Stage 2-e: Correct “compounds” – via the semicolon

If you’ve finished reading and considering the lesson in Stage 2-d, “Run-on or Compound,” you now understand that “not all long(ish) sentences are created equal.” (And, no, it’s not “equal-ly” there. See “adverbs” essay, under “Big-picture Concepts” / “Foundational Issues.”)

The first and, to me, foremost division of “longish sentences” simply classifies them as either ineffective (awkward, pretentious, and/or unclear) or effective (smooth flowing, enjoyable, and meaningfully clear).

I will remind you of my pointed criticism of uninformed “writing authorities” of any type, title, or motive (such as sales) who proffer the bad advice to “keep your sentences short and ‘to the point.’ “

“Keep them short” actually means . . .

Most writing “authorities” (like one I found online, presented by a retired military officer – “Attention!” – offering his “executive writing webinar” for $899), will urge you to keep your sentences short. Their watchword? “Short and to the point.”

Their rationale for advising a plain and repetitive sentence structure? “Readers aren’t smart enough to process more than the simplest text.” Some marketers, to minimize possible offense, may say “readers don’t have time” (to read anything but the barest, simplest version of anything).

That’s their marketing stance. Here’s their actual/functional stance: “Since we’re not really teaching you anything beyond the obvious and/or trivial, keep your sentences very short, and – in service to our own business needs – it will look less obvious to people around you that you really haven’t learned anything significant in our care, regardless of the cost, including your time.”

I would agree that shorter sentences, in their brevity, will likely contain relatively fewer errors in grammar and punctuation. If your main goal is to avoid errors, keeping sentences short might help. Then again, lacking knowledge and skill, writers can err noticeably, even with short sentences. Like this one.

Seen any sentence “frags” lately?

I hope you noticed the lack of a subject-predicate pair in that last sentence, just above. Yes, it’s a fragment (aka “incomplete sentence,” aka “frag”). Rock the house, Reader-student, and you can indulge in the occasional frag (or other intentional error), without credibility loss.

Write timidly and simplistically, and that “frag” counts as just one more error – among the worst, in fact. Contrary to the customary instruction, writers seeking to hide their iffy skills through short sentences don’t necessarily find much cover there. Weak writing is still weak, even with short, choppy sentences; in fact, then, it’s even weaker. Yuck. You’re better off actually learning to write. So let’s move on.

To begin our deep dive into how to correctly compose compound sentences, starting with what I call “Technique #1,” using the semicolon, here’s this lesson’s pre-quiz.

Some of these items parallel those of pre-quizzes for the prior lessons here in Stage 2. I wonder if that experience will aid you for this one.

Even if not, the text that follows this quiz surely will clear up these crucial understandings, which are necessary for any writer who aims higher than “short sentences only and always – they’re safer.” Short sentences sometimes? Fine. Always? No. Get it? I’m hoping you do.

Let’s see how you do on the pre-quiz. Take some time, and do your best. That will inform and energize the learning to come. As always, I am making these items fairly tricky, to help differentiate “close” from “there” and to set the agenda for the important and expressly practical lesson ahead. Whatever you might not get right on this quiz, you will learn all about in the text that follows.

Pre-Quiz, Stage 2-e:

Compound sentences by semicolon

Whether you aced the quiz – or bombed it – let’s move into your many interesting and varied options for correctly joining main clauses.

With this understanding mastered, you will avoid writing run-ons (simply, two MCs not properly joined) in favor of a correct compound sentence. You want correctness, of course, but you also want the benefit of composing your compound sentences for “best effect,” among your various correct options. You can do it “right” in so many ways!

That’s where understanding each option’s nuances comes in. AI can connect MCs correctly, but it can’t choose for you which of several correct options will work the best for your (!!!) desired emphasis, impact, and flow.

Another kind of “diversity”

As I hope you are noticing – and learning – I am striving to help you learn that striving for sentence variety (and achieving it, as your skill grows, so start right now!) brings many rewards not available to the unskilled and uninformed who hide their lack of confidence and knowledge behind the mantra, “short sentences only.”

