing to say.

On Monday, June 13, 2022 at 12:57:52 PM UTC-4, Metrist2021 wrote:
> On Monday, June 13, 2022 at 8:02:41 AM UTC-7, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 9:23:06 PM UTC-4, Metrist2021 wrote:

> > > Let's stick to
> > > Fowler country. Can we let that comma go in sentences like these, or might a semicolon be OK?
> > >
> > > (6a) ??? If you pick up my brother, Tom, John will give him a ride home.
> > > (6b) ??!* If you pick up my brother, Tom John will give him a ride home.
> > > (6c) If you pick up my brother, Tom; John will give him a ride home.
> > Asinine. "Tom" is not an appositive or any sort of non-restrictive modifier.
> > Speaker clearly has more than one brother.
>
> I'm an only child. If I had one brother, named Tom, he would be my only brother,
> and his name would thus need to be represented as a nonrestrictive appositive

His name would NOT NEED TO BE REPRESENTED AT ALL, unless
you are talking to a total stranger. Why are you asking a total stranger
to pick up your brother? Are you pimping him out?

> in contexts like this. "My brother John" indicates that the speaker has more than
> one brother; "my brother, John" indicates that the speaker has only one brother.
> In any case, the same problem can be posed by putting "Tom" first.
>
> - If you pick up Tom, my brother; John will give him a ride home.

So you've never heard of Grice either?

> I fail to see why the semicolon should not be allowable there. I realize that it is

CDB gave you the perfectly simple basic reason, which is so obvious
it didn't occur to anyone else.

> nonconventional in the twenty-first century to use the semicolon thus; however,

You haven't even found Austen or Johnson or Swift using it "thus."
Or Addison & Steele. (Any earlier, orthography was not standardized.)

> I maintain that a "supercomma," as someone here calls it, is needed in contexts
> like this (at least if one doesn't wish to resort to parentheses, and parentheses
> are not an available solution to all the forms in which the problem has been seen
> to arise in this thread). It is possible to say sentences like that. They don't sound
> bad. They are perfectly grammatical. Why shouldn't it be possible to write them? (!!!)

I don't care what you "maintain." English is not written that way in any
century since the writing of English has become standardized. Those
sentences are written with commas, and anyone who knows the language
knows how to read them.

If you have to "read it in a book," even Garner's waste of pages in the
recent Chicago Manual of Style editions might tell you how a supposed
"authority on usage" puts it. Otherwise, the normal part of the CMS
might cover it, but it might not, because no one would even think of
making such a mistake.

On Mon, 13 Jun 2022 13:33:45 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:

>On Monday, June 13, 2022 at 12:57:52 PM UTC-4, Metrist2021 wrote:
>> On Monday, June 13, 2022 at 8:02:41 AM UTC-7, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> > On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 9:23:06 PM UTC-4, Metrist2021 wrote:
>
>> > > Let's stick to
>> > > Fowler country. Can we let that comma go in sentences like these, or might a semicolon be OK?
>> > >
>> > > (6a) ??? If you pick up my brother, Tom, John will give him a ride home.
>> > > (6b) ??!* If you pick up my brother, Tom John will give him a ride home.
>> > > (6c) If you pick up my brother, Tom; John will give him a ride home.
>> > Asinine. "Tom" is not an appositive or any sort of non-restrictive modifier.
>> > Speaker clearly has more than one brother.
>>
>> I'm an only child. If I had one brother, named Tom, he would be my only brother,
>> and his name would thus need to be represented as a nonrestrictive appositive
>
>His name would NOT NEED TO BE REPRESENTED AT ALL, unless
>you are talking to a total stranger. Why are you asking a total stranger
>to pick up your brother? Are you pimping him out?

That's a usage that I haven't seen, and do wonder about the validity
of it. To "pimp him" means to "put him on", but to "pimp out" means
to add thing to a car like fancy rims or a special paint job.

--

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment

On 13/06/22 11:23, Metrist2021 wrote:

> (6a) ??? If you pick up my brother, Tom, John will give him a ride home.
> (6b) ??!* If you pick up my brother, Tom John will give him a ride home.
> (6c) If you pick up my brother, Tom; John will give him a ride home.

6a works. Clearly Tom is the person being asked to pick up the brother.
We are not told the brother's name.

The other two are completely unacceptable, in my opinion.

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

On 14/06/22 07:40, TonyCooper wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Jun 2022 13:33:45 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:

>> His name would NOT NEED TO BE REPRESENTED AT ALL, unless you are
>> talking to a total stranger. Why are you asking a total stranger
>> to pick up your brother? Are you pimping him out?
>
> That's a usage that I haven't seen, and do wonder about the validity
> of it. To "pimp him" means to "put him on", but to "pimp out" means
> to add thing to a car like fancy rims or a special paint job.

