Search results for 'tag:Colons tag:Expressions' matching tags 'Colons' and 'Expressions'

Memos show Clinton turmoil

Jackson6612 — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:05:10 GMT

Memos show Clinton turmoil

Question: I would have written ''Clinton's turmoil''. Why didn't the author use apostrophe?

BY CRAIG GORDON AND TOM BRUNE | <email addresses removed by mod.>
August 13, 2008

Question: Why is semicolon used instead of comma to separate the email addresses above?

WASHINGTON - In a fresh postmortem (=an examination of a plan or event that failed, done to discover why it failed, =autopsy) on Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential bid (=attempt to obtain or do something), newly published staff memos (=a short official note to another person in the same company or organization) and e-mails reveal a campaign hobbled (=to hobble something or someone means to make it more difficult for them to be successful or to achieve what they want) by internal rivalries (=a situation in which two or more people, teams, or companies are competing for something), faulty planning, bloated (=more than needed, =excessive) spending - and perhaps most important, Clinton's own failure to make the hard decisions.

Clinton offered herself to voters as a hyper-competent (=extra competent) executive ready to be president from day one. But atop (=on top of something) her own campaign, she was a hesitant leader, who allowed bitter infighting (=when members of the same group or organization argue, or compete with each other in an unfriendly way) to fester (=If an argument or bad feeling festers, it continues so that feelings of hate or dissatisfaction increase) among staffers over whether to go negative against Barack Obama, according to the Atlantic magazine.

The most bare-knuckled (=characterized by disorderly action and disregard for rules) lines of attack came from Clinton's chief strategist, Mark Penn, who urged Clinton to highlight Obama's "lack of American roots" due to his upbringing in Indonesia and Hawaii - saying he could only win if he faced Attila the Hun ((?406-453 AD) a king of the Huns (=an ancient people from Asia) who attacked and took control of large parts of the Roman Empire. He is famous for being violent and cruel).

But Clinton didn't embrace Penn's flag-waving (=the expression of strong national feelings, especially when these feelings seem too extreme) approach (=way of doing something), which campaign aides (=someone whose job is to help someone who has an important job, especially a politician) insist was never seriously considered.

Question: Clinton didn't embrace Penn's approach because she did not consider it seriously. Therefore, what campaign aides were saying is redundant.

The article also says that Clinton at times grew frustrated and short-tempered - including on the morning after her stunning third-place finish in Iowa in January, when aides on a call were silent. Clinton's camp dismissed the story as "inside-the-Beltway gossip" and "old news." And former campaign aides sharply disputed the notion of Clinton as an indecisive leader, with one campaign veteran saying, "Nobody seems to want to remember the fact that we had so many successes and come-from-behind victories in this campaign ... and they are due in large part to Senator Clinton's leadership."

Question: What does the line including on the morning...when aides on a call were silent mean? If she finished third place, then why would the author describe it as stunning? What does call mean in when aides on a call were silent?

Question: What does the phrase inside-the-Beltway gossip mean?

Question: What does the line Nobody seems to want to remember...to Senator Clinton's leadership'' mean?

But the e-mails and memos offer vivid (=very clear and detailed) new details about what had long been reported - that Clinton's headquarters was beset (=to make someone experience serious problems or dangers) by caustic (=bitter) internal battles involving Penn and former President Bill Clinton, who wanted to forcefully attack Obama, and others who wanted the New York senator to take a more positive tack (=method, =way of doing something). At one point, it was Bill Clinton - and not Hillary - who approved the famed 3 a.m. phone call ad.

Question: what had long been reported is passive past perfect tense. Am I right?

Question: I think headquarters should take plural verb. What do you say?

Question: Why are the hyphens used in -and not Hillary-? I believe commas would do instead?

Adding to the turmoil was the fact that the campaign had little strategy and no money left to seriously compete in the post-Super Tuesday contests - having (=the form having with a past participle can be used to introduce a clause in which you mention an action which had already happened before another action began) burned through $106 million before Iowa. That allowed Obama to win 12 straight contests and effectively wrap up (=to finish a job, meeting etc) the nomination.

