On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 7:23:11 AM UTC-8, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 4:28:59 PM UTC-5, 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.
> >
> > Thank you. : )
> Neither conforms to standard usage, and both will cause your reader
> to stop and try to figure out what was intended when the mistake was
> typed..

I have just come upon an actual instance in the wild of my pet semicolon!
It is contained in a consent form I have needed to read through at the hospital.
I'll quote the relevant sentence together with the sentence that comes
before it, for the sake of context:

"By signing this consent, you are agreeing to donate umbilical cord blood and
umbilical cord for the advancement of medical science, now and possibly in the future.
If you choose to participate; after your baby is born, and the umbilical cord is no longer
attached to you or your baby, trained staff will draw the umbilical cord blood."

Whoever wrote those sentences surely used the semicolon so that "after your baby is
born" would not be parsed in relationship to "choose to participate." Rather, the sentence is
a rearrangement of: "If you choose to participate, trained staff will draw the umbilical cord
blood after your baby is born and the umbilical cord is no longer attached to you or your baby."

>
> Many "stylists" complain that semicolons are use far too frequently
> as it is.
>
> You can fix your "ambiguity" by rearranging the clauses.
>
> But the second interpretation seems like quite a strange thing to say.

On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 2:35:02 PM UTC-4, Metrist2021 wrote:
> On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 7:23:11 AM UTC-8, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 4:28:59 PM UTC-5, 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.
> > > Thank you. : )
> > Neither conforms to standard usage, and both will cause your reader
> > to stop and try to figure out what was intended when the mistake was
> > typed..
>
> I have just come upon an actual instance in the wild of my pet semicolon!
> It is contained in a consent form I have needed to read through at the hospital.
> I'll quote the relevant sentence together with the sentence that comes
> before it, for the sake of context:

I noted in some other thread recently (but I assume you only look at your own
threads) that Edith Wharton, writing almost exactly a century ago, very occasionally
uses what seems to be a Metrist semicolon.

> "By signing this consent, you are agreeing to donate umbilical cord blood and
> umbilical cord for the advancement of medical science, now and possibly in the future.
> If you choose to participate; after your baby is born, and the umbilical cord is no longer
> attached to you or your baby, trained staff will draw the umbilical cord blood."

That semicolon doesn't make sense! Maybe a typo for a colon.

Anyway, congratulations!

> Whoever wrote those sentences surely used the semicolon so that "after your baby is
> born" would not be parsed in relationship to "choose to participate." Rather, the sentence is
> a rearrangement of: "If you choose to participate, trained staff will draw the umbilical cord
> blood after your baby is born and the umbilical cord is no longer attached to you or your baby."

That seems to be different from what the original says. The original
gives me the impression that the ideal circumstance for harvesting
the blood is while the cord is still attached, but they _can_ do it a few
minutes later. And presumably either way requires consent!

> > Many "stylists" complain that semicolons are use far too frequently
> > as it is.
> > You can fix your "ambiguity" by rearranging the clauses.
> > But the second interpretation seems like quite a strange thing to say.

Le lundi 14 août 2023 à 21:56:22 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 2:35:02 PM UTC-4, Metrist2021 wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 7:23:11 AM UTC-8, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 4:28:59 PM UTC-5, 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.
> > > > Thank you. : )
> > > Neither conforms to standard usage, and both will cause your reader
> > > to stop and try to figure out what was intended when the mistake was
> > > typed..
> >
> > I have just come upon an actual instance in the wild of my pet semicolon!
> > It is contained in a consent form I have needed to read through at the hospital.
> > I'll quote the relevant sentence together with the sentence that comes
> > before it, for the sake of context:
> I noted in some other thread recently (but I assume you only look at your own
> threads) that Edith Wharton, writing almost exactly a century ago, very occasionally
> uses what seems to be a Metrist semicolon.
> > "By signing this consent, you are agreeing to donate umbilical cord blood and
> > umbilical cord for the advancement of medical science, now and possibly in the future.
> > If you choose to participate; after your baby is born, and the umbilical cord is no longer
> > attached to you or your baby, trained staff will draw the umbilical cord blood."
> That semicolon doesn't make sense! Maybe a typo for a colon.
>
> Anyway, congratulations!
> > Whoever wrote those sentences surely used the semicolon so that "after your baby is
> > born" would not be parsed in relationship to "choose to participate." Rather, the sentence is
> > a rearrangement of: "If you choose to participate, trained staff will draw the umbilical cord
> > blood after your baby is born and the umbilical cord is no longer attached to you or your baby."
> That seems to be different from what the original says. The original
> gives me the impression that the ideal circumstance for harvesting
> the blood is while the cord is still attached, but they _can_ do it a few ,
> minutes later. And presumably either way requires consent!