Furthermore, I make the even-rarer call for some sentences of yours to show off your authorial skill in the form of an occasional sentence of sizable length, maybe even 100+ words (I’ve hit 200+ many a time), once you gain the skills.

An important “rule” for longer sentences

Sentences of 100 or even 200 words? For any doubter at this moment, I’ll add a clear-cut “condition” I set (for my students and my own writing) to oversee such epic sentences:

The reader must be able to read through the whole sentence, with never an unclear moment. Your masterpiece flows clearly, while delighting readers of even average literacy.

I think it’s great if such “everyday” readers notice, “I like this writing.” Maybe your long, cool, sentences will inspire your readers to get more adventurous in their own writing. You never know.

Let that be you, Reader-student. Dare to show your stuff.  I’ve converted more than I could ever count. Join the club! Your “simplest” readers will nonetheless understand clearly and more completely (than is possible under the law of “keep everything as brief as possible”). You will get through to even the butter knives, while gaining major status from the razor blades treated to your writing.

As I emphasized in the prior lesson (in Stage 2-d), nobody wants to wade (or stumble) through a long, cluttered, and unclear sentence. Neither do many readers appreciate the choppy and bumpy ride of exclusively short sentences.

But a longish (or just plain long!) sentence that flows with both style and clarity? When well placed in the mix, that sentence can win the day. Especially to those who prize diversity, I say, wonderful! Just don’t, in this important way, neglect your own sentences!

So let’s explore your options for joining two sentences into one.

Many “legal” techniques –

some “purposeful,” some “accidental”

How best to connect your two main clauses (or more than two – there’s no set limit!) to avoid run-ons but also to aid clarity and flow? That depends on which option, of many, that you, as author, decide works and sounds the best. Of course, it helps a lot if you’re making your choice from a mastery of your various options. We’re working on that right now.

When I teach these options, as I have done voluminously for over 30 years, I like to break these grammatically “legal” options into two categories that help me explain the many different techniques writers can use for connecting main clauses in a compound sentence.

I label these two categories 1) purposeful versus 2) accidental.

Purposeful techniques for properly joining main clauses (along with the constant possibility of simply presenting these two MCs as their own, separate sentences) include just two main grammatical options, as we will next see in detail (here and in the next lesson, 2f).

These two techniques are intended expressly for the very purpose of joining MCs in a compound sentence, hence I call them “purposeful.”

In contrast, “accidental” techniques can join multiple MCs in a single sentence. However, if they do so, it is “by accident,” as I say.  That is, these punctuation uses are not primarily aimed at this duty, but at some other grammatical function. It just happens “by accident,” that these techniques may include MCs on both sides of them.

To reiterate, these “accidental” techniques (also examined in the following lesson) do not require the writer to use MCs on both sides. However, these accidental techniques remain grammatically legal even if the two parts being connected happen to qualify as MCs.

My “activated” writing system – focused as it is on main clauses (what goes in them and what goes with them) – actually illuminates this need for the two categories (of “legal” ways to connect main clauses”).

So let’s dig in, here in Stage 2-e, with my first “purposeful” method of legally joining MCs into a correct compound sentence: using a semicolon. That’s its main job!

Not for “a longer pause” (comma lesson here)

Allow me to share the little quip I often offered to my students at this very moment of the semester. I’d say that many under-informed writers misunderstand the comma as something that can be plunked wherever the writer “desires a pause.” Commas, they think, are “for a pause.” And semicolons? Those are for . . . drumroll . . . “a longer pause“ (rimshot on the snare).

No, you can’t just plunk a comma any old place where you think a pause would help. It’s true, commas do tend to cause the reader to pause, but so do many other writing techniques, such as using a dash – as this very sentence shows.

In grammatical actuality, commas have several specific and proper (sometimes optional) possible uses in sentences, but you can’t just plunk them any old place. In fact, in some grammatical spots (such as precisely where the subject meets the predicate), commas are generally prohibited.

