You know what I hate? Semicolon bunglers. I would normally say, “You know who you are,” but, in fact, you don’t. Because semicolon bunglers are pretty much clueless. And dumbassed.
One thing that significantly feeds my superiority complex is my ability to use the semicolon properly. It’s an elite club. To join, you must be able to punctuate a sentence using a semicolon in a non-retarded fashion. This, unfortunately, is reflective of about 1 percent of the American population. So, yeah, I’m in the club. And if you're reading this, you most likely aren’t. I'm sorry; I know that's harsh. But I don't make up the statistics; I just report them. It’s okay; I still like you. Just don’t go trying to crash my club. Don’t be like that greasy-haired dork who thinks he can sit at the jocks’ table. People will know you're a fraud.
So, how can you know whether you’re using the semicolon correctly or incorrectly? Let’s dig into the details. First of all, know this: the semi-colon is not the Leatherman of punctuation. It can’t be used to group your dependent clauses, end your sentences, OR open your can of beans. It doesn’t work like that. It’s a very special symbol with a very special purpose. So stop bastardizing it!
Here is a real-life example of someone who has clearly not learned proper use of the semicolon. On a side note, he has also clearly not had enough oxygen during childbirth.
"I sent this information out before; if you develop any automation scripts for BUSA; you have to follow the procedure listed below; the metrics have to be captured; You need to follow the below procedure for any script that you have already running; and scripts in development."
No, I’m not joking. This email came to me a few days ago from a well-respected colleague. He should be put into an abuse program for overuse of the semicolon. Semicolons Anonymous or Retards-R-Us or something.
While this is extremely annoying, it at least demonstrates a willingness to embrace the semicolon. Many others, anticipating the tedious rigmarole of pledging to the Semicolon Sorority, simply shut down, refusing to even try using it correctly. These are the people who turn to the ellipsis in times of distress. The people who preserve the integrity of one grammatical symbol while mutilating another. You’ve surely seen it before…however, you might not have noticed. The ellipsis just sneaks in there like it’s lived there all along.
People: punctuation marks are not inter-changeable! You can”t just go, and, put ? them in strange: places *willy-nilly*@.
So, I’m sure that I’ve intrigued everyone to learn how to PROPERLY use the semicolon, and lower their "special needs status" to a respectable level. Well, lucky for you, Sunday is National Punctuation Day. For those of us in the elite Fraternal Order of Punctuation Snobs (FOPS), this day is in our honor! Thank you, Jeff Rubin!
For the rest of you, stop being so abusive to the semicolon! What did it ever do to you?
http://www.nationalpunctuationday.com/semicolon.html
14 comments:
Vic,
I am impressed with your seriously good use of the semicolon. Although, you failed to call out one particularly intriging aspect of the semicolon: whether or not to hyphenate. The dictonary offer both "semicolon" and "semi-colon" as mutually agreeable options.
Also, while I'm envious of your card carrying member status in the semicolon club, I'm concerned about your effective use of the period...as evidenced in the second paragraph of your post.
Perhaps you were hoping to effectively demonstrate the use of a run-on sentence or improper use of capitalization? ;-)
What? Preposterous!! Inconceivable!! (I'm fixing it right now).
Dear Vicki,
You have great passion for punctuation; I am impressed. Your usage of the semicolon is unparalled in our time; you are certainly the Queen of the Semicolon.
I consider myself the Punctuation Czar; you could be the Punctuation Czarina. It's just a title; there are no benefits. But a title is a title; you can market it and get more people to read your blog.
Jeff,
Wow! I feel absolutely humbled by your highness. Punctuation Czarina is a title I will honor with GREAT pride! Thank you so much for posting; it really means a lot!
Yadda, yadda, yadda...blah, blah. blah;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
I over use the ellipse; I know it; you know it; everyone knows it. I can't stop; it's a sickness; and now I love the semicolon; or maybe I'm a huge smartass; either is possible...and probable.
Itchy -- I forgive you. You entertain me no matter what abuse you bestow upon the semicolon.
Welcome Back to Corporate America.
The only thing I can add is the use of punctuation to make silly faces ;-) :-( :-O and lots of !!!!
Is there really a national punctuation day and/or is Jeff Rubin for real? Punctuation Czar and Czarina? I am so confused!
