- Joined
- Nov 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,271
- Reaction score
- 297
I know what a semicolon is for; it's to separate two independent clauses without a conjunction. But is it ever allowed to use a different punctuation in that situation? For example, my inclination was to use a colon in the first sentence - "I know what a semicolon is for: it's to separate two independent clauses without a conjunction" - because the second clause has an antecedent in the first: "what a semicolon is for".
Or is the colon only allowed when what follows is not a complete clause with a subject and a predicate? E.g. if I had said, "I know what a semicolon is for: separating two independent clauses without a conjunction."
Another situation where the rules say I should use a semicolon is when I have two clauses that contradict each other.
He didn't mean to hurt him; he just wanted to scare him a little.
But my instinct is that I could use a comma in that situation. Or maybe again I'm getting confused with a construction that doesn't use a complete clause. He just meant to scare him a little, not hurt him.
Or is the colon only allowed when what follows is not a complete clause with a subject and a predicate? E.g. if I had said, "I know what a semicolon is for: separating two independent clauses without a conjunction."
Another situation where the rules say I should use a semicolon is when I have two clauses that contradict each other.
He didn't mean to hurt him; he just wanted to scare him a little.
But my instinct is that I could use a comma in that situation. Or maybe again I'm getting confused with a construction that doesn't use a complete clause. He just meant to scare him a little, not hurt him.