Quickly, I’ll show that little comma lesson for you. Call it a freebie! Oh, that’s right. The whole site is free . . . for now! That could change. Study this while you can for free!

Few writers would ever insert that prohibited comma (where S “touches” P) in a short, simple sentence. Who would write, “The dog, barked”? Nobody.

But sometimes more complex sentences tempt us in this way, especially with complex subjects, like this (complete subject in italics): Seeing a barking dog leashed on a short chain, sounding lonely, scared, or angry , makes me want to bite the owner.

That comma can’t go there – at least not by itself. So here’s my personal Up-Wordz custom fix: right where you wanted that pause, but can’t use a comma, insert a brief phrase, which you can properly enclose in commas. Then, you get not only a pause there, as you wanted, you also added some clarity, like this:

Seeing a barking dog leashed on a short chain, sounding lonely, scared, or angry, which happened just today, makes me want to bite the owner.

We’ll go deeper into that technique in a separate lesson (on “inserting things”). Right now, we are demystifying the semicolon ; let’s move forward ;  there’s more to learn about them.

(Note, I am putting spaces right before many semicolons in this lesson (Stage 2-e) only to make them more noticeable, as examples. Normally, you would not put a space before the semicolon, nor show it in bold!)

Forming compound sentences –

Purposeful Technique #1:

Using a semicolon (;)

Ohhh, so that’s why God invented the semicolon!

Okay, maybe it wasn’t God’s work, but somebody had to do it, else the world would totally lack a punctuation mark that few English speakers truly understand!

I congratulate you, Reader-student ; now, you do understand the semicolon! Aren’t you glad? I am. I love that you now can name the actual, honest-to-God function and purpose of that often-confusing little mark.

Now, don’t go around saying you already understood semicolons, unless you were prepared to explain them pretty much like this: Semicolons link (with or without conjunctive adverbs) multiple main (aka “independent”) clauses in a compound sentence.

Try it both ways ; then decide

Let’s look at one more example of two MCs that, by definition, could stand alone “just fine” as separate sentences. Then we’ll compare them to how they could sound if joined into one compound sentence, using a semicolon as the connector.

Version 1: Let’s plan for a grand celebration. Your time to shine has come.

Not too many people would mind reading that warm message in two separate sentences. But maybe you can feel a litle more heart in the compound sentence version:

Version 2: Let’s plan for a grand celebration; your time to shine has come.

It’s a subtle difference, but I’ll bet you can hear it – maybe even feel it. Plus, and importantly, the semicolon “dresses up” that extra–nice sentence. It’s like using your best wrapping paper for a special gift. Especially if you rarely use the semicolon, it stands out when you do.

Problem is, you need the confidence to know you’re using it correctly. That’s what you‘re gaining, quite securely, right now, Reader-student.

Not to scare anyone from this, but those who do understand the rules can find minor amusement in seeing semicolons used in the wrong places. “You meant to distinguish yourself, but you did it in the wrong direction!”

Think, again, about our two MCs, about planning a celebration. I ask you, which way works best? That’s up to the writer. Clearly, they both work.

I just want you to have options – and actual, practical  means for diversity in your writing. Speaking of sentence “twists,” here’s another.

Follow your semicolon with a

“conjunctive adverb” (CA)?

We have learned that you can “legally” form and present a compound sentence whenever you believe that the two MCs work great together (!) to advance your reader the “next step” (in this case, a “two-part” step) along the path of your ideas.

Usually, you will do this because you think that keeping the two MCs together helps show their “synergy” – the MCs are stronger together than separate.

Well, when you “marry” two MCs in a compound sentence, you might consider including a well-chosen conjunctive adverb to can help clarify just how (and why) the two MCs belong together. 

Before moving into the details of conjunctive adverb selection and use, let’s take a quick, skeletal look at the basic form, for the compound sentence that uses a semicolon-plus-conjunctive adverb.

