On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 1:28:59 PM UTC-8, Metrist2021 wrote:
> 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. t
>
> Thank you. : )

I just had occasion to use my pet controversial semicolon construction in a live
context, in which I did not set out with the intention to use it. I'd like to share it. : )

"Unless, as seems unlikely, the construction is somehow uniquely awful with 'do';
if the construction is grammatical in general, it can be grammatical with 'do,' too."

On Thursday, August 11, 2022 at 4:15:23 PM UTC-4, Metrist2021 wrote:

> I just had occasion to use my pet controversial semicolon construction in a live
> context, in which I did not set out with the intention to use it. I'd like to share it. : )
>
> "Unless, as seems unlikely, the construction is somehow uniquely awful with 'do';
> if the construction is grammatical in general, it can be grammatical with 'do,' too."

Lousy.

If you read that sentence aloud, the semicolon instructs your
intonation to rise at the end of its clause, and the sentence
would then be incomprehensible.

On 12/08/22 06:15, Metrist2021 wrote:

> I just had occasion to use my pet controversial semicolon
> construction in a live context, in which I did not set out with the
> intention to use it. I'd like to share it. : )
>
> "Unless, as seems unlikely, the construction is somehow uniquely
> awful with 'do'; if the construction is grammatical in general, it
> can be grammatical with 'do,' too."

My immediate reaction was that you need a period instead of a
semicolon, because it looks as if the "unless" part is referring back to
a previous sentence.

On further thought, I'm starting to suspect that you meant a comma. If
so, the sentence is so confusing that you really need to scrap the whole
thing and rephrase.

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

On 8/11/2022 8:48 PM, Peter Moylan wrote:
> Metrist2021 wrote:

>> I just had occasion to use my pet controversial semicolon
>> construction in a live context, in which I did not set out with
>> the intention to use it. I'd like to share it. : )

>> "Unless, as seems unlikely, the construction is somehow uniquely
>> awful with 'do'; if the construction is grammatical in general, it
>> can be grammatical with 'do,' too."

> My immediate reaction was that you need a period instead of a
> semicolon, because it looks as if the "unless" part is referring back
> to a previous sentence.

I agree. The part after the semicolon doesn't seem connected to the part
before it.

> On further thought, I'm starting to suspect that you meant a comma.
> If so, the sentence is so confusing that you really need to scrap the
> whole thing and rephrase.

What we need is more context.

On Friday, August 12, 2022 at 4:08:53 AM UTC-7, CDB wrote:
> On 8/11/2022 8:48 PM, Peter Moylan wrote:
> > Metrist2021 wrote:
>
> >> I just had occasion to use my pet controversial semicolon
> >> construction in a live context, in which I did not set out with
> >> the intention to use it. I'd like to share it. : )
>
> >> "Unless, as seems unlikely, the construction is somehow uniquely
> >> awful with 'do'; if the construction is grammatical in general, it
> >> can be grammatical with 'do,' too."
>
> > My immediate reaction was that you need a period instead of a
> > semicolon, because it looks as if the "unless" part is referring back
> > to a previous sentence.
> I agree. The part after the semicolon doesn't seem connected to the part
> before it.

Thanks for your feedback, Peter, Peter, and CDB. My hope, whether or not
it was realistic, was that the semicolon would clarify that the "unless"-clause
applies to the rest of the sentence. If it were a comma instead, it might be
unclear whether the "if"-clause adjoins to the main clause or to the "unless"-clause.

The intended meaning is the same as it would be if the semicolon were a
comma and the "if"-clause were moved to the end of the main clause:
"Unless, as seems unlikely, the construction is somehow uniquely aweful with
'do," the construction can be grammatical with 'do' if it is grammatical in general."

> > On further thought, I'm starting to suspect that you meant a comma.
> > If so, the sentence is so confusing that you really need to scrap the
> > whole thing and rephrase.
> What we need is more context.

On Friday, August 12, 2022 at 4:08:53 AM UTC-7, CDB wrote:
> On 8/11/2022 8:48 PM, Peter Moylan wrote:
> > Metrist2021 wrote:
>
> >> I just had occasion to use my pet controversial semicolon
> >> construction in a live context, in which I did not set out with
> >> the intention to use it. I'd like to share it. : )
>
> >> "Unless, as seems unlikely, the construction is somehow uniquely
> >> awful with 'do'; if the construction is grammatical in general, it
> >> can be grammatical with 'do,' too."
>
> > My immediate reaction was that you need a period instead of a
> > semicolon, because it looks as if the "unless" part is referring back
> > to a previous sentence.
> I agree. The part after the semicolon doesn't seem connected to the part
> before it.