Not my impression at all. On the contrary, the comma separating "after the baby is born" from
"and the umbilical cord...." is intended to underline the distinct requirement of the umbilical cord
no longer being attached. The original sentence emphasizes the respective importance of
the two conditions "after your baby is born" and "and the umbilical cord is no longer attached" by
placing them before "trained staff will draw the umbilical cord blood" at the expense of style, but
the same effect could easily be obtained by replacing the 'Metrist semicolon' with a more regular
"then":

"If you choose to participate, then after your baby is born(,) and the umbilical cord is no longer
attached to you or your baby, trained staff will draw the umbilical cord blood."

> > > Many "stylists" complain that semicolons are use far too frequently
> > > as it is.
> > > You can fix your "ambiguity" by rearranging the clauses.
> > > But the second interpretation seems like quite a strange thing to say..

On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 6:04:24 PM UTC-6, Bebercito wrote:
> Le lundi 14 août 2023 à 21:56:22 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> > On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 2:35:02 PM UTC-4, Metrist2021 wrote:
....

> > > I have just come upon an actual instance in the wild of my pet semicolon!
> > > It is contained in a consent form I have needed to read through at the hospital.
> > > I'll quote the relevant sentence together with the sentence that comes
> > > before it, for the sake of context:

> > I noted in some other thread recently (but I assume you only look at your own
> > threads) that Edith Wharton, writing almost exactly a century ago, very occasionally
> > uses what seems to be a Metrist semicolon.

Piggybacking (sorry): One might also look in Tolkien.

> > > "By signing this consent, you are agreeing to donate umbilical cord blood and
> > > umbilical cord for the advancement of medical science, now and possibly in the future.
> > > If you choose to participate; after your baby is born, and the umbilical cord is no longer
> > > attached to you or your baby, trained staff will draw the umbilical cord blood."
> > That semicolon doesn't make sense! Maybe a typo for a colon.
> >
> > Anyway, congratulations!

I completely agree.

> > > Whoever wrote those sentences surely used the semicolon so that "after your baby is
> > > born" would not be parsed in relationship to "choose to participate." Rather, the sentence is
> > > a rearrangement of: "If you choose to participate, trained staff will draw the umbilical cord
> > > blood after your baby is born and the umbilical cord is no longer attached to you or your baby."
> > That seems to be different from what the original says. The original
> > gives me the impression that the ideal circumstance for harvesting
> > the blood is while the cord is still attached, but they _can_ do it a few ,
> > minutes later. And presumably either way requires consent!

> Not my impression at all. On the contrary, the comma separating "after the baby is born" from
> "and the umbilical cord...." is intended to underline the distinct requirement of the umbilical cord
> no longer being attached. The original sentence emphasizes the respective importance of
> the two conditions "after your baby is born" and "and the umbilical cord is no longer attached" by
> placing them before "trained staff will draw the umbilical cord blood" at the expense of style, but
> the same effect could easily be obtained by replacing the 'Metrist semicolon' with a more regular
> "then":
>
> "If you choose to participate, then after your baby is born(,) and the umbilical cord is no longer
> attached to you or your baby, trained staff will draw the umbilical cord blood."

I thought of the same change.