Below, I’ll show you a very simple (and well known!) example of this “construction.” Below that, I’ll “parse” out its essential components. If you’re viewing this on a super-skinny phone screen, the alignment of the parsing might get screwed up. The wider your screen, the more reliable the layout:

—————-

I think; therefore, I am.

I think  |    ;   |   therefore   ,      |   I am.

MC  |  semicolon |  CA  |  comma |  MC.

—————–

I’ll bet you’ve at least heard the historic line somewhere. If you’re a fan of philosophy, maybe you even know its author, Rene Descartes. His ultra-logical and systematic ways of “knowing” have fallen out of fashion in these times of “anything goes/nothing is real/welcome to my ‘alternative truth’ ” (some would generalize our philosophic era as “post-modern“).

Nowadays, it’s (to me, laughably) an intellectual sin to think you know something for a fact. Call me old school. I like Descartes! Back to his “First Principle”:

That proper order of our current sentence construction under review appears above as main clause / semicolon / conjunctive adverb / comma / main clause.

There – now you “know, for sure.” (Descartes likes it!) That’s the easy part. We’ve raked main clauses over the coals in numerous ways ; now, let’s add this lesson to our growing mastery of these essential building blocks.

Which CA to choose? (among many!)

Compare the following conjunctive adverbs, shown below, and you’ll see why you must take care in selecting the “just the right” CA, (a skill you’ll soon need, also, in selecting from the seven available co-ordinating conjunctions, in the next lesson).

“She patiently waited ; therefore, the train never came” (versus) “She patiently waited ; however, the train never came.”

It’s pretty obvious which of these two “options” you’d use (of course, the “however“), but sometimes the choice takes more thought. Here’s a subtler distinction:

“She patiently waited ; unsurprisingly, the train arrived” (versus) “She patiently waited ; eventually, the train arrived” (versus) She patiently waited ; as expected, the train arrived.”

Hmmm. Which one works “just right”? That would be up to you, the writer. I just want to make sure you understand your options.

A partial list of “conjunctive adverbs” (CAs)

Here are some examples of these conjunctive adverbs, divided into categories of relationships (between the two MCs in the compound sentence) that they help to connect and clarify.

     Timing/sequence: Earlier, before that, meanwhile, simultaneously, later, thereafter, gradually, afterward, finally, lastly, next, subsequently, then

     Inclusion/affirmation: additionally, also, furthermore, moreover, plus, perhaps, for example, certainly, clearly, obviously, of course

Comparison/contrast: likewise, similarly, equally important, however, unexpectedly, contrastingly, on the other hand, surprisingly

Causality: therefore, thus, hence, accordingly, in effect, consequently, duly

Have you memorized the list of CAs?

Of course, you need not attempt to memorize those category names and the conjunctive adverbs that fill them. You knew most, if not all, of these CAs, already, whether or not knowing their grammatical function — as you do now understand! We are getting somewhere! I love when that happens.

If you want, you can search online and find many such lists, in many forms. None will call itself “exhaustive.” At least I’ve never seen that. How could there be an exhaustive (aka complete) list? We can invent new CAs at any time! As long as we know how they work, we can make up our own CAs, like this:

I took a chance on the “Chef’s surprise”; to the chef’s actual “surprise,” I kept it down!”

Now, there’s a CA not on any existing list — until now, so add it to mine! I am practicing what I preach, Reader-student. You can do it, too. Say it as only you could, would, and did!

You get the point. The thoughtful writer (you!) can choose from an endless supply of words and phrases, to help illuminate the relationship between the two MCs you have deemed worthy of “marriage.”

Hmmm. You now have a bunch of new things to think about as you write. Great. Now, your sentences truly can start showing more “diversity!”

Grammatically risqué: the “naked” semicolon!

Following a semicolon with a well chosen CA (from the list above or one you invent) is never wrong, but it’s not a grammatical necessity when using the semicolon.

