Commas, semicolons or none?

Serene09

Registered
Joined
Dec 2, 2013
Messages
44
Reaction score
1
Location
New York
I have two sentences that I'm pretty sure are punctuated badly. However, I refuse to change them.
Can someone help me out here?
I'm posting the sentences just as I have them now...only replacing names. Explanations will be great also. Thank you.

(1) He could see her moving; no, gliding furiously towards the door.

(2) Gerard had never seen her before, but whoever she was-- she was a younger version of his mother with darker hair.
 

Fruitbat

.
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 15, 2010
Messages
11,833
Reaction score
1,310
I think comma and period are best as a general rule. If comma or period works, use it. The reason is they're kind of like "said" vs. fancier dialogue tags, more invisible. Too much more "exotic" punctuation is annoying to read, imo. It tends to be a habit, calls attention to itself, and makes the writing look amateurish.

That said, if period or comma won't do, then it just won't. Here's my take on it:


(1) He could see her moving; no, gliding furiously towards the door.

(1) He could see her moving, no, gliding, furiously towards the door.

I'd use the default comma, because I don't see why a semi-colon works any better. I added a comma after "gliding," too. Moving is compared with gliding. Moving is not compared with gliding furiously towards the door.

(2) Gerard had never seen her before, but whoever she was-- she was a younger version of his mother with darker hair.

(2) Gerard had never seen her before. But whoever she was, she was a younger version of his mother, with darker hair.

I think of the dashes as standing for interruption, and there wasn't one here. To me, it seems to alert us that "this is really important," when I'd rather the actual content just be that and then we'll get it without being alerted, if you see what I mean. I added a comma after "mother" because a description goes back to its closest subject. That would be Gerard's mother having darker hair, which is not what's meant so it's a little confusing. The comma takes care of it, imo.
 
Last edited:

angeliz2k

never mind the shorty
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 24, 2008
Messages
3,727
Reaction score
488
Location
Commonwealth of Virginia--it's for lovers
Website
www.elizabethhuhn.com
I have two sentences that I'm pretty sure are punctuated badly. However, I refuse to change them.
Can someone help me out here?
I'm posting the sentences just as I have them now...only replacing names. Explanations will be great also. Thank you.

(1) He could see her moving; no, gliding furiously towards the door.

(2) Gerard had never seen her before, but whoever she was-- she was a younger version of his mother with darker hair.

Well there is some gray area, but the semicolon in 1 doesn't work; semicolons are for bringing together two complete sentences/independent clauses; that is how it's done.

The dashes also don't work, as they're cutting off your independent clause ("she was a younger version") from the phrase that modifies it ("whoever she was").

So:

1) He could see her moving--no, gliding--furiously toward the door.

Points: The dashes could be replaced by two commas, but I like the dashes. Also, how does one glide "furiously"?

2) Gerard had never seen her before, but whoever she was, she was a younger version of his mother with darker hair.
 

Bing Z

illiterate primate
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 3, 2008
Messages
3,787
Reaction score
998
Location
New Jersey
(1) He could see her moving; no, gliding furiously towards the door.

(2) Gerard had never seen her before, but whoever she was-- she was a younger version of his mother with darker hair.

Agree with angeliz2k.

A semicolon (other than series semicolons) basically joins two complete sentences similar in nature. It doesn't seem to fit your first example. I think you need a pair of parathetic em-dashes or commas:

(1) He could see her moving--no, gliding--furiously (furiously can be placed inside or outside the em-dashes: inside if it applies only to gliding, outside if it applies both to gliding and moving) towards the door.

Your second sentence uses an em-dash like a colon, but whatever is before that isn't complete. I'm not sure if it's legal or not but it sounds awkward. I think a humble comma works best in this situation. Now, if you want to emphasize dark hair, you can put an em-dash right before dark hair

(2) Gerard had never seen her before, but whoever she was, she was a younger version of his mother-- (optional) with darker hair.
 
Last edited:

MookyMcD

I go to eleven
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 26, 2013
Messages
1,560
Reaction score
236
Location
Boise, ID
Website
michaeljmcdonagh.wordpress.com
(1) He could see her moving; no, gliding furiously towards the door.

Semicolon definitely doesn't work, because the second clause isn't a standalone. I would just use commas on either side of "no."