Thanks for your feedback, Peter, Peter, and CDB. My hope, whether or not
it was realistic, was that the semicolon would clarify that the "unless"-clause
applies to the rest of the sentence. If it were a comma instead, it would be
unclear whether the "if"-clause adjoined to the main clause or to the "unless"-clause.

The intended meaning is the same as it would be if the semicolon were a
comma and the "if"-clause were moved to the end of the main clause:
"Unless, as seems unlikely, the construction is somehow uniquely aweful with
'do," the construction can be grammatical with 'do' if it is grammatical in general."

> > On further thought, I'm starting to suspect that you meant a comma.
> > If so, the sentence is so confusing that you really need to scrap the
> > whole thing and rephrase.
> What we need is more context.

On Friday, August 12, 2022 at 6:36:02 PM UTC-4, Metrist2021 wrote:
> On Friday, August 12, 2022 at 4:08:53 AM UTC-7, CDB wrote:
> > On 8/11/2022 8:48 PM, Peter Moylan wrote:
> > > Metrist2021 wrote:

> > >> I just had occasion to use my pet controversial semicolon
> > >> construction in a live context, in which I did not set out with
> > >> the intention to use it. I'd like to share it. : )
> > >> "Unless, as seems unlikely, the construction is somehow uniquely
> > >> awful with 'do'; if the construction is grammatical in general, it
> > >> can be grammatical with 'do,' too."
> > > My immediate reaction was that you need a period instead of a
> > > semicolon, because it looks as if the "unless" part is referring back
> > > to a previous sentence.
> > I agree. The part after the semicolon doesn't seem connected to the part
> > before it.
>
> Thanks for your feedback, Peter, Peter, and CDB. My hope, whether or not
> it was realistic, was that the semicolon would clarify that the "unless"-clause
> applies to the rest of the sentence. If it were a comma instead, it would be
> unclear whether the "if"-clause adjoined to the main clause or to the "unless"-clause.
>
> The intended meaning is the same as it would be if the semicolon were a
> comma and the "if"-clause were moved to the end of the main clause:
> "Unless, as seems unlikely, the construction is somehow uniquely aweful with
> 'do," the construction can be grammatical with 'do' if it is grammatical in general."

No. The intended meaning was perfectly clear, though a very strange
thing to intend to say.

S. Holmes: Eliminate the impossible and what remains, however
improbable, must be the truth.

> > > On further thought, I'm starting to suspect that you meant a comma.
> > > If so, the sentence is so confusing that you really need to scrap the
> > > whole thing and rephrase.
> > What we need is more context.

That might help.

But Metrist doesn't do context, any more than arthur-Navi does --
he chops two lines out of a 60-line poem or stanza and wants
an explication!

On Saturday, August 13, 2022 at 5:40:37 AM UTC-7, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Friday, August 12, 2022 at 6:36:02 PM UTC-4, Metrist2021 wrote:
> > On Friday, August 12, 2022 at 4:08:53 AM UTC-7, CDB wrote:
> > > On 8/11/2022 8:48 PM, Peter Moylan wrote:
> > > > Metrist2021 wrote:
>
> > > >> I just had occasion to use my pet controversial semicolon
> > > >> construction in a live context, in which I did not set out with
> > > >> the intention to use it. I'd like to share it. : )
> > > >> "Unless, as seems unlikely, the construction is somehow uniquely
> > > >> awful with 'do'; if the construction is grammatical in general, it
> > > >> can be grammatical with 'do,' too."
> > > > My immediate reaction was that you need a period instead of a
> > > > semicolon, because it looks as if the "unless" part is referring back
> > > > to a previous sentence.
> > > I agree. The part after the semicolon doesn't seem connected to the part
> > > before it.
> >
> > Thanks for your feedback, Peter, Peter, and CDB. My hope, whether or not
> > it was realistic, was that the semicolon would clarify that the "unless"-clause
> > applies to the rest of the sentence. If it were a comma instead, it would be
> > unclear whether the "if"-clause adjoined to the main clause or to the "unless"-clause.
> >
> > The intended meaning is the same as it would be if the semicolon were a
> > comma and the "if"-clause were moved to the end of the main clause:
> > "Unless, as seems unlikely, the construction is somehow uniquely aweful with
> > 'do," the construction can be grammatical with 'do' if it is grammatical in general."
> No. The intended meaning was perfectly clear, though a very strange
> thing to intend to say.
>
> S. Holmes: Eliminate the impossible and what remains, however
> improbable, must be the truth.
> > > > On further thought, I'm starting to suspect that you meant a comma.
> > > > If so, the sentence is so confusing that you really need to scrap the
> > > > whole thing and rephrase.
> > > What we need is more context.
> That might help.
>
> But Metrist doesn't do context, any more than arthur-Navi does --
> he chops two lines out of a 60-line poem or stanza and wants
> an explication!