Some compound sentences work even better (and demonstrate more skill, if you were wanting to show off — and I don’t mind that) with a “naked” semicolon (just made up this term!) – that is, without the typical CA “looking proper,” right after the semicolon. The compound sentence drops the CA and “dares to go bare.”

In our shorthand, we just leave out the CA (and the comma that would follow it) and show this construction as MC; MC. Toward the start of thie essay, I showed you a couple of examples (semicolon use without the typical CA immediately following (preceding the next MC).

I think this construction — MC; MC — since I’ve found it much less common than the typical one — MC; CA, MC —  deserves its own name, namely the naked semicolon!

To play it safe or go commando?

It’s that simple; now you know. Actually, now it’s a bit more complicated; enlightened, you now see yet another “writer’s choice” to make; you might use a CA after your semicolon; on the other hand, you might strip the CA and “go commando.”

You make the call; you’re the author! But which way to go, with any given compound sentence you’re creating, using the semicolon? I’ve suggested that the job of the CA is to clsrify the relationship between the two MCs you decided would work best as one compound sentence (though, by definitinon, each could have “stood alone”).

If you think this relationship between the MCs will be obvious to your reader, the CA becomes less important. If you want your voice to feature brevity, here’s a good place to show it: omit the (probably) “obvious” CA. Compare these two very simple examples:

1) It’s raining;  therefore,  bring your  umbella.

2) It’s raining; bring your umbrella.

As you can easily see, we skipped the (usually used but not required!) CA in the second example, which both streamlines the sentence (for brevity) and adds what I have often, in class, called “punch.”

If you have read this section with care, you will now understand the little guideline I have taught often. Prior to reading this material, the following advice would likely have made little or sense. Now you can understand it:

Include the CA for clarity and smoothness; strip the CA for brevity and punch.

Nudity encouraged — where appropriate!

Now you have a “weighing mechanism” for deciding whether to “typically” use a CA with your semicolon, assuming you want to join two MCs into one compound sentence — maybe for clarity (they are both clearer together!), maybe for variety (you’re “due” for a longer sentence in the flow of things), or maybe for style (you want to show off that you not only can use the semicolon correctly, you can use it creatively).

But bear in mind that most writers — if they use semicolons at all — will go with the customary, typical (and, most of all, safe!), construction. They lack the depth of understanding that you are now gaining. I say, “at least they’re trying.”

In the name of presumed decency, this present sentence your reading shows the semicolon “fully clothed,” with a conjunctive adverb ; surely, you now understand this typical construction. One more time, we can show it in shorthand: MC ; CA , MC.

Indeed, that sentence portrays the commonplace “decency”of using the CA (in this case,”surely“) after the semicolon, aiming to clarify the relationship between the two MCs. My chosen CA even adds a touch of style, since not a super-common one (especially not one of the two most commmon, however and therefore).

Now compare that (more typical) construction to the “naked” semicolon usage (less-common, hence more special), which I say also adds punch, as I will illustrate, below, in a new (to our discussion) variation. This is fun, don’t you agree? (Lie if you have to.)

1) I know that you are getting this; I hope this new knowledge increases your confidence as a writer (and as a person).

2) I know you are getting this; when will you try it out in your own writing?

Introducing, the “hybrid compound“!

So now I’ve given a sassy little name to a semicolon with its customary CA “stripped off”: the naked semicolon. While I’m on a roll, here’s another term for a special way to join MCs into a compound sentence, which you can see, just above in example #2. I have named it (don’t forget to spell my name right on the royalty check) the hybrid compound.

To explain, I first must acknowledge that some grammar guides include mention of a sentence construction called the “compound interrogative.” Darn it! I thought I’d invented the term, but a quick internet search (as I frequently conduct, while writing for you — remember, per its own essay on this site, I advise you to “Google while you write”) showed that some damned grammarian has beaten me to it.

If you recall from way back in Stage 1, the “interrogative” sentence type (compare to declarative, imperative, or exclamatory)  simply “asks a question”; that is, it “interrogates.” Since you now understand the “compound sentence” as including more than one main clause (usually two, but there’s no limit!), I’ll bet you can now deduce the meaning of the term “compound interrogative.”