(2) Gerard had never seen her before, but whoever she was-- she was a younger version of his mother with darker hair.

The tricky issue here is that "whoever she was" is an independent clause, so it needs to be set off from the "but" in addition to the "she was younger" part. That's the grammar part (as-is, use commas on either side of "whoever she was"). The style part, subjectively, makes me want to rewrite it to:

Gerald had never seen her before. Whoever she was, she was a younger version of his mother with darker hair.
 

ReflectiveAcuity

having patience...right now
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 12, 2011
Messages
281
Reaction score
45
Location
North Carolina
I found this interesting. A literary agent I follow on Twitter once tweeted (or maybe retweeted someone else) that using semicolons only makes it look like you've been to college. Personally, I try to avoid them like the plague.
 

guttersquid

I agree with Roxxsmom.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 9, 2011
Messages
1,324
Reaction score
229
Location
California, U.S.A.
(1) He could see her moving; no, gliding furiously towards the door.

He could see her moving--no, gliding-- furiously towards the door.

(2) Gerard had never seen her before, but whoever she was-- she was a younger version of his mother with darker hair.

Without a comma after "mother," "with darker hair" seems to refer to the mother. You should either include the comma or restructure the sentence.

Gerard had never seen her before, but whoever she was, she was a younger, darker-haired version of his mother.

I found this interesting. A literary agent I follow on Twitter once tweeted (or maybe retweeted someone else) that using semicolons only makes it look like you've been to college. Personally, I try to avoid them like the plague.

Heaven forbid, we wouldn't want authors to be educated.
 

Chase

It Takes All of Us to End Racism
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 13, 2008
Messages
9,239
Reaction score
2,316
Location
Oregon, USA
A literary agent I follow on Twitter once tweeted (or maybe retweeted someone else) that using semicolons only makes it look like you've been to college.

. . . or read a few good books. :D

But, yeah, Angel is spot on about the semicolon not used correctly in the first example; misunderstanding its use is probably the best reason to avoid its most plaguing element.

Angel and Mooky gave excellent alternatives.
 

Torgo

Formerly Phantom of Krankor.
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 7, 2005
Messages
7,632
Reaction score
1,204
Location
London, UK
Website
torgoblog.blogspot.com
Punctuation-wise I think the en dashes are the way to set this off, but I find the wording to be the bit that needs more thought. 'Furiously' qualifies both 'moving' and 'gliding' - she's either moving furiously or gliding furiously - and both those seem odd to me.

The construction you're using implies the narrator is discarding one verb and replacing it with a verb that is a more extreme or possibly more precisely apt version. But 'glide' doesn't feel like it has quite that relation to 'move', and in any case, 'glide' doesn't seem to go with 'furious'. I'm not sure how you would glide furiously. I could see a furious stride or a furious lunge or something, but a glide seems to be characterised more by stillness than anything else. Again, 'moving furiously' seems to leave a bit of a semantic gap - you could picture a lot of things, but you could probably pick a more precise verb and give us more of the flavour.
 

Captcha

Banned
Joined
Jan 27, 2010
Messages
4,456
Reaction score
637
I found this interesting. A literary agent I follow on Twitter once tweeted (or maybe retweeted someone else) that using semicolons only makes it look like you've been to college. Personally, I try to avoid them like the plague.

I think a well-used semicolon is a brilliant punctuation choice. There are times when two sentences are connected so closely that they just shouldn't be separated; these times call for semicolons!
 

slhuang

Inappropriately math-oriented.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 11, 2012
Messages
2,906
Reaction score
1,140
Website
www.slhuang.com
I think a well-used semicolon is a brilliant punctuation choice. There are times when two sentences are connected so closely that they just shouldn't be separated; these times call for semicolons!

I agree!

It's possible I am a semicolon addict.

But seriously, why not use all the tools in your box? Besides, I learned how to use a semicolon properly from reading, not from college. :D
 

Serene09

Registered
Joined
Dec 2, 2013
Messages
44
Reaction score
1
Location
New York
I abuse dashes and commas all the time. I just thought that a semi-colon would just fit right in and replace either. Whoops.
I think that I've got it now :)
Thanks everyone.
 

