Hacker News Reader

Comment by mdp2021 | Hacker News Reader

mdp2021

I am seeing a use of the instruments that seems quite confused.

The semicolon is part of the division of the expression of thought in supersets and subsets of structural affinity: comma, semicolon, period, new paragraph. (Which also means that the semicolon has a necessary role in general: whenever the structure is best defined also using that level of affinity.)

The dash, the colon and the brackets are instead related to the modality of relation: the colon to express dependency, the dash to provide detail, the brackets to insert a note parallel to the main flow.

(Note: there is also a sub-function of the semicolon to separate list items. I did not use it in the paragraph just above as I intended to exploit the "nuclear" aspect of comma-separated list items, but that is a rhetorical option and the semicolon would have been necessary for more complex items.)

View on HN

Did you mean `full-stop' in your 2nd paragraph, or are you ascribing a double role to the colon and ignoring the full-stop?

According to Fowler (The King's English), there was a time when the difference between , ; : . was merely quantitative (which explains the name `semicolon').

Thank you! Now corrected. Informally: incredibly, one reads and re-reads, edits multiple times in a span of hours, and still leaves errors and imprecisions. Of course it was the period or "full-stop" - in reading, also as I had defined the colon differently in the next paragraph...

By the way, you made me note that 'full-stop' is British English and 'period' is American English. As some of us prefer to write in International English - "OED", or "British spelling with -ize graecisms" in international contexts, I have never considered if there is some solid orientation also about terminology - 'full-stop' vs. 'period', 'lift' vs. 'elevator'...

One advantage of `full-stop' -- apart from its being British -- is that it fits referring to the Greek semicolon as a ``half-stop''.

"UN English" generally follows British/Oxford usage, although there are a few exceptions: writing "Mr." with the full stop, "sulfur" rather than "sulphur", "1.30 pm" (not 1:30 pm or 13:30) etc.

I think it's a decent compromise. All the Zs make it look weird to British readers, and all the Us make it look weird to Americans.

https://www.un.org/dgacm/en/content/editorial-manual/punctua... ("full stop").

Writing `Mr.' is like writing `3rd.': the point in abbreviations is an ellipsis, but there is nothing after the `r' in `Mister'.

M'r?

This makes the most sense. Like Ma’am for Madam.

Well yes, it should really be Mʳ and 3ʳᵈ. The latter is still in common use, the former not so much.

Agreed. References to occurrences of M^r are welcome.

I’m not sure that time is passed.

I was in college only ten years ago, and my English professor’s key insight to punctuation is that it’s to define framing and tempo for your sentences.

That the sequence you listed is the pause count — similar to different empty spaces in music. Punctuation is just the negative space to frame your thoughts!

And perhaps a bit of tonality.

That's nice to hear: but do you often see the colon used that way?

Colon isn't a type of pause; at least, I only ever use it to introduce lists. I don't use it for timing or tonality.

This discussion makes it painfully clear to me that I over-punctuate. I mean, I knew I leant more towards elaborate sentence-construction than is fashionable; I've never liked txt-speak, and my thumbs are too fat and flabby for operating miniature virtual keyboards.

I try to write literate emails. That is also unfashionable, apparently, but I think it's considerate to the reader to use the expressive power of the language. In fact emails now seem to mostly be an alternative channel for sending txts. I think this is because of mobile apps that present the same UI for txts and emails.

So I send a carefully-considered email, with paragraphs and all that, and I get back a reply of the form "Yes! <emoticon> <emoticon>".

On semi-colons, I use them to append a clause with sentence structure (roughly subject, main verb, object) to the main part of a sentence, while keeping the two clauses together as a single "thought".

> Colon isn't a type of pause

It also is a type of vocal intention. Are you acquainted with John Cleese playing the "Hungarian gentleman with phrase book" in the Monty Python sketch? «I will not buy this record [mounting pause, then release] it is scratched». The first part is preliminary, incomplete, it requires the second, expressed as a release after the mounting premise: the sentence is pronounced as having a colon (I cannot check the exact sample right now - that is how I remember it).

You can imagine the difference if it were pronounced as a dash, as a more emotionally neutral interpretation of the sentence, not stressing the implications of "the record being scratched", could bring. With colon you make the first part an incomplete premise that depends on the second part to finally gain meaning or informational value or completeness, reaching to conclusions; with dash with the second part you provide the detail that enrich the content of the first part. As a vocal intention, the musicality of the syllables would change (e.g., in «it is scratched», high-high-low vs. low-low-high), and the pause would become more of a mid-air jump suspension. (Unfortunately I do not have other examples to provide on the spot).

There can be correspondence between natural vocal intentions and punctuation - as is understandable, since punctuation very probably mimics the communicational relations implied in the acting of speech, and both are a consequence of the organization of thought.

> the sentence is pronounced as having a colon

It sounds as if you are saying that /colon/ is a pause, because in your Cleese reference, he pronounces a /colon/. If that's what you meant, then are you not begging the question? You assume that his pause was a /colon/, and conclude that /colon/ means a pause.

No. I have precisely stated that «It [relation between sentences] also is a type of vocal intention». This was stated on the basis that if you listen to a normal, decent speaker, you can see that the musicality in language can follow semantics, precisely different relations of sentences including modalities. Different relations are implied in different rhythms and melodies. You sing colons, dashes etc. as you speak.

There is no assumption: it is an obstension. There is no conclusion: it remains an obstension. That I mentioned of Cleese's acting, is an example.

I fail to see how you could read that pseudo-logic in that post. Do not use that poor pattern as a universal key: it is not.

This is an excellent comment thank you. You put into words some of my unconscious inklings. Is there any reading you can recommend on the topic that isn’t a dry grammar manual — something akin to Strunk and White, or a good blog? If not I suppose you could write one :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com