Right! Thank you for saving me the time of making up a quiz. We can skip that, because I just know that you thought to yourself, “a compound interrogative must ask two (or more) questions, each in MC form (thusly, each could have stood as its own sentence). You’re so smart!

Do I know how to attract the best reader-students, or do I? Ha! There’s your example! Do you see it? Please say that you do.

But, dang-blast it, you could have learned about the compound interrogative on a few other websites — not that you (or anyone, besides maybe me) would likely inquire into the matter, by self-presumed name!

Indeed, the same person (yours truly) who might dream up the term “compound interrogative” (only to find out it’s already been invented, boo hoo), might also conceive of a term for a “hybrid compound sentence” — combining one MC, a statement (declarative), with another, a question (interrogative).

I just looked it up. Not even AI, in all its glory, can find prior mention of the “hybrid compound sentence”! I did encounter, while searching, the term hybrid compound, but that refers to just one compound word made up of parts from two languages, like speedometer (speed, from English, –o–meter, from Greek).

Just for you, I hereby declare the new sentence type: the hybrid compound sentence; aren’t you proud?

Perhaps you are secretly wondering, “Who effin’ cares?” Well, I do, and, to paraphrase one of my heroes, as a writer and even more so as a human being, Gil Scott-Heron, “. . . and if we can get you, we got everybody! It’s you and I. When you think about it, that’s everybody! Well think a little more. You’ll come around!

Reader-student, kidding aside, I doubt that understanding this new term for a type of sentence, itself, will change your world a whole lot — a little, maybe.

But (assuming you are reading, reflecting, and learning all this) the sheer ability you’re now acquiring, to understand one dang word of this essay, will, indeed, sooner than later, come to rock your world, as this understanding enables you, as a writer (and speaker, and listener) to better rock our world, with “what only you could say, as only you could say it.” This is all starting to make sense; I know it. Now, you are on a roll!

Another new twist: the “suspended CA”

Note: I’m editing/inserting this quick section, below, because, in personal writing today, I chanced upon an unusual (to my eyes) usage, or “construction” of semicolon and conjunctive adverb. I think it needs a name, so I gave it one.

Before I present this (for-now-anyway) name, allow me to restate — and this time emphasize — that many decent writers understand and use (usually correctly) semicolons in what I call the “typical construction of semicolon use.”  In our shorthand, know this construction as MC; CA, MC — for example, I think  ;  therefore,   I am.

That’s how I commonly encounter semicolons — with therefore or however very common as the CA of choice: “This; however, that” or “This; therefore, that.” I’ve seen it a million times  ; therefore,  it bores me more than impresses me — just shooting you straight.

This “typical construction” for semicolon use does show up a lot  ; hence,  I call it typical. Notice how that prior sentence provides yet another example — this time using “hence” as my CA. At least I avoided those two super-common  CAs, therefore and however.

Since readers run across this construction a lot, it naturally “spreads around.” It’s correct and useful, but I would not call it very special. In fact, to my eyes, it sometimes looks cliche. You’re not going to read that elsewhere, Reader-student. That’s why you need me!

I liken it (especially when leaning on the CA however or therefore) to a clip-on tie. It’s not high fashion, but the wearer at least shows some respect for the “requirement of a tie,” at some event. “I can’t tie a tie  ; however,  this clip-on might just suffice.” So that’s what I’m calling the typical semicolon usage.

You can “show off” a bit, yes, by correctly (if typically) using a semicolon, and that’s a pretty safe way to use it correctly — as long as the required main clauses appear on both sides of the CA (making your sentence a correct compound sentence). In some corners, even the typical usage might win you a couple credibility points.

Conversely, to use the semicolon+CA+comma (as in,      ; therefore,   but not show MCs on both sides shows the sad situation of “In a failed attempt to show off, I, instead, showed that I really don’t know what I’m doing and am in over my head with my sentence structure/punctuation.” Bottom line here, if/when you use the typical trio of    ; CA,   be sure that you have MCs on both sides.