Question: What does burned through mean?

In the end, the campaign's strategy came to reflect some of the internal turmoil, as Clinton veered (=changed course) from attacking Obama to emphasizing her personal side.

Question: What does her personal side mean?

Penn did offer some advice in March 2007 that proved on the mark - Clinton's path to victory lay with women and lower- and working-class voters.

Question: What does proved on the mark mean? I couldn't find it in the dictionary.

But by the time Clinton finally settled on that strategy to win the later primaries, it was too late.

Excerpts from the memos

"All of these articles about his boyhood in Indonesia and his life in Hawaii are geared towards showing his background is diverse, multicultural and putting that in a new light ... It also exposes a very strong weakness for him - his roots to basic American values and culture are at best (=even when considered in the most positive way) limited. I cannot imagine America electing a president during a time of war who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and in his values." Strategist Mark Penn, from a March 19, 2007, memo to Hillary Rodham Clinton advising her to attack Barack Obama for his "lack of American roots."

Question: What does centre mean in the above context?

"The right knows Obama is unelectable except perhaps against Attila the Hun, and a third party would come in then anyway." Penn, from the same memo.

Question: Does right refer to right wing in the above context?

"This has been a very instructive call, talking to myself." Clinton, before angrily hanging up on a staff conference call the day after coming in third in Iowa in January. "She complained of being outmaneuvered (=to gain an advantage over someone by using cleverer or more skilful plans or methods) in Iowa and being painted as the establishment candidate," according to the Atlantic - but was met with near-silence.

Question: I would have written This has been..., talking to me. Why did she use myself?

Question: What is a conference call? Is it some kind of telephone call which address many poeple?

Question: Why is in used in coming in third?

"STOP IT!! I have help my tongue for weeks. After this morning's WP story, no longer. This makes me sick. This circular firing squad that is occurring is unattractive, unprofessional, unconscionable, and unacceptable ... It must stop." Robert Barnett, a Clinton lawyer and Washington insider, from a March 6, 2008, e-mail to campaign staff after a Washington Post story detailed the infighting.

Question: What does I have help my tongue for weeks mean?

Question: What does This circular firing squad mean?

Question: Were the comments in the last paragraph made by Robert Barnett?

Re: Is this a right use of a semicolon?

Anonymous — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 07:20:28 GMT

Actually, conjunctions after semicolons are very common.

Gregg Reference Manual: Seventh Canadian Edition

Rules:
176 a) When a coordinating conjunction (and, but , o, nor and sometimes for, so, or yet) is omitted between t between two independent clauses, use a semicolon--not a comma--to seperate the clauses. If you, prefer, you can treat the second clause as a seperate sentence.

177 a) A comma is normally used to seperate two independent clauses joined by a coordinating conjunction, However, under certain circumstances a semicolon is appropriate before the coordinating conjuction.

NORMAL BREAK: Man people are convinced that they could personaly solve the problem if geven the authority to do so, but no one will come forward with a clear-cut plan that we can evaluste in advance.

STRONG BREAK: Many people are convinced that they could personally solve the problem if geven the authority to do so; ubt no on ewill come forward with a clear-cut plan that we can evaluate in advance.

177 b) Use a semicolon when one or both clauses have internal commas, and a misreading might occur if a comma also seperated the clauses

The most common use of semi-colons is below.

178) When independent clauses are linked by transitional expressions(see a partial list below, use a semiccolon between the clauses. (If the second cluase is long or requires special emphasis, treat it as a separate sentence.)

accordingly      however                so
besides            moreover            that is
consequently    namely                  then
for example      nevertheless          therefore
furthermore      on the contrary      thus
hence               otherwise            yet

They have given us tan oral okay to proceed; however, we are still waiting for writeen confirmation.

Our costs have started to level off; our sales, moreover, have continued to grow.

Let's give them another month' then we can pin them down on their progress

NOTE: Use a comma after the transitional expression when it occurs at the start of a lause. (See the first example above.) However, no comma is needed after hence, then, thus so, and yet unless a pause is wanted at that point. (Multi sylabic conjunctions should be followed by a comma.)

