![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
As usual, I read the New York Times on my morning commute to work. I was reading the article "House Bans Smoking, and Few Complain" by Anne E. Kornblut when I came across the following sentence:
Now, I suppose I could have been surprised to learn that my representative smokes, or used to smoke, cigars; but frankly, as long as he's not smoking them in my face I really don't care. What startled me, however, was the placement of the semicolon followed immediately by a parenthetical clause.
As far as I understood, this was a grammatical no-no. If the second clause is to be considered not as important as the first clause, then it should simply be placed in parentheses. On the other hand, if it is considered as important as the first clause, the semicolon is the way to go.
But then I started to wonder. Had I missed out on a brand new grammatical fad, semicolons and parentheses? Was this sentence trying to tell me something, other than the obvious? I thought I would throw that question out into the blogosphere and see if other people had run into the semicolon-parentheses combination.
Until I went to the Times website to link to this article, and found a slightly altered version of the sentence:
As you can see, the website version of the article omits the semicolon. At this point, I'm assuming that Kornblut felt that the recommendation of Frank's aides was important enough to warrant the semicolon, but that her editor disagreed. So what we got in the printed version of the paper this morning was a transitional evolutionary stage of that sentence, with the parentheses added but the semicolon not yet removed.
The moral of the story is to remove your semicolon before adding your parentheses.
Why am I obsessing over this? I have no idea.
Representative Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat who often puffed on a cigar in the lounge, refused to comment on it; (his aides recommended calling back with a more serious question).
Now, I suppose I could have been surprised to learn that my representative smokes, or used to smoke, cigars; but frankly, as long as he's not smoking them in my face I really don't care. What startled me, however, was the placement of the semicolon followed immediately by a parenthetical clause.
As far as I understood, this was a grammatical no-no. If the second clause is to be considered not as important as the first clause, then it should simply be placed in parentheses. On the other hand, if it is considered as important as the first clause, the semicolon is the way to go.
But then I started to wonder. Had I missed out on a brand new grammatical fad, semicolons and parentheses? Was this sentence trying to tell me something, other than the obvious? I thought I would throw that question out into the blogosphere and see if other people had run into the semicolon-parentheses combination.
Until I went to the Times website to link to this article, and found a slightly altered version of the sentence:
Representative Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat who often puffed on a cigar in the lounge, refused to comment on it (his aides recommended calling back with a more serious question).
As you can see, the website version of the article omits the semicolon. At this point, I'm assuming that Kornblut felt that the recommendation of Frank's aides was important enough to warrant the semicolon, but that her editor disagreed. So what we got in the printed version of the paper this morning was a transitional evolutionary stage of that sentence, with the parentheses added but the semicolon not yet removed.
The moral of the story is to remove your semicolon before adding your parentheses.
Why am I obsessing over this? I have no idea.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-11 06:40 pm (UTC)In addition to removing the semicolon, the author could have just as easily started a new sentence or even a new paragraph.
Of course as I've mentioned before, I too overuse parentheses.
Semicolons, not so much.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-11 07:13 pm (UTC)Proper grammar and punctuation should be everyone's responsibility!
no subject
Date: 2007-01-12 02:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-11 07:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-11 08:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-11 08:16 pm (UTC)Don't forget inadvertent typos. :-)
no subject
Date: 2007-01-12 02:39 am (UTC)Okay, that's just embarrasing. I'm going to go hide in my cave now. Kind of takes the steam out of my rant, huh?
no subject
Date: 2007-01-11 08:11 pm (UTC)Because punctuation matters? Because punctuation is how the reader picks up the pauses and stresses and intonations that are lost between spoken communication and the written word?
no subject
Date: 2007-01-11 08:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-11 08:15 pm (UTC)I'm not sure it is. If they had made the same mistake with the opposite ordering, the result would be even worse:
"Representative Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat who often puffed on a cigar in the lounge, refused to comment on it his aides recommended calling back with a more serious question."
I think the moral of the story is, don't get distracted in the middle of editing an article for the New York Times, because no matter what you do, it's going to look silly.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-11 08:19 pm (UTC)The way it did appear, I started to wonder if there was a new rule about punctuation I knew nothing about...
no subject
Date: 2007-01-11 08:48 pm (UTC)Parsing it into two sentences is MANDATORY (in the punctuation-is-important world, at least), unless you are using a semicolon. Once the semicolon has been removed, you have a run-on sentence. Parentheses don't prevent the run on. A sentence with parenthetical statements must still read with proper grammar; the parentheses simply allow you to break up the logical flow, but not the grammatical flow.
For example, in this sentence (which contains two parenthetical statements) you'll notice that the language is grammatically correct both with (and without) the parenthetical comments. In other words, it's like having parallel sentence-universes, in which the parenthetical stuff can be present or absent, and the sentences will still perfectly correct.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-11 10:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-11 11:02 pm (UTC)Last night, I was editing a cover letter for my mother, in which she had a double comma (to wit: "...the magazine,, and said..."). I jokingly asked if she meant it to be a really long pause.
I hate parenthesis
Date: 2007-01-12 02:45 am (UTC)