Oh, I'm all for context, but I'm also for non-obese opening postings that
don't raise a bunch of side issues that distract from the main question.

If you really want to know, the context of my sentence was a debate I had
around the acceptability of "do" in a special construction with "find" -- e.g.:

- "We found the animal to have large teeth."
- "We found the product to do wonders for that community."

I maintain that examples like the second, with "do," are perfectly acceptable,
though that was not the precise example in dispute. Thus I said:

"Unless, as seems unlikely, the construction is somehow uniquely awful with
'do'; if the construction is grammatical in general, it can be grammatical with 'do,' too."

Regarding my questions about poetry, I do try to provide enough context. For example,
I will quote the entire stanza containing the line I am asking about -- but not, e.g., ALL of "Lycidas"!

On 8/12/2022 6:35 PM, Metrist2021 wrote:
> CDB wrote:
>> Peter Moylan wrote:
>>> Metrist2021 wrote:

>>>> I just had occasion to use my pet controversial semicolon
>>>> construction in a live context, in which I did not set out
>>>> with the intention to use it. I'd like to share it. : )

>>>> "Unless, as seems unlikely, the construction is somehow
>>>> uniquely awful with 'do'; if the construction is grammatical in
>>>> general, it can be grammatical with 'do,' too."

>>> My immediate reaction was that you need a period instead of a
>>> semicolon, because it looks as if the "unless" part is referring
>>> back to a previous sentence.
>> I agree. The part after the semicolon doesn't seem connected to the
>> part before it.

> Thanks for your feedback, Peter, Peter, and CDB. My hope, whether or
> not it was realistic, was that the semicolon would clarify that the
> "unless"-clause applies to the rest of the sentence. If it were a
> comma instead, it would be unclear whether the "if"-clause adjoined
> to the main clause or to the "unless"-clause.

> The intended meaning is the same as it would be if the semicolon were
> a comma and the "if"-clause were moved to the end of the main
> clause: "Unless, as seems unlikely, the construction is somehow
> uniquely aweful with 'do," the construction can be grammatical with
> 'do' if it is grammatical in general."

I think it does that; but it seems to me that a period would do the same.

>>> On further thought, I'm starting to suspect that you meant a
>>> comma. If so, the sentence is so confusing that you really need
>>> to scrap the whole thing and rephrase.

>> What we need is more context.

What I meant by that request was that more context might explain the
first, subordinate, clause, which looks imcomplete as it is.

On 8/13/2022 7:29 PM, Metrist2021 wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> Metrist2021 wrote:
>>> CDB wrote:
>>>> Peter Moylan wrote:
>>>>> Metrist2021 wrote:

>>>>>> I just had occasion to use my pet controversial semicolon
>>>>>> construction in a live context, in which I did not set out
>>>>>> with the intention to use it. I'd like to share it. : )
>>>>>> "Unless, as seems unlikely, the construction is somehow
>>>>>> uniquely awful with 'do'; if the construction is
>>>>>> grammatical in general, it can be grammatical with 'do,'
>>>>>> too."
>>>>> My immediate reaction was that you need a period instead of
>>>>> a semicolon, because it looks as if the "unless" part is
>>>>> referring back to a previous sentence.
>>>> I agree. The part after the semicolon doesn't seem connected to
>>>> the part before it.

>>> Thanks for your feedback, Peter, Peter, and CDB. My hope, whether
>>> or not it was realistic, was that the semicolon would clarify
>>> that the "unless"-clause applies to the rest of the sentence. If
>>> it were a comma instead, it would be unclear whether the
>>> "if"-clause adjoined to the main clause or to the
>>> "unless"-clause.

>>> The intended meaning is the same as it would be if the semicolon
>>> were a comma and the "if"-clause were moved to the end of the
>>> main clause: "Unless, as seems unlikely, the construction is
>>> somehow uniquely aweful with 'do," the construction can be
>>> grammatical with 'do' if it is grammatical in general."
>> No. The intended meaning was perfectly clear, though a very
>> strange thing to intend to say.