(Unknown 22884)OHHH I FINALLY CAN POST!!!

Jen001 — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 01:51:40 GMT

"The Change of the Characteristics in the passage from The Hours"

The passage from the novel The Hours by Michael Cunningham is intriguing. The passage illustrates the difference between the character's characteristics in different time settings: past and present. This difference is clearly shown through the contrasting structure, imagery and language.

The structure reflects the division of the time setting and helps to contrast the different characteristics. The passage has two paragraphs, each describing the character's thoughts and perception about a same place, of the past and present. The length of each paragraph is different; the one from the past is much longer than the other one from the present. This can be related to each of the paragraph's sentence construction. In the first paragraph, about the past, the lengths of the sentences are very long. The first sentence takes eight lines, lengthened continuously within commas, semi-colons and colons. In fact, in one sentence, there are five commas, five semi-colons and a colon. This overly-continued sentence gives a sense of unfiltered, informal, and unrestricted flowing of thoughts. Moreover, the use of brackets, âsome sort of wood(cedar? Camphor?),â seems to be less sophisticated, compared to using dashes or other punctuations of the same function. However, in the second paragraph of the present, the sentence construction is shown contrastingly. The paragraph starts with a short simple sentence: âShe turns down Bleecker, goes up Thomson.â Also, in this paragraph, there are four sentences in six lines, and three of the four sentences are written in simple sentence, including the example above. Although there are a few commas in some of the sentences, there is no semi-colon, but only a colon in the last sentence. The colon is used in a very appropriate way, functioning to introduce the list of âthingsâ, such as âjewelryâ and âjackets.â Thus, within the brief and concise sentence construction, the character in the present appears to be more mature, filtered and sophisticated than in the past. However, as a result of that, the sense of youthful, unfiltered freedom cannot be found anymore in the present.

In addition to the structure, the contrasting imagery of each paragraph demonstrates further differences of the characteristic in the past and present. As both paragraphs are of the same setting, the image of the same place is described at each time. So, the consistent place makes the comparison between the two more distinctive and reliable. The imagery of the place is very vivid in the past, not only within the visual sense, but also within the auditory and olfactory senses, whereas that of the past only relies on the sense of sight. For example, in the past, âthe neighborhoodâ is depicted as âthe center of something new and wildâ in âthe city where the sound of guitars drifted all nightâ and âwhere the stores â¦ smelled the way â¦ Arab bazaars must smell.â This is detail, imaginative and lively, even the âArab bazaarsâ creates a somewhat mystical and adventurous atmosphere. This interesting and passionate depiction is being minimized in the present into three words: an âimitation of itself.â It is now âa watered-down carnival for tourists,â which gives a sense of inactivity and boredom. Also, the stores now âall sell essentially the same things,â such as âsouvenir T-shirts.â This seems to be dull, with no excitement or creativity or passion. This changed imagery, depicted by the character, rather shows the change in the character's perception. The change in perception is demonstrated more clearly within the notion of the âdoorâ and âalley.â In the past, she says, âif you passed through the wrong door or down the wrong alley you would meet a fate,â however, in the present, she âknows that behind these doors, and down these alleys lies nothing more or less than people living their lives.â In the past, she seems to be more concerned with the 'inner' world of thought or imagination. Whereas in the present, she seems to be more grounded in the external world of physical reality. As like the previously discussed change in the sentence structure, she is now more sophisticated, knowledgeable and realistic than the past. Also, as like the image of the place, her perception changed from the creative, interesting and adventurous to the boring, predictable and filtered way. Thus, the contrasting imagery of the past and present reflects the similar change in the character's perception.

