>semicolons in dialogue
>>25202871>It was raining, so we went to the museum. The zoo wouldn't have been good today. vs>It was raining, so we went to the museum; the zoo wouldn't have been good today. They read differently to me, with the semicolon marking a more fluid speaking style. Maybe it's because English is my first language.
Semicolons were introduced to replicate speeches' cadence. It was use that way until somewhere during the 18th century where grammarians aimed to "scientize" the written word and make it as dry and retarded possible; with em dashes, periods, commas, ellipses and colons supplanting the once great rhetorical tool that was the semicolon.
>>25202899Sorry I meant 19th century. I keep messing it up at 25
>>25202899I still use the semicolon, where necessary that is; em dashes in particular, I’ve never liked and now, the utilisation of them are frowned upon because of how they’re affiliated with AI.
>>252028953rd-world subhumans in shambles
>>25202871>footnotes in dialogue
>>25202899>noooo! you can't structure complex thought!>>25202919And you still use them incorrectly.
>parentheses in dialogue
>>25203145You can't use an aside in speech?
>>25202895This is a good example. Say the two out loud and the difference is obvious. The first has a definite downbeat and closure on "museum".Speech is the heart of language. The written word is just along for the ride. If you don't subvocalize you have no chance of using semi-colons (or anything else) correctly.
>>25202899Correct, but you spoiled it somewhat by misusing the semi-colon. Should be a comma there.
>>25203148>subvocalizes punctuationlol.
>>25202919A semicolon is to reinforce a previous statement. Read >>25202895 again and think about the sentences before and after the semicolon, both of them adhere to one another. The first statement explains that is was raining and they chose an indoor activity, and the second statement explains that going to the zoo would not have been a good idea. What connects these two statements? It is the connection to the fact that it was raining; being outside would have lessened their Zoo-going experience.
>>25203218>A semicolon is to reinforce a previous statement.Nothing about semicolons says the two halves need to be in agreement; how the clauses relate is completely up to the writer.
>>25203225>>25203225>Nothing about semicolons says the two halves need to be in agreementI never said anything about agreement, but "adhere". There needs to be a connection between the two statements. I meant reinforce as in strengthening a previous statement, not as in concurring with it.
>>25203230You said reinforce, which means they agree. The clauses can negate which is where you really see how the semicolon works; neither clause is true and you can see the truth of the sentence through the whole.
>>25203232>You said reinforce, which means they agree.No it doesn't. Reinforce can mean strengthen OR support.
>>25203232>you can seeCan only. Really having issues with palming the track pad tonight.
>>25203235If they negate each other they do not support each other,
>>25203240And I never said support either. I said reinforce as in strengthening, and adhere as in connecting. The second statement is used to strengthen the sentence as a whole, to drive home the meaning of the sentence as a whole.
>>25203246>A semicolon is to reinforce a previous statement.Stop playing games. >I love you; I hate you.It is as simple as that. The only thing the two clauses support is the semantics of the sentence.
>>25203250>I love you; I hate you.Show me a single instance of any writing which uses this style?
>>25203250>SupportAgain you are getting hooked on the notion that I've said support in any of these posts.
>>25203252Seriously? What sort of stuff do you read? Read James if you want to learn to semicolon. >>25203256You said "A semicolon is to reinforce a previous statement." how does "I hate you" reinforce "I love you" in my example? I can pull apart the rest of that post if you would like (I probably won't bother), it is just as bad. You may understand this stuff but that post was idiotic and you are playing games.
>>25203250So what is the difference between "I love you; I hate you" and "I love you. I hate you."?
>>25202895The semicolon is more poetic because it best represents the way thoughts connect.
>>25202871I've always preferred the emdash—damn you chatgpt!
>>25203329How they relate to the paragraph. >I need you. I love you; I hate you.>I need you. I love you. I hate you.>I need you; I love you. I hate you.
>>25202899Nowadays people shit on em dashes and ellipses too, and I'm talking prose, not scientific texts
>>25203250It's as simple as that; tits a shrimple rat bat.
>>25203148>muh subvocalizationIf you subvocalize it's a sign of low IQ. All punctuation should advance the non-verbal reading experience - the only true mode of communication.
>>25203150That was supposed to be on purpose to try to emulate its old use, but then I decided to put a comma instead, except I forgot to change it hence why there's no parentheses saying that it was on purpose
>>25203131"Complex thought" is way easier to understand in Enlightenment texts where it was used abundantly for rhetorical purposes. Adorno called the death of the semicolon the end of complex thought.
>>25203124Dialouge about footnotes
>>25203131There’s nothing grammatically incorrect about my sentence and that’s all that matters.
>>25203481Enlightenment era texts are easier because they are very simplistic as far as the language use goes and why they relied on rhetoric and a fairly linear development of idea. With our current use of punctuation we can write sentences which would take pages in the old way. >Yes. No.>Yes, no.>Yes; no.>Yes: no.>Yes (no).>Yes—no.>Yes? no.>Yes! no.>Yes... no.>Yes——no.How can you not love that?
>>25204241I love it;I hate it
>>25204241Well for one I simply prefer reading Enlightenment texts in general as it all flowe like butter while managing to stay beautiful in its simplicity. Pick a random book from the 18th century and chances are it'll be a thousand times better written than one from the 19th century (same for 19th vs 20th, and 20th vs 21st). Texts used to guide your thoughts carefully so you could learn new ideas step by step, argument by argument. Nowadays it's less about guiding the reader, as it is dropping him in the middle of an extremely dense compilation of short sentences he has to read again and again (with many authors not being willing to properly develop their ideas and choosing to keep things vague).Our current punctuation is most likely a result of shorter attention spans, with more and more people getting their hands on newspapers, and the speed of life accelerating. All of this looks better on a page, it makes things "clearer" from afar, so that it is easier for somebody to gloss over it, but it certainly doesn't make for a better reading experience. Journalists and scientists killed rheroticians by focusing on form above all else.I appreciate the diversity these can give us on paper more than I do in practice.