Normally you pimp out a person. The application to a car came later, I
believe; and is a big step away from the original meaning, because you
don't normally live off the earnings of the car. In contrast, a special
paint job for a prostitute might lead to higher earnings.

The way I hear it, "pimp up" means making something or someone more
attractive, while "pimp out" is for when you're renting out someone.

By the way, Tony, your .sig separator is missing a space, which is an
annoyance when following up, because it means your signature has to be
snipped manually.

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

On Tue, 14 Jun 2022 11:24:56 +1000, Peter Moylan
<peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

>On 14/06/22 07:40, TonyCooper wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Jun 2022 13:33:45 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>> <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>> His name would NOT NEED TO BE REPRESENTED AT ALL, unless you are
>>> talking to a total stranger. Why are you asking a total stranger
>>> to pick up your brother? Are you pimping him out?
>>
>> That's a usage that I haven't seen, and do wonder about the validity
>> of it. To "pimp him" means to "put him on", but to "pimp out" means
>> to add thing to a car like fancy rims or a special paint job.
>
>Normally you pimp out a person. The application to a car came later, I
>believe; and is a big step away from the original meaning, because you
>don't normally live off the earnings of the car. In contrast, a special
>paint job for a prostitute might lead to higher earnings.
>
>The way I hear it, "pimp up" means making something or someone more
>attractive,

I would use "primp up
while "pimp out" is for when you're renting out someone.
>
>By the way, Tony, your .sig separator is missing a space, which is an
>annoyance when following up, because it means your signature has to be
>snipped manually.
--

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment

On Tue, 14 Jun 2022 11:24:56 +1000, Peter Moylan
<peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

>On 14/06/22 07:40, TonyCooper wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Jun 2022 13:33:45 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>> <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>> His name would NOT NEED TO BE REPRESENTED AT ALL, unless you are
>>> talking to a total stranger. Why are you asking a total stranger
>>> to pick up your brother? Are you pimping him out?
>>
>> That's a usage that I haven't seen, and do wonder about the validity
>> of it. To "pimp him" means to "put him on", but to "pimp out" means
>> to add thing to a car like fancy rims or a special paint job.
>
>Normally you pimp out a person.

I would omit the "out". Just "pimp a person".

> The application to a car came later, I
>believe; and is a big step away from the original meaning, because you
>don't normally live off the earnings of the car.

Not the car, the driver gets the earnings. A "pimp-mobile" is a
pimp's car.

>In contrast, a special
>paint job for a prostitute might lead to higher earnings.
>
>The way I hear it, "pimp up" means making something or someone more
>attractive, while "pimp out" is for when you're renting out someone.

I would use "primp up" for the make more attractive.

Haven't seen "renting out someone".

--

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment

On Monday, June 13, 2022 at 1:33:48 PM UTC-7, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Monday, June 13, 2022 at 12:57:52 PM UTC-4, Metrist2021 wrote:
> > On Monday, June 13, 2022 at 8:02:41 AM UTC-7, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 9:23:06 PM UTC-4, Metrist2021 wrote:
>
> > > > Let's stick to
> > > > Fowler country. Can we let that comma go in sentences like these, or might a semicolon be OK?
> > > >
> > > > (6a) ??? If you pick up my brother, Tom, John will give him a ride home.
> > > > (6b) ??!* If you pick up my brother, Tom John will give him a ride home.
> > > > (6c) If you pick up my brother, Tom; John will give him a ride home.
> > > Asinine. "Tom" is not an appositive or any sort of non-restrictive modifier.
> > > Speaker clearly has more than one brother.
> >
> > I'm an only child. If I had one brother, named Tom, he would be my only brother,
> > and his name would thus need to be represented as a nonrestrictive appositive
> His name would NOT NEED TO BE REPRESENTED AT ALL, unless
> you are talking to a total stranger. Why are you asking a total stranger
> to pick up your brother? Are you pimping him out?

Haha. If you like, I can vary the example to one that won't be vulnerable to
pragmatic objections. The possibilities are infinite; my syntactic recipes in
this thread can be used to bake any number of structurally related examples.

> > in contexts like this. "My brother John" indicates that the speaker has more than
> > one brother; "my brother, John" indicates that the speaker has only one brother.
> > In any case, the same problem can be posed by putting "Tom" first.
> >
> > - If you pick up Tom, my brother; John will give him a ride home.
> So you've never heard of Grice either?

I assume you're talking about Grice of U.C. Berkeley and his "rules of conversation."

> > I fail to see why the semicolon should not be allowable there. I realize that it is
> CDB gave you the perfectly simple basic reason, which is so obvious
> it didn't occur to anyone else.
> > nonconventional in the twenty-first century to use the semicolon thus; however,
> You haven't even found Austen or Johnson or Swift using it "thus."
> Or Addison & Steele. (Any earlier, orthography was not standardized.)

Flipping briefly through Herbert Read _English Prose Style_, which contains a plethora
of semicolons, I came upon the following quote of Carl Jung, which I realize is a
translation. I'll make a point of continuing to look for semicolons that are not conjunctive.