While the structure and the imagery convey the distinctive change in the characteristics of the character, the contrasting use of language supports those differences. More specifically, the diction [dash]shown in the past and the present[dash] is comparable. Reflecting the imagery of the varied senses, the words and expressions used in the past are also varied and animated, such as âincense and richâ and âdung-y dustâ describing the smell of the stores. These two expressions, âincense and richâ and âdung-y dustâ are contrasting; they express the diversity of the object. Moreover, the speaker creates a non-existing adjective, âdung-y.â The extra adding of â-yâ grants a more animated image, and it gives a sense of freedom and even somewhat childishness. The âsmellâ is then described as âsomething fruitily, fertilely rotting.â Again, she creates a non-existing adverb, âfruitily,â expressing the scent rather vividly, which would be sour as it ârots.â The other adverb âfertilelyâ contributes to create a sense of abundance and richness of the imagery. However, the use of those two positive adverbs, modifying the negative verb ârottingâ seems to be oxymoron in âfruit[full]â or âfertile,â as well as the use of adjective âdisreputable,â following ânew and wild.â The oxymoron adds an unpredictable sense to the imagery and hence to the depicter's thoughts. On the other hand, in the present, the adjectives used to describe the âcityâ and the âstores,â are ânothing,â âless,â âsame,â and âstill.â All of them are negative and reflect the boredom, dullness and hopelessness. More significantly, the speaker uses the adverb, âGrotesquelyâ before describing how âthe same bars and coffeehouses are still [th]ereâ, showing the character's cynical characteristic. So does the use of the adjective âcheapâ for the goods at the stores. Thus, in the past, the character uses language interestingly [dash] it is diverse, lively and creative [dash] whereas that of the past is inactive, hopeless and cynical. These differences are directly reflecting the character's contrasting, changed characteristic.

The change of the characteristic seems to be abrupt. As a cause, something would have happened to her, that is not shown in the passage. However, an assumption can be drawn within the evidences from the passage. There is a shift in the first paragraph within âHere,â showing the shifted tense from the past to the past perfect. In the past perfect, there is a scene of Clarissa, the major character, and her boyfriend Richard. She seems to appreciate Richard a lot, for example, she does not use the pronoun 'he' for âRichard,â even though he is the only male character. So, in a sentence, Richard is successively repeated three times, âwith Richard, when Richard â¦ when Richard.â Moreover, she describes his appearance in detail; he âwas nineteen,â âa firm-featured, hard-eyed, not-quite-beautiful dark-haired boy with an impossibly long and graceful, very pale neck.â So, to describe Richard, she combines an adjective and a noun to create a single adjective, such as âhard-eyed.â This shows her seriousness about describing him precisely. His âimpossibly longâ and âvery paleâ neck would seem negative, if not for the complementary adjective âgraceful.â Also, the adverb âimpossiblyâ gives a sense of special and unusual feeling for the person. Besides the use of language, the use of punctuation should also be noted. There are many commas, causing the sentences to seem choppy. This would be imitating the feeling of uncertainty and the tension in the situation. The uncertainty of the situation is shown in the line, ââ¦about what? A kiss? Had Richard kissed her, or had she, Clarissaâ¦,â also the tension created as they âhad certainly argued.â Then, the reason for the âargu[ment]â is explained: âClarissa wanted her freedom and Richard wanted, well, too much.â It is notable that as Richard âwanted â¦ too muchâ relating to the âkiss,â the pronoun 'he' is used as âdidn't he always?â In this case, however, the pronoun 'he' seems to more likely indicate every 'man', rather than particularly âRichard.â Thereafter the paragraph ends, and the paragraph of the present starts. It is not sure whether the abrupt change in Clarissa's characteristic is due to âRichardâ or not. Although it is not, it is evident that Clarissa once considered and cared about him quite specially.

Despite of the uncertain reason, the change in the Clarissa's characteristic from the past to the present is shown clearly throughout the contrasting structure, imagery and language. The characteristic includes the thoughts and perception, which were unrestricted, unfiltered, creative and animated in the past; whereas in the present, they are shown restricted, filtered, dull and inactive. The change is extreme, but no particular evidence for the extremity is being suggested, except the short scene with Richard. Thus, this passage not only introduces the setting and the character, but also evokes the reader's curiosity: What has happened to Clarissa?

------------------------------------------------

I really really really appreciate for your help... Thank you..!