>>25204241>Yes. No.Two simple statements which do not modify each other, just the containing context>Yes, no.Negation>Yes; no.Both yes and no, half correct, half wrong.>Yes: no.Reluctant agreement. This one is weird, I like it. >Yes (no).Deceit, we get information no one else has.>Yes—no.Deceit again but this time we are being let in on the deceit, we are an accomplice. >Yes? no.Sort of but not really.>Yes! no.So close but not quite.>Yes... no.Yes, you got it completely wrong.>Yes——no.A change of mind which was reached because of reasons which don't matter, all that matters is there are reasons and they caused a change of mind.How did I do?>>25204292Why are rhetoric fags so terrible at saying anything? All you said is "because I like it better" and threw in some weak and unsupported validations.
>>25204394Congrats, it’s pretty good.But>>Yes—no.>Deceit again but this time we are being let in on the deceit, we are an accomplice.This also feels like a change of mind to me. Or, maybe an affirmation without thought before quickly reaffirming the negative.
>>25204399I really could not decide on the em-dash example. I think we need more context for the em-dash and in this limited context it can mean a fair amount. But I am not sure, feel like I am missing something.
>>25204394>Why are rhetoric fags so terrible at saying anything? All you said is "because I like it better" and threw in some weak and unsupported validations.>Errrm... Source??? Source???You're a retarded faggot who doesn't read shit. 19th-20th century journalism and academic writing emphasized concision and form above all else. I can't believe you're making me having to link sources on phone just to shut down your midwittery about a concept you've never thought of before today.arjunpanickssery.substack.com/p/why-have-sentence-lengths-decreaseden.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_pyramid_(journalism)I just glanced over these two because I can't be bothered to spoon feed you so I don't know if it's entirely in line with what I'm saying but that should be a start for you. Here's my primary source: read more before posting.Now stop talking to me, you've proven yourself to be an aggressive midwit.
>>25204416>in this limited context it can mean a fair amount.True. I always read them as breaks in thinking, which could also mean a shift in one’s opinion. Never have I once used an em dash in writing though lol
>>25204418>crash out this hardI win
>it was great to see you; it's been too long>it was great to see you—it's been too long.
>>25204440>Instantly reverts back into his shellI accept your concession.
>>25204418Neither of those support your argument, which you know and is why you followed them with a disclaimer. Shouldn't need sources to make your case.>>25204422I think I just don't quite understand em-dashes, some nuance alludes me. >>25204447>can't spot an obvious trollProbably should not be giving advice on language.
>>25204292>Pick a random book from the 18th century and chances are it'll be a thousand times better written than one from the 19th centuryIn my experience this sort of applies also to the 17th with the 18th but the difference in quality isn’t too extreme compared to the 18th and 19th.
>>25204452You haven't read them otherwise you'd have told me in which way they didn't. But it doesn't matter since, like you said, I shouldn't need sources to make my case. Anybody who actually reads agrees since weirdly enough I don't see any counter argument to what I stated, only passive aggressivity. And no, this guy wasn't a "troll", and doesn't need your help.>>25204458I'd tend to agree for English lit, but not for my language
>>25204468You did not address what the original anon said at all, you moved the goalposts and provided sources which validate your opinion but do not support it.
>>25204489The original anon asked for my personal opinion.>How can you not love it?Then, profesionnal folder proceeded to get mad me, and left as soon as he got pushback. You now are vagueposting about "moving goalposts" for no other reason than to annoy me.
>>25204497His post was more than just that last line which you pulled out of context.
>>25204499Okay so you're both unwilling to communicate and want to get the last word in. I answered everything that was in his post. I'd suggest going back to /his/
>>25204507>he says while trying to get in the last wordSo there was no containing context? How about going back to my point, if rhetoric is so great why are you not using the tools of rhetoric in expressing your views? I will let you have the last word.
>>25204522Because I'm no writer? Are you retarded? And oh thank you my lord for allowing me to have the last word and complaining missing the point of me having a problem with you vagueposting solely to keep the argument going.But I'm talking to someone who apparently doesn't even understand how the em dash works so I guess it makes sense you'd be illiterate.
>>25204529>complainingcompletely*autocorrect
>>25204416To understand those examples you need to fill in the context, write a few short paragraphs and dialogues with those examples being used. You will have it when you each of your paragraphs and dialogues work with every one of those examples with each giving a different but valid end result. More on this in my following response to the other anon.>>25204422The easiest way to understand the em-dash is that it removes what follows from the narrative. If a line starts with an em-dash the narrative is paused so the character can speak, voice is lowered from narrator to character, dialogue; if the em-dash happens anywhere else in the sentence voice is raised above the narrative and the end of the sentence or a second em-dash returns it to the narrative.The confusion comes into play with there being no singular, concrete idea of what raising the voice means. Every author uses it slightly differently in this case but any author of worth uses it consistently and and that use is well defined.Consider what happens if a writer always uses an em-dash for a negation like "Yes—no." we will pick up on this pattern even if we don't notice or don't understand how an em-dash works and when the writer does "Yes—yes." we take notice, depending on context "yes" either becomes an affirmation of "Yes" (breaking the pattern), or a weird negation like "Yes: no." What follows an em-dash might modify everything which precedes it, or just the previous clause or it might provide information in a very specific context and in a specific way; we need to identify how exactly the writer uses it, their sense of what it means to raise and lower the narrative voice.>>25204529So, what was my point?