I had a spare moment; and just thought that I would come back...to gloat; about being forgiven...for; misusing punctuation; by someone that feels so...strongly; about it;
I! Love. Mis-using; Punctuation,
Funny, at a recent staff meeting, I choose the semicolon as the puncuation mark that best describes me.
I also know i can' use one worth shit.
Ronda -- it's soooooooooooo nice to be back to work. I really was missing my fix of ignoramuses; or, would it be ignorami? Nevertheless...
LC -- Yes, Jeff Rubin is real. He is the founder of National Punctuation DAy and I sent him my blog link to see if he'd read it. He did! And posted!
Itchy -- You could write a run-on sentence that was 2 paragraphs long and I'd still read your blog and genuinely like you. Though, I'm a little behind on my readings because I'M SO FREAKIN' BUSY I CAN'T STAND IT. Working and getting a master's degree at the same time SUX.
Thomas -- The semi-colon most characterizes you. Are you sure? Because I am pretty sure the semi-colon is an extraneous part of our lexicon. As in, our society would function exactly the same if we were to obliterate the semi-colon altogther. That's a pretty bold statement to make about oneself:)
Thanks for reading everyone!
Hey, Czarina,
I'm pretty darned good with punctuation myself; but leave it to lawyers and a lawbook to confuse me! I'm having a problem explaining what I believe to be the proper interpretation of a statute to a judge friend of mine. Well, there are two statutes -- "sister statutes", if you will -- that I assert were enacted by the legislature to achieve the same purpose: Hawaii Revised Statutes Sections 586-3 and 586-4. The "argument" arises out of the use in 586-3 of the semi-colon, versus the use in 586-4 of the word "or".
586-3 governs "family court orders for protection" ("OFP") and reads in part:
"A petition shall state...that: ...past acts of abuse may have occurred; threats of abuse make it probable that acts of abuse are imminent; or extreme psychological abuse or malicious property damage is imminent;and be accompanied by an affidavit stating...". 586-3 orders are granted after notice and a hearing on a petition; yet the statute clearly states that the threat of future abuse must be of IMMINENT abuse. "Imminent" means any moment now; very shortly. "Imminent" does not mean sometime in a week or two after a hearing. Hmmm...
The purpose of the domestic abuse protective order law is said to be "to prevent threatened domestic abuse..."
I read the above law to mean that in order for someone to qualify for a family court OFP or TRO, the petition must state facts that show that at least one past act of abuse may have occurred, AND that the person sought to be restrained made a viable THREAT that at least one abusive act [entailing physical injury, assault...] is IMMINENT (noting that a past act or acts cannot be imminent).
That in mind, HRS 586-4 governs family court "temporary restraining orders" (always ex parte - issued before a hearing)("TRO") and is poorly crafted, in my opinion. First, the statute fails to state what facts must appear in a petition to warrant issuance of an ex parte TRO; the law just skips from "upon petition, a judge may issue a TRO to [bla bla bla]" to "The order shall state that there is probable cause to believe that...past acts of abuse have occurred,OR that threats of abuse make it probable that..."
The rub lies in the use of the word "or", I think. 586-4 implies that the court may issue someone a TRO if the petition states EITHER that at least one past act of abuse has occurred OR there's a viable threat of imminent future abuse. That seems senseless to me: the intent of the law is to PREVENT abuse. The past cannot be prevented; only the future. Therefore, it's logical that to qualify for an order of protect to prevent future (imminent) abuse, a person's petition must necessarily show the threat of probable imminent harm. Whether a past act occurred or not is irrelevant when asking if a petitioner needs a TRO for future protection (unless a long series of past acts creates the threat that makes future abuse imminent). Again, the past can't be protected or prevented; only the future.
I assert that both 586-3 and 586-4 require a threat of imminent future abuse before an order can issue; that a petitioner saying "He's been drinking beer after work and yelling at me lot. This morning he pushed me into the wall and I tripped; I don't know what to expect next; I'm really afraid!" does NOT qualify for a TRO because there's no threat of imminent future harm stated. However, the use of the word "OR" allows a judge to issue a TRO to such a petitioner, which TRO will serve to suddenly evict the poor guy from his home...with NO THREAT SHOWN of future harm.
I say that's wrong. HRS 586-4 must have intended to use either a semi-colon or the word "and", but NOT "or"!
Thoughts? I'm taking it to the legislature for rewording to eliminate vagueness.
Post a Comment