Re: Is this grammatically correct?

Avangi — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 00:07:56 GMT

Tbsukt wrote:
1) A new year is at the open with new joys and new opportunities. As they always say, carpe Diem, seize the day! Live each day to the fullest but never forget to save some time for both your bodies and souls to rest.

2) Your friendship and loyalty to one another inspires me. Cherish what you have, I trust you won't let anything or anyone come between you.

Any comments would be very appreciated

Thank you.

Hi.

You've created a new expression - "coined a new phrase!" It's perfectly clear what you mean by "at the open", but I've never heard it. I hate to mess with your poetry. Perhaps, "A new year presents/offers a new opening for new joys and new opportunities." (Too many "new's"?) "A new year is wide open for new joys and new opportunities." [You'll just have to find something else that works for you.]

You'll probably need quotes around "carpe Diem." I really don't know what's supposed to be capitalized there, or what the correct form is for setting off the translation.

In the imperative the subject is understood to be "you", but is it singular or plural? "Bodies and souls" catches me off guard. I would have expected singular.

2. Compound subject needs the plural verb. I think you have three sentences here, unless you want to use a semi-colon.

Regards, - A.

Re: Commentary on Hamlet's soliloquy

Clive — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 22:28:49 GMT

Hi,

Where you have put semi-colons, I'd usually use commas. I have also suggested some other changes to your punctuation. My general advice is not to get into the habit of using semi-colons and colons. They can often make tyour meaning more obscure rather than more clear.

You seem to have a very good understanding of this topic. I've broken up your one huge paragraph into two. Are there any other ways you can make your organization clearer to the reader?

Best wishes, Clive

Commentary on "To Be or not to Be"

In this soliloquy Hamlet sparks an internal philosophical debate on the advantages and disadvantages of existence, and whether it is one's right to end one's own life. He first asks himself thoughtfully whether it is nobler to bear the miseries of life or to take arms against them; but since both passive and active resistance are doomed to failure, he regards death as a mean to end oneâs sorrows once and for all. He sees death from a Medieval perspective, as physical liberation from the prison of the body (the âmortal coilâ); but he also symbolizes the doubt of the Renaissance man, concerning the after life. Indeed he faces an obstacle, that is to say the fear of âwhat dreams may comeâ in that sleep of death. If death were like a dreamless sleep, it would be easy to put an end to the misfortunes of life with a single stroke, but since we donât know what to expect in the afterlife, we havenât courage enough commit suicide. He says that the troubles of life are such that no one would willingly bear them, but our cowardice makes us âbear those ills we have / than fly to others that we know not ofâ.

In his soliloquy, Hamlet uses various gramatical structures to express his uncertainty, such as the infinitive forms. His speech takes shape slowly because of its thoughtful nature. The climax is reached when Hamlet lists the injustices and miseries of life, concluding that it would only take a small does his word 'mere' mean 'small' or does it mean 'unimportant'? knife to bring relief. He also uses metaphors, such as that of the mortal coil, that of the unknown country from where no traveller comes back, and that of the opposition between the pale cast of thought and the native hue of resolution. This one in particular helps us understand that for Hamlet courage is the ability to cross the border between life and death; but most people are cowards and this cowardice, through âthe pale cast of thoughtâ, makes us stay alive. The soliloquy elevates Hamletâs individual case to an universal level; this is achieved through the use of the plural pronouns 'we' and 'us', the indefinite 'who', and the impersonal infinitive. Its problematic nature is shown by the insistent use of interrogatives, while the internal struggle within Hamletâs mind is pointed out by the use of images from the battle-field (âslings and arrowsâ, which has become an idiomatic expression, and âto take arms against a sea of troublesâ). In the middle of the soliloquy we can find an enumeration of lifeâs misfortunes; while reflecting upon the nature of death Hamlet uses a repetition (âto die, to sleepâ). Finally, we can find a term from the financial semantic field, âquietusâ.