"But the complicated external conditions under which we live, as well as the
presuambly even more complex conditions of our own individual psychic
disposition, frequently favour the one mechanism and restrict and hinder the other; whereby
a predominance of one mechanism naturally arises. If this condition becomes in any
way chronic, a type is produced, namely an habitual attitude, in which the one attitude
permanently predominates; not, of course, that the other can ever be completely
surpressed, inasmuch as it also is an integral factor in psychic activity. . . ."

Neither of the two semicolons in that quotation (before "whereby" and "not" respectively)
seems conjunctive to me.

> > I maintain that a "supercomma," as someone here calls it, is needed in contexts
> > like this (at least if one doesn't wish to resort to parentheses, and parentheses
> > are not an available solution to all the forms in which the problem has been seen
> > to arise in this thread). It is possible to say sentences like that. They don't sound
> > bad. They are perfectly grammatical. Why shouldn't it be possible to write them? (!!!)
> I don't care what you "maintain." English is not written that way in any
> century since the writing of English has become standardized. Those
> sentences are written with commas, and anyone who knows the language
> knows how to read them.

You mean, anybody who knows the language can, with context, puzzle through them
and piece together the intended meaning regardless of the obfuscating punctuation.

>
> If you have to "read it in a book," even Garner's waste of pages in the
> recent Chicago Manual of Style editions might tell you how a supposed
> "authority on usage" puts it. Otherwise, the normal part of the CMS
> might cover it, but it might not, because no one would even think of
> making such a mistake.

No one would ever think of making such an obviously intelligent punctuational decision?

Le lundi 13 juin 2022 à 22:32:33 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> On Monday, June 13, 2022 at 12:33:05 PM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> > Le lundi 13 juin 2022 à 17:07:11 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> > > On Monday, June 13, 2022 at 1:21:15 AM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> > > > Le dimanche 12 juin 2022 à 22:31:00 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
>
> > French makes no distinction in general between whether
> > "when" introduces an apposition or a subordinate clause,
> > and uses the future in both cases.
> Please stop misusing the term "appositive."
> > > > > It does sound foreign. But you're never going
> > > > > to stop pretending that English is French.
> > > > Examples of native English-speakers using it are plentiful,
> > > > e.g.
> > > > ----
> > > > First of all, I finished up a project I am super excited about! It is my first
> > > > submission to a magazine! McCall's Quick Quilts! Check back in June,
> > > > when I will be able to share this one in full!
> > > Not remotely the same thing. That corresponds to the _second_
> > > "will" in your example, not the first one, which is the one in question.
> >
> > Not at all:
> "Not at all" what?

It's not at all different from the "will" in the other sentence.

> > |Although we can't join you Sunday morning, [which is the day] when
> > |we *will* have church, we will be sure to come and visit.
> > |Check back in June, [which is the month] when I *will be* able
> > |to share this on in full!
> Well, sure, if you're going to invent words that are not in the
> sentence, you can come up with whatever you want.
> > My claim is that the future can (or maybe must?) be used when
> > "when" introduces an apposition, as is the case in the two
> > sentences above.
> In French, maybe. Not in English. You invented ungrammatical
> insertions above.
> > > > https://in.pinterest.com/pin/71002131606063838/
> > > > ---
> > > > or
> > > > --
> > > > Hello, my name is Jodie. I'm 16 and looking for babysitting jobs throughout
> > > > all of my summer holiday, ending in September, when I will be starting my
> > > > A-Level Coursework.
> > > Ditto.
> > Indeed.
> > > > https://yoopies.co.uk/nanny/colchester/babysitter-experience/4501696
> > > > ---
> > > > (Whether it's grammatical is unclear to me, though.)
> > > > > I wonder why you chose to revert to the original message from last
> > > > > year,
> > > > Because the point I made was apparently new in the discussion and
> > > > therefore only belonged there.
> > > Half a year late.
> >
> > Better late than never. Precisely, that crucial point had been overlooked
> > all the while.
> Better never, since whatever you think your point is has nothing
> to do with English.

The two examples I gave prove otherwise.

> > > > > but no, in order to get his interpretation (b), he should simply
> > > > > omit the second comma.

The sentence would then be:

(3) Although we can't join you Sunday morning, when we have church
we will be sure to come and visit.

> > > > I'm sure he knew that, but the sentence reads awkwardly without
> > > > it.
> > > No. Maybe in French.
> >
> > No possible English-French distinction here as the syntaxes are
> > identical. The impression the presence or absence of the comma
> > makes on the reader is purely subjective in the two languages.
> Obviously they are not "identical," since your interpolations above
> are ungrammatical.

? What I said is that the (uninterpolated) syntax of (3) above would
be identical in French, so that the sentence would read the same as
in English without the second comma.

> > > > > But as I said last year, it's a strange thing to say.