My new twist (along with the already-discussed “naked semicolon” calls for “suspending” the CA for a few words, “inserting” it within the MC that followed the naked semicolon. See? I’m just showing you alternatives to the typical way of using semicolons. I’ve proposed and explained the “naked” option; please allow me, now, to present what I’ve named the “suspended conjunctive adverb (CA).”

By this term, I refer to the use of the inclusion of a CA, but not in its typical place, right after the semicolon. Instead, you “suspend” it for relocation within the MC that follows your “naked” semicolon. How cool is that? Pretty cool, I say.

Here’s a fun (for me, anyway!) example, showing this “construction” several times in the one “extra-compound” sentence. (Just made up that term, too. Don’t forget to duly cite me, if you ever use it!)

I’ll keep this brief; your real benefit, honestly, does not arise from knowing these terms or even the special cases they stand for; the benefit, in actual use, lies in being able to understand what I’m talking about; you, consequently, can think about your own writing, sentence by sentence [notice, I just snuck in two “suspended CAs!], in radically new ways; go forth, since now you can, and strut your stuff!

Looking pretty

As you have just learned . . . (another drumroll, please) . . .

Following a semicolon used for joining main clauses in a compound sentence, the addition of a “conjunctive adverb” (CA) is typical, but always optional.

Reader-student, feel free to spread the word everywhere you go. People are dying to know! Just look at that guy in front of you in line at the Piggly-Wiggly. He’s beside himself, just wondering, “those damned (this guy cusses,the vulgarian!) conjunctive adverbs! When will someone explain them to me?”

I jest, but if you are paying attention, at least you can now fully understand that technical statement above ; thusly and henceforth, you’ve now ascended into some pretty elite company. I said “pretty elite,” not necessarily pretty. Just look at that grimy dude in front of you! You can’t clean him up, but you can clear him up — on the semicolon!

You, on the other hard? The Venus de Milo never looked so beautiful! (Then again, she’s missing an arm.) Still pretty cute! (As I like to say, “nobody’s prefect”!) Anyway you chop it up, Reader-student, you are off to a great start! Yes, you’re looking pretty.

I did promise some results – and soon. I’ve seen it happen innumerable times ; please, let’s keep it going; we are truly getting somewhere. (Ooh, a triple!)

A philosophical “aside” about grammar terms

Of course, in reality, very few people in line with you at the Piggly (where, indeed, I have been known to bring up the subject) have even heard of the “conjunctive adverb,” nor, as I have discovered, do they necessarily want to. (Some do. You’d be amazed!) Even in their ignorance, the others seem to be managing just fine. Imagine that! It boggles the mind (not really).

Indeed, knowing specific grammatical terms (of things that some writers, maybe you!) already do naturally and correctly (!) – can help in many ways. But I would certainly call knowing such terminology “optional,” especially for excellent writers.

Sneak preview! (of a colon)

So I admit that some very-good writers may not know certain grammar terms and rules, “chapter and verse,” to be able to clearly explain their own grammatical moves ; instead, they simply observe well and emulate well : By “ear and eye,” they write just fine – maybe great.

Note the colon (:) I just used above and showed in bold for you. A semicolon would have worked fine there (with MCs on both sides) ; however, the colon is perfect there. You’ll learn more about the colon in the next lesson, 2-f.

Anyway, for those wanting to improve – to actually learn – understanding some key terms and principles of grammar usually helps immensely. That’s why I am presenting, throughout this site, a select few hand-picked grammar terms and related technicalities. To the actual growth available here, these specialized terms work like fertilizer!

No jokes! Okay, but just think them. I do it all the time. It spares hurt feelings.

Yes, we are skipping a plethora of grammar, in my “activated system.” I hope you appreciate that the terms and technicalities you”re learning here are those that I’ve found actually helpful to people who want to quickly and noticeably improve their writing.

