Question about a semi colon

Hi, Cameron,

“Multiple media outlets have opted for ‘refugee’ when describing those fleeing the invasion, despite using ‘migrant’ in relation to people fleeing the Middle East; further complicating the often blurred distinction between the two terms.”

The semicolon is wrong, but I wouldn't like to have a comma separating the two subordinates. If you can't place the concessive in front position, then you could add "and":

“Despite using ‘migrant’ in relation to people fleeing the Middle East, multiple media outlets have opted for ‘refugee’ when describing those fleeing the invasion, further complicating the often blurred distinction between the two terms.”

or

“Multiple media outlets have opted for ‘refugee’ when describing those fleeing the invasion, despite using ‘migrant’ in relation to people fleeing the Middle East and further complicating the often blurred distinction between the two terms.”

Hi Gustavo,

Thanks so much for your helpful response!

Out of interest, why is the semi colon wrong?

Best,

Cameron

Semicolons can be used:
1. to separate elements in turn containing commas within a list;
2. to separate two or more main clauses.

"Further complicating the often blurred distinction between the two terms" does not contain a tensed verb and is therefore a subordinate, not a main clause.

Okay, wonderful, thank you. That's really helpful.

With that in mind, I take it the following two are incorrect?

1) "It is a subject that divides and unites; fostering solidarity and discord in equal measure."

2) "The language of migration is inherently complex; spanning, legal, political and societal frameworks."

Thanks!

Yes. They look definitely wrong to me. You should write a comma in both cases.

Excellent, thanks very much!

One final question if I may. With regard to my earlier point about breaking the original sentence I posted in two so that the second sentence reads 'This has further complicated the often blurred distinction between the two terms.' - what are your thoughts on this?

Would it be ungrammatical? And if grammatically correct, do you think it reads better than placing the concessive in front position?

Best,

Cameron

@Cameron Boyle posted:

With regard to my earlier point about breaking the original sentence I posted in two so that the second sentence reads 'This has further complicated the often blurred distinction between the two terms.' - what are your thoughts on this?

Would it be ungrammatical? And if grammatically correct, do you think it reads better than placing the concessive in front position?

Using a separate sentence would be perfectly grammatical. I cannot say if it is any better than the other alternative I proposed. It is a matter of preference.

Okay, great stuff. Many thanks!

@Gustavo, Co-Moderator posted:

Using a separate sentence would be perfectly grammatical. I cannot say if it is any better than the other alternative I proposed. It is a matter of preference.

Gustavo, I sincerely apologize for intruding on this thread, but I wonder if you can take a look at my post here and my comments here: https://thegrammarexchange.inf...ends-on-a-few-things.

There's no way to message you unfortunately, so I didn't know how else to reach you other than just replying right here.

Also, I wonder whether the below would be desirable regarding this thread's topic:

“Multiple media outlets have opted for ‘refugee’ when describing those fleeing the invasion, despite using ‘migrant’ in relation to people fleeing the Middle East; this usage further complicates the often blurred distinction between the two terms.”

Or you might do this:

@Cameron Boyle posted:

Is the semi-colon in the following sentence grammatically correct? Or should it be replaced by a comma?

“Multiple media outlets have opted for ‘refugee’ when describing those fleeing the invasion, despite using ‘migrant’ in relation to people fleeing the Middle East; further complicating the often blurred distinction between the two terms.”

Hi, everybody—In my official capacity here as moderator, I second Gustavo's advice regarding the semicolon in this sentence. From a conservative modern standpoint, it is incorrect. Modern convention has crippled the semicolon.

In truth, I have no problem at all with that semicolon, which I think works beautifully in the sentence in question. The semicolon functions here as a "super-comma," relating what follows it to all of what comes before it.

If the semicolon were a comma, the  "further complicating . . ." phrase would naturally be understood as a nonfinite predicate taking "using 'migrant' in relation to people fleeing the Middle East" as its implied subject.

But that would be a misunderstanding. The phrase following the semicolon takes the entirety of what comes before it as its implied subject, as illustrated in the paraphrase below:

• Multiple media outlets' having opted for 'rufugee' when describing those fleeing the invasion despite (their) using 'migrant' in relation to people fleeing the Middle East further complicates the often blurred distinction between the two terms.

Hi all,

Thanks for your further contributions to the discussion. David, I’m interested by your point about modern convention crippling the semi colon. Would you say that the semi colon I asked about in my original post (although grammatically incorrect) would be deemed acceptable from a modern point of view? In other words, are semi colons often used in those sort of contexts?

Also, if a comma used in its place would take “using ‘migrant’ in relation to people fleeing the Middle East” as its implied subject, does that mean a comma would fail to convey what I am attempting to articulate in the sentence? That is, that everything preceding the comma/semi colon is what further complicates the often blurred distinction. If so, maybe I should avoid the alternative formulation of the sentence proposed earlier?

I hope this makes sense!

Many thanks,

Cameron

@Cameron Boyle posted:

David, I’m interested by your point about modern convention crippling the semi colon. Would you say that the semi colon I asked about in my original post (although grammatically incorrect) would be deemed acceptable from a modern point of view? In other words, are semi colons often used in those sort of contexts?

Also, if a comma used in its place would take “using ‘migrant’ in relation to people fleeing the Middle East” as its implied subject, does that mean a comma would fail to convey what I am attempting to articulate in the sentence? That is, that everything preceding the comma/semi colon is what further complicates the often blurred distinction. If so, maybe I should avoid the alternative formulation of the sentence proposed earlier?

Hi, Cameron—I actually do consider the semicolon in your original sentence grammatically correct, the only problem being that many modern readers won't accept it, having been taught that semicolons are only used in the two contexts Gustavo mentioned—and, I suspect, not having been exposed to writing from earlier periods of English when the semicolon enjoyed more freedom.

The reason the semicolon is grammatically desirable in your sentence is that you say that "multiple media outlets" have done two things that have "complicated the often blurred distinction between the two terms": they have (i) "opted for 'refugee' when describing those fleeing the invasion" and (ii) used "'migrant' in relation to people fleeing the Middle East."

Because of the comma setting off the second element, there needs to be a greater separation than a comma between the second element and the participial clause ("further complicating . . ."), which might otherwise be understood as relating only to the second element. One way to fix your sentence is simply to delete the comma and change the semicolon to a comma:

• Multiple media outlets have opted for ‘refugee’ when describing those fleeing the invasion despite using ‘migrant’ in relation to people fleeing the Middle East, further complicating the often blurred distinction between the two terms.

Thank you! That’s a really helpful and insightful answer.

”Because of the comma setting off the second element, there needs to be a greater separation than a comma between the second element and the participial clause ("further complicating . . ."), which might otherwise be understood as relating only to the second element.”

With the above section of your answer in mind, does this not mean that the following sentence proposed earlier in the thread would need the greater separation that a semi colon provides?

“Despite using ‘migrant’ in relation to people fleeing the Middle East, multiple media outlets have opted for ‘refugee’ when describing those fleeing the invasion, further complicating the often blurred distinction between the two terms.”

Thanks in advance,

Cameron

One final question - in light of your point about modern convention, what are your thoughts about the semi colons in the following two examples? Totally wrong, or just incorrect from a conservative modern standpoint?

1) "It is a subject that divides and unites; fostering solidarity and discord in equal measure."

2) "The language of migration is inherently complex; spanning, legal, political and societal frameworks."

Many thanks!

Cameron