>> S. Holmes: Eliminate the impossible and what remains, however
>> improbable, must be the truth.
>>>>> On further thought, I'm starting to suspect that you meant a
>>>>> comma. If so, the sentence is so confusing that you really
>>>>> need to scrap the whole thing and rephrase.
>>>> What we need is more context.
>> That might help.

>> But Metrist doesn't do context, any more than arthur-Navi does --
>> he chops two lines out of a 60-line poem or stanza and wants an
>> explication!

> Oh, I'm all for context, but I'm also for non-obese opening postings
> that don't raise a bunch of side issues that distract from the main
> question.

> If you really want to know, the context of my sentence was a debate I
> had around the acceptability of "do" in a special construction with
> "find" -- e.g.: - "We found the animal to have large teeth." - "We
> found the product to do wonders for that community."

> I maintain that examples like the second, with "do," are perfectly
> acceptable, though that was not the precise example in dispute. Thus
> I said:

> "Unless, as seems unlikely, the construction is somehow uniquely
> awful with 'do'; if the construction is grammatical in general, it
> can be grammatical with 'do,' too."

Thank you.

> Regarding my questions about poetry, I do try to provide enough
> context. For example, I will quote the entire stanza containing the
> line I am asking about -- but not, e.g., ALL of "Lycidas"!

You do, and I thank you for that too.

On Saturday, August 13, 2022 at 7:29:13 PM UTC-4, Metrist2021 wrote:
> On Saturday, August 13, 2022 at 5:40:37 AM UTC-7, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Friday, August 12, 2022 at 6:36:02 PM UTC-4, Metrist2021 wrote:
> > > On Friday, August 12, 2022 at 4:08:53 AM UTC-7, CDB wrote:
> > > > On 8/11/2022 8:48 PM, Peter Moylan wrote:
> > > > > Metrist2021 wrote:
> > > > >> I just had occasion to use my pet controversial semicolon
> > > > >> construction in a live context, in which I did not set out with
> > > > >> the intention to use it. I'd like to share it. : )
> > > > >> "Unless, as seems unlikely, the construction is somehow uniquely
> > > > >> awful with 'do'; if the construction is grammatical in general, it
> > > > >> can be grammatical with 'do,' too."
> > > > > My immediate reaction was that you need a period instead of a
> > > > > semicolon, because it looks as if the "unless" part is referring back
> > > > > to a previous sentence.
> > > > I agree. The part after the semicolon doesn't seem connected to the part
> > > > before it.
> > > Thanks for your feedback, Peter, Peter, and CDB. My hope, whether or not
> > > it was realistic, was that the semicolon would clarify that the "unless"-clause
> > > applies to the rest of the sentence. If it were a comma instead, it would be
> > > unclear whether the "if"-clause adjoined to the main clause or to the "unless"-clause.
> > > The intended meaning is the same as it would be if the semicolon were a
> > > comma and the "if"-clause were moved to the end of the main clause:
> > > "Unless, as seems unlikely, the construction is somehow uniquely aweful with
> > > 'do," the construction can be grammatical with 'do' if it is grammatical in general."
> > No. The intended meaning was perfectly clear, though a very strange
> > thing to intend to say.
> > S. Holmes: Eliminate the impossible and what remains, however
> > improbable, must be the truth.
> > > > > On further thought, I'm starting to suspect that you meant a comma.
> > > > > If so, the sentence is so confusing that you really need to scrap the
> > > > > whole thing and rephrase.
> > > > What we need is more context.
> > That might help.
> > But Metrist doesn't do context, any more than arthur-Navi does --
> > he chops two lines out of a 60-line poem or stanza and wants
> > an explication!
>
> Oh, I'm all for context, but I'm also for non-obese opening postings that
> don't raise a bunch of side issues that distract from the main question.
>
> If you really want to know, the context of my sentence was a debate I had
> around the acceptability of "do" in a special construction with "find" -- e.g.:
>
> - "We found the animal to have large teeth."
> - "We found the product to do wonders for that community."
>
> I maintain that examples like the second, with "do," are perfectly acceptable,
> though that was not the precise example in dispute. Thus I said:

Wouldn't one say "work wonders"?

"Do" is much more common as a pro-verb in BrE than in AmE.

> "Unless, as seems unlikely, the construction is somehow uniquely awful with
> 'do'; if the construction is grammatical in general, it can be grammatical with 'do,' too."

Ah. That would better be written as two sentences, not linked
with a semicolon splice (what's that, an upgrade from a comma
splice?).

