comma, semicolon or dash (c. splice): Don't just..., some could be

[bmo]

1. Don't just inivte every Tom, Dick, and Harry to the party, some could be hoodhums.

What would you place after party, comma, semicolon, or period?

 

[Porteño]

I would go for a comma personally, but I'm sure there will be those who will differ.

 

[kathman]

A period. Those are two separate sentences. Commas and semicolons and such are used to connect sentences that include conjunctions, such as "and" or "but". Also, hoodhums..did you mean hoodlums?

 

[panjandrum]

I would vote for a colon.
The second part explains the first