--
Jerry Friedman

On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 12:56:22 PM UTC-7, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 2:35:02 PM UTC-4, Metrist2021 wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 7:23:11 AM UTC-8, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 4:28:59 PM UTC-5, 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.
> > > > Thank you. : )
> > > Neither conforms to standard usage, and both will cause your reader
> > > to stop and try to figure out what was intended when the mistake was
> > > typed..
> >
> > I have just come upon an actual instance in the wild of my pet semicolon!
> > It is contained in a consent form I have needed to read through at the hospital.
> > I'll quote the relevant sentence together with the sentence that comes
> > before it, for the sake of context:
> I noted in some other thread recently (but I assume you only look at your own
> threads) that Edith Wharton, writing almost exactly a century ago, very occasionally
> uses what seems to be a Metrist semicolon.
> > "By signing this consent, you are agreeing to donate umbilical cord blood and
> > umbilical cord for the advancement of medical science, now and possibly in the future.
> > If you choose to participate; after your baby is born, and the umbilical cord is no longer
> > attached to you or your baby, trained staff will draw the umbilical cord blood."
> That semicolon doesn't make sense! Maybe a typo for a colon.
>
> Anyway, congratulations!

Thank you, Peter. It's funny. At first I thought you were congratulating me on
having found a real-life example of this (to your thinking, inherently bad) semicolon
usage, and then I realized you were congratulating me on the baby. :-)

> > Whoever wrote those sentences surely used the semicolon so that "after your baby is
> > born" would not be parsed in relationship to "choose to participate." Rather, the sentence is
> > a rearrangement of: "If you choose to participate, trained staff will draw the umbilical cord
> > blood after your baby is born and the umbilical cord is no longer attached to you or your baby."
> That seems to be different from what the original says. The original
> gives me the impression that the ideal circumstance for harvesting
> the blood is while the cord is still attached, but they _can_ do it a few
> minutes later. And presumably either way requires consent!

That does make sense! Consent-form wording aside, the general wisdom
seems to be that the umbilical cord should be left in for the baby's sake for
at least 2-3 minutes before being cut. The overall purpose of the consent form
was regarding donation of the placenta.

> > > Many "stylists" complain that semicolons are use far too frequently
> > > as it is.
> > > You can fix your "ambiguity" by rearranging the clauses.
> > > But the second interpretation seems like quite a strange thing to say..

On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 5:04:24 PM UTC-7, Bebercito wrote:
> Le lundi 14 août 2023 à 21:56:22 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> > On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 2:35:02 PM UTC-4, Metrist2021 wrote:
> > > On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 7:23:11 AM UTC-8, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 4:28:59 PM UTC-5, 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.
> > > > > Thank you. : )
> > > > Neither conforms to standard usage, and both will cause your reader
> > > > to stop and try to figure out what was intended when the mistake was
> > > > typed..
> > >
> > > I have just come upon an actual instance in the wild of my pet semicolon!
> > > It is contained in a consent form I have needed to read through at the hospital.
> > > I'll quote the relevant sentence together with the sentence that comes
> > > before it, for the sake of context:
> > I noted in some other thread recently (but I assume you only look at your own
> > threads) that Edith Wharton, writing almost exactly a century ago, very occasionally
> > uses what seems to be a Metrist semicolon.
> > > "By signing this consent, you are agreeing to donate umbilical cord blood and
> > > umbilical cord for the advancement of medical science, now and possibly in the future.
> > > If you choose to participate; after your baby is born, and the umbilical cord is no longer
> > > attached to you or your baby, trained staff will draw the umbilical cord blood."
> > That semicolon doesn't make sense! Maybe a typo for a colon.
> >
> > Anyway, congratulations!
> > > Whoever wrote those sentences surely used the semicolon so that "after your baby is
> > > born" would not be parsed in relationship to "choose to participate." Rather, the sentence is
> > > a rearrangement of: "If you choose to participate, trained staff will draw the umbilical cord
> > > blood after your baby is born and the umbilical cord is no longer attached to you or your baby."
> > That seems to be different from what the original says. The original
> > gives me the impression that the ideal circumstance for harvesting
> > the blood is while the cord is still attached, but they _can_ do it a few ,
> > minutes later. And presumably either way requires consent!
> Not my impression at all. On the contrary, the comma separating "after the baby is born" from
> "and the umbilical cord...." is intended to underline the distinct requirement of the umbilical cord
> no longer being attached. The original sentence emphasizes the respective importance of
> the two conditions "after your baby is born" and "and the umbilical cord is no longer attached" by
> placing them before "trained staff will draw the umbilical cord blood" at the expense of style, but
> the same effect could easily be obtained by replacing the 'Metrist semicolon' with a more regular
> "then":
>
> "If you choose to participate, then after your baby is born(,) and the umbilical cord is no longer
> attached to you or your baby, trained staff will draw the umbilical cord blood."