The semicolon’s secondary purpose

Now that we have explored, in depth, the semicolon’s main purpose, I would like to complete the lesson on semicolon use by showing you that semicolons also serve, less commonly, a secondary function – apart from their primary role as MC joiners.

Namely, they help with keeping clear (and separate) multiple items in a “series” (aka a “list“), when those items, themselves, include commas or other “internal” punctuation – that is, punctuation that appears inside individual items on a list. When listed items, themselves, include commas, then using even more commas to separate them might cause confusion. So the semicolon becomes, in effect, a “master comma” between “complex items in a series.”

Check out this quick example of the semicolon’s secondary use: connecting longish or “internally” punctuated items in a series:

A successful baseball team needs four consistencies: consistent batting, including for power; consistent pitching, both starting and relief; consistent defense, including great arms in the outfield; and, most importantly, consistent use of semicolons, though I admit I’m kidding with with this last requirement for baseball teams (but it couldn’t hurt!).

See how easy? You now understand both the primary and secondary use of the semicolon. I told you we were “getting somewhere.” That proves it!

One last warning about semicolons

The typical warning here – which you might see anywhere you’re reading about “the semicolon” – calls for a watchful eye for overuse. Well, they probably would not say it that way. “A watchful eye for overuse? That’s how we might say it, if we truly love diversity.

Many sites worship, instead, similitude, so allow me to recast the warning in standard grammar-speak: “Use semicolons sparingly. They can become distracting to your meaning.” Thought I couldn’t do it, didn’tcha?

Yes, I can adopt a flat and boring tone any time I like. I just rarely like to. Some people have only that one gear. Still, despite the dry wording (which some will prefer – that is, before I get my hands on them!), that advice is generally sound. I would accept it as 80% true (hence, pretty useful).

The other 20% gets us back to “our” love (am I seducing you? Well, I’m doing my best) of authenticity and aesthetics – to me, they equal beauty. I’ll admit to this: if you use multiple semicolons on a single “page” (~300 words), you’d better use them correctly, precisely, and maybe even stylishly.

Showing off your “chops” wins you both credibility and “poetic license.” A sent. frag? In-bounds, for you, once you’ve earned that latitude.

True, a semicolon does smack of formality – maybe not tux/evening-gown formality, but nice-tie/special-earrings formality. Prudence says, “don’t overdress for the occasion.”

Then again, Prudence can be quite a, well, prude! Do you really want to look like that? Know your audience, etc., etc. But the warnings do go both ways!

Touché

“Critics” who over-warn about “distracting from your meaning” (via style!) show ignorance of what rhetoricians can mumble in their sleep (I’ve been accused): if you don’t give your reader good reasons to keep reading – even beyond the “content,” to aesthetics – they stop reading. That’s where a boring voice gets you.

Take that, critic with a stick up your butt. When your reader stops reading, it’s the end of the road. “Touché, douché.” (For best effect, make sure it rhymes! We mustn’t forget our aesthetics!)

Yes, a great reason to celebrate

By making it this far, on my site and in my system, you have necessarily learned a lot about your many sentence-creation options. Yay! Please make your choices consciously ; don’t leave them to chance. Now, you know ; moreover, now you have a new tool in your writer’s toolbox. Get it? “Got it.” Good!

Now you know a lot about your first option (as I present them, anyway) for purposefully “joining main clauses into a compound sentence.” Let’s move onto your second option, the “comma plus coordinating conjunction” aka ,+CC.

You can read all about this option — in its seven varieties! — in the final lesson (2-f) of “Stage 2 of the Zizzi Method of Activated Writing. Along with clarifying  ,+CC  , I will show you some other “accidental” techniques and also lay out some closely related “comma rules” – some of which will clear up certain right vs. wrong answers on various Pre-Quiz items you’ve seen, here in Stage 2.

So let’s wrap up thisstage of the system (with Lesson 2-f), to finish preparing for my system’s “main event,” Stage 3!