> Regarding my questions about poetry, I do try to provide enough context. For example,
> I will quote the entire stanza containing the line I am asking about -- but not, e.g., ALL of "Lycidas"!

Your two lines of Lycidas turned out to be the last two lines of
a dozens-of-lines sentence,

Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:

> On Friday, August 12, 2022 at 6:36:02 PM UTC-4, Metrist2021 wrote:
> > On Friday, August 12, 2022 at 4:08:53 AM UTC-7, CDB wrote:
> > > On 8/11/2022 8:48 PM, Peter Moylan wrote:
> > > > Metrist2021 wrote:
>
> > > >> I just had occasion to use my pet controversial semicolon
> > > >> construction in a live context, in which I did not set out with
> > > >> the intention to use it. I'd like to share it. : )
> > > >> "Unless, as seems unlikely, the construction is somehow uniquely
> > > >> awful with 'do'; if the construction is grammatical in general, it
> > > >> can be grammatical with 'do,' too."
> > > > My immediate reaction was that you need a period instead of a
> > > > semicolon, because it looks as if the "unless" part is referring back
> > > > to a previous sentence.
> > > I agree. The part after the semicolon doesn't seem connected to the part
> > > before it.
> >
> > Thanks for your feedback, Peter, Peter, and CDB. My hope, whether or not
> > it was realistic, was that the semicolon would clarify that the
> > "unless"-clause applies to the rest of the sentence. If it were a comma
> > instead, it would be unclear whether the "if"-clause adjoined to the
> > main clause or to the "unless"-clause.
> >
> > The intended meaning is the same as it would be if the semicolon were a
> > comma and the "if"-clause were moved to the end of the main clause:
> > "Unless, as seems unlikely, the construction is somehow uniquely aweful
> > with 'do," the construction can be grammatical with 'do' if it is
> > grammatical in general."
>
> No. The intended meaning was perfectly clear, though a very strange
> thing to intend to say.
>
> S. Holmes: Eliminate the impossible and what remains, however
> improbable, must be the truth.

That is one of the dumbest sayings in the canon.
It is quite impossible that Holmes ever said such a thing.
He was far too smart for that.

It must be one of those forgeries that were inserted into the canon
by Dr. Watson's literary agent. (who was an excessively stupid person)

Jan

On Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 3:34:18 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > On Friday, August 12, 2022 at 6:36:02 PM UTC-4, Metrist2021 wrote:
> > > On Friday, August 12, 2022 at 4:08:53 AM UTC-7, CDB wrote:
> > > > On 8/11/2022 8:48 PM, Peter Moylan wrote:
> > > > > Metrist2021 wrote:

> > > > >> I just had occasion to use my pet controversial semicolon
> > > > >> construction in a live context, in which I did not set out with
> > > > >> the intention to use it. I'd like to share it. : )
> > > > >> "Unless, as seems unlikely, the construction is somehow uniquely
> > > > >> awful with 'do'; if the construction is grammatical in general, it
> > > > >> can be grammatical with 'do,' too."
> > > > > My immediate reaction was that you need a period instead of a
> > > > > semicolon, because it looks as if the "unless" part is referring back
> > > > > to a previous sentence.
> > > > I agree. The part after the semicolon doesn't seem connected to the part
> > > > before it.
> > > Thanks for your feedback, Peter, Peter, and CDB. My hope, whether or not
> > > it was realistic, was that the semicolon would clarify that the
> > > "unless"-clause applies to the rest of the sentence. If it were a comma
> > > instead, it would be unclear whether the "if"-clause adjoined to the
> > > main clause or to the "unless"-clause.
> > > The intended meaning is the same as it would be if the semicolon were a
> > > comma and the "if"-clause were moved to the end of the main clause:
> > > "Unless, as seems unlikely, the construction is somehow uniquely aweful
> > > with 'do," the construction can be grammatical with 'do' if it is
> > > grammatical in general."
> > No. The intended meaning was perfectly clear, though a very strange
> > thing to intend to say.
> > S. Holmes: Eliminate the impossible and what remains, however
> > improbable, must be the truth.
>
> That is one of the dumbest sayings in the canon.
> It is quite impossible that Holmes ever said such a thing.
> He was far too smart for that.

As usual, context is all. Look it up.

There is also the difficult problem of determining what is impossible.
That aside, the saying is valid.

> It must be one of those forgeries that were inserted into the canon
> by Dr. Watson's literary agent. (who was an excessively stupid person)

Doling out the stories one at a time was quite canny.