Re: enough

Feathers — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 13:48:43 GMT

My dictionaries only confused me more with their usage notes ... in addition to the confusing semicolon. This is what I was missing:

CalifJim wrote:

The stylistic pattern is:

Enough ..., and this will happen.

The reader is expected to understand this as a causal connection.

Your explanation is really clear. Very informative, useful, and what's more, fun to read!

CalifJim wrote:

Both enough and too much can be used this way.

Enough heat, and the mixture will explode.
Too much heat, and the mixture will explode.

So you're right that enough is really a lot like too much in this pattern. The two expressions enough and too much don't mean the same thing, but the meanings of the entire pattern in which they can occur are similar.

With enough, you focus on reaching a limit from below, perhaps through a gradual increase.
With too much, you focus only on being above the limit.

(I'm gonna use this sentence pattern a lot, I guess.)

Thank you so much!

Re: enough

CalifJim — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 04:34:10 GMT

The semicolon in the sentence beginning with enough is confusing, but this is because of how the spoken form was transcribed. Blame the transcriber! enough means sufficient, as always.

The stylistic pattern is:

Enough ..., and this will happen.

The reader is expected to understand this as a causal connection. So it means

When there is enough jargon, split infinitives, etc., civilized culture will come crashing down.
When the amount of jargon, split infinitives, etc. reaches a sufficient amount, then civilization will crash.

Both enough and too much can be used this way.

Enough heat, and the mixture will explode.
Too much heat, and the mixture will explode.

So you're right that enough is really a lot like too much in this pattern. The two expressions enough and too much don't mean the same thing, but the meanings of the entire pattern in which they can occur are similar.
With enough, you focus on reaching a limit from below, perhaps through a gradual increase.
With too much, you focus only on being above the limit.
The end result is the same in both cases. (But don't mistake that for saying that enough means too much! )

CJ

Re: Semicolon usage

Clive — Mon, 24 Jul 2006 22:54:31 GMT

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

Semicolon usage

Ghost Writer — Mon, 24 Jul 2006 16:55:46 GMT

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 have a decent understanding of the semicolon usage, so I don't need a complete lecture on it.
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.

Ex: This is not the neighbor's dog, but it is my dog; yet it is the same color dog.

Does this thread have to do with grammar? I was thinking about posting this in the linguistics board, but I didn't.

Here's another example:

What's up with this author's semicolon usage? Is this author incompetent to the usage, or is it just me?

I also feel there may be some subject verb agreement error in the second quote; therefore, I feel that the first quote may be right and the second quote is incorrectly written.

I feel the author has style and grammar issues. The style is sense with the "not only" statement. Yet the semicolon usage throws off the idea that the author doesn't know what he or she is doing with the semicolon.

Re: Comma and semicolon dualism

Betsy — Wed, 12 Jul 2006 05:56:34 GMT

Semicolon use
A semicolon following an independent clause [a complete sentence] signals that what follows is also an independent clause whose meaning is of equal importance to the first. Joining two clauses with a semicolon alone is appropriate only when the clauses are closely related and the relationship is clear. If they are not closely related, you probably should make them separate sentences. RULE: Although an independent clause following a semicolon is essentially a complete sentence, it never begins with a capital letter. Unlike a coordinating conjunction [and, but, for, or, nor, so, yet), a conjunctive adverb [however, nevertheless, accordingly, besides, indeed, similarly, then, thus, therefore, that is and others, or a transitional expression ["in fact" or "for example"] cannot be used with a comma to join two independent clauses. Conjunctive adverbs and transitional expressions require a stronger mark of punctuation: a semicolon [I wasn't busy;however, I did not have time to play golf.] 2) "When items in a series contain commas, readers may have difficulty deciding which commas separate parts of the series and which belong within the items. To avoid confusion, put semicolons between elements in a series when one or more contain other punctuation.[Confusing: "I interviewed Debbie Rios, the attorney, Rhonda Marron, the accountant, and the financial director." Edited: "I interviewed Debbie Rios, the attorney; Rhonda Marron, the accountant; and the financial director."] (The Longman Writer's Companion).

source: http://www.drgrammar.org/faqs/#14