Thank you, Bebercito. It's a pleasure to have your confirmation of my reading, and, although I
am fond of this special semicolon usage as a rare and exotic thing worth preserving, I agree that
your phrasing above, deploying "then," is a much safer solution than the semicolon.

I'd be interested to see the thread in which you made the comment about the "Metrist semicolon."
That name brought on a hearty chuckle! :-) While it is not only my own threads that I read here, I
tend not to look at many others. I generally look for grammar- or poetry-related threads.

> > > > Many "stylists" complain that semicolons are use far too frequently
> > > > as it is.
> > > > You can fix your "ambiguity" by rearranging the clauses.
> > > > But the second interpretation seems like quite a strange thing to say.

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 6:01:00 AM UTC-7, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 6:04:24 PM UTC-6, Bebercito wrote:
> > Le lundi 14 août 2023 à 21:56:22 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> > > On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 2:35:02 PM UTC-4, Metrist2021 wrote:
> ...
> > > > I have just come upon an actual instance in the wild of my pet semicolon!
> > > > It is contained in a consent form I have needed to read through at the hospital.
> > > > I'll quote the relevant sentence together with the sentence that comes
> > > > before it, for the sake of context:
>
> > > I noted in some other thread recently (but I assume you only look at your own
> > > threads) that Edith Wharton, writing almost exactly a century ago, very occasionally
> > > uses what seems to be a Metrist semicolon.
> Piggybacking (sorry): One might also look in Tolkien.

That's a great suggestion. I think I shall.

> > > > "By signing this consent, you are agreeing to donate umbilical cord blood and
> > > > umbilical cord for the advancement of medical science, now and possibly in the future.
> > > > If you choose to participate; after your baby is born, and the umbilical cord is no longer
> > > > attached to you or your baby, trained staff will draw the umbilical cord blood."
> > > That semicolon doesn't make sense! Maybe a typo for a colon.
> > >
> > > Anyway, congratulations!
> I completely agree.

Thank you, Jerry!

> > > > Whoever wrote those sentences surely used the semicolon so that "after your baby is
> > > > born" would not be parsed in relationship to "choose to participate.." Rather, the sentence is
> > > > a rearrangement of: "If you choose to participate, trained staff will draw the umbilical cord
> > > > blood after your baby is born and the umbilical cord is no longer attached to you or your baby."
> > > That seems to be different from what the original says. The original
> > > gives me the impression that the ideal circumstance for harvesting
> > > the blood is while the cord is still attached, but they _can_ do it a few ,
> > > minutes later. And presumably either way requires consent!
>
> > Not my impression at all. On the contrary, the comma separating "after the baby is born" from
> > "and the umbilical cord...." is intended to underline the distinct requirement of the umbilical cord
> > no longer being attached. The original sentence emphasizes the respective importance of
> > the two conditions "after your baby is born" and "and the umbilical cord is no longer attached" by
> > placing them before "trained staff will draw the umbilical cord blood" at the expense of style, but
> > the same effect could easily be obtained by replacing the 'Metrist semicolon' with a more regular
> > "then":
> >
> > "If you choose to participate, then after your baby is born(,) and the umbilical cord is no longer
> > attached to you or your baby, trained staff will draw the umbilical cord blood."
> I thought of the same change.

Regarding the use of "then" to set off the apodosis of a conditional from its protasis, I have long
been interested in a similar phenomenon which once occurred, but seems no longer to, with the
main clause of a sentence introduced by "(al)though." "Yet" was used. I wonder why it isn't anymore.

"Though worms distroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God." (the Bible; also Handel's "Messiah")

"And though it in the center sit, yet when the other far doth roam, it leans and harkens after it . . . ."
- John Donne, "A Valediction Forbidding Mourning

Note that my semicolon would have that as: "And though it in the center sit; when the other far doth
roam, it leans and hearkens after it" -- not that that rephrasing would preserve the meter!

>
> --
> Jerry Friedman