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
23,079
Reaction score
10,775
Location
Where faults collide
Website
doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
I have two sentences that I'm pretty sure are punctuated badly. However, I refuse to change them.
Can someone help me out here?
I'm posting the sentences just as I have them now...only replacing names. Explanations will be great also. Thank you.

(1) He could see her moving; no, gliding furiously towards the door.

(2) Gerard had never seen her before, but whoever she was-- she was a younger version of his mother with darker hair.

I'd write them:

(1) He could see her moving, no, gliding furiously towards the door.

(2) Gerard had never seen her before, but whoever she was, she was a younger version of his mother with darker hair.

The reason why?

Semicolons are intended to separate two independent clauses, or elements of a list when the list items themselves contain commas. These sentences are neither.

m-dashes are most often used to separate parenthetical phrases where the separation from the main sentence is greater than what one would normally denote with commas. The sentence should make sense (or be complete) without the portion set off by m-dashes (or commas or parentheses), and your second sentence would not.



Nit picky detail, I'd probably change the second sentence to read

(2) Gerard had never seen her before, but whoever this woman was, she resembled a younger, darker-haired version of his mother.

To avoid the repeats of the words she and was in the same sentence. But that might be a personal taste/voice thing, and there are lots of ways to fix that anyway.
 
Last edited:

Once!

Still confused by shoelaces
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
2,965
Reaction score
433
Location
Godalming, England
Website
www.will-once.com
I'm afraid I have such problems with the words you have chosen that I can't see how to fix the punctuation. It feels as if the punctuation in these two sentences is trying to glue together a collection of words that don't quite fit.

How does one glide furiously towards a door?

The "whoever she was" is redundant if he has never seen her before.

Does he have two mothers - one with dark hair and one without? Rxxsmom's version "a younger, darker-haired version of his mother" seems a lot tighter.

There is a lot of distancing in the first sentence. Not only did she move towards the door, but he saw her move towards the door. Not only that, but he could see her moving towards the door. Then he changes his mind and she's not moving, she's gliding. Furiously.

It's your piece and we shouldn't write it for you. But I can't help thinking that if it were me I would redraft both sentences to avoid the punctuation problems.
 

Serene09

Registered
Joined
Dec 2, 2013
Messages
44
Reaction score
1
Location
New York
I'd write them:

(1) He could see her moving, no, gliding furiously towards the door.

(2) Gerard had never seen her before, but whoever she was, she was a younger version of his mother with darker hair.

The reason why?

Semicolons are intended to separate two independent clauses, or elements of a list when the list items themselves contain commas. These sentences are neither.

m-dashes are most often used to separate parenthetical phrases where the separation from the main sentence is greater than what one would normally denote with commas. The sentence should make sense (or be complete) without the portion set off by m-dashes (or commas or parentheses), and your second sentence would not.



Nit picky detail, I'd probably change the second sentence to read

(2) Gerard had never seen her before, but whoever this woman was, she resembled a younger, darker-haired version of his mother.

To avoid the repeats of the words she and was in the same sentence. But that might be a personal taste/voice thing, and there are lots of ways to fix that anyway.

I'm afraid I have such problems with the words you have chosen that I can't see how to fix the punctuation. It feels as if the punctuation in these two sentences is trying to glue together a collection of words that don't quite fit.

How does one glide furiously towards a door?

The "whoever she was" is redundant if he has never seen her before.

Does he have two mothers - one with dark hair and one without? Rxxsmom's version "a younger, darker-haired version of his mother" seems a lot tighter.

There is a lot of distancing in the first sentence. Not only did she move towards the door, but he saw her move towards the door. Not only that, but he could see her moving towards the door. Then he changes his mind and she's not moving, she's gliding. Furiously.

It's your piece and we shouldn't write it for you. But I can't help thinking that if it were me I would redraft both sentences to avoid the punctuation problems.

Roxxsmom
You're correct. The last sentence is great when you re-write it, but that's not my voice. I felt wiggly reading it. :)

Once!

Glide was used to create an imagery, but I see how strange 'glide furiously' sounds.
My subject was looking at her through a window and could only see her upper half. Therefore, she seemed to glide when she walked towards the door...if that makes sense.

I'm considering changing the last sentence completely.
MookyMcD's suggestion was great. It broke my sentence up but kept the voice that I wanted, so I may stick with that.
 
Last edited: