Hi,
I was reading through my textbook and came across the following:
| According to Marx, not only do religions pacify people falsely; they may themselves become tools of oppression. | |
Why is the semicolon allowed between falsely and they? I suggest that it's not good to think of semi-colons in terms of allowed/not allowed. They are a matter of stylistic choice. The author here apparently felt that there was a close relationship between the two parts of the sentence, and that he should suggest to the reader that a pause to ponder this relationship is a good idea. That's what a semi-colon really represents, a longer pause than a comma suggests.
I have a decent understanding of the semicolon usage, so I don't need a complete lecture on it. OK, I promise I'll try not to lecture.
But I do wonder if this follows the idea that a semicolon can take the place of a comma if a comma has already been used in the sentence. I'm not familiar with this rule. It seems to me much too mechanical to be a useful way to think about style.
Ex: This is not the neighbor's dog, but it is my dog; yet it is the same color dog. This doesn't seem to me to be out of the question just because of the comma. I don't like the overall sentence/thought. The se of both 'but' and 'yet' also bother me.
Does this thread have to do with grammar? I was thinking about posting this in the linguistics board, but I didn't. Seems OK here, to me.
Here's another example:
| Not only was women's spiritual contribution cast aside; in relacing the goddess, patriarchal groups may also have devalued the "feminine" aspect of religion--the receptive, intuitive, ecstatic mystical communion that was perhaps allowed freer expression in the goddess traditions. | |
What's up with this author's semicolon usage? I think the problem is this. A semi-colon suggests to the reader that there is a close relationship between the two parts of the sentence. The nature of that relationship is left for the reader to work out. eg He loved her; she went to Rome.
You could say 'He loved her but she went to Rome', but this is more explicit and may mean something different. You could also say 'He loved her; but she went to Rome'. However, this usage of a linking term seems to me to defeat the purpose of using the more subtle semi-colon.
In short, the main thing I don't like about your quotation above is that it includes both the linking term 'not only' and a semi-colon. I would expect it to follow 'not only' with 'but'.
What do you think about this line of thought? I hope I didn't fall into lecturing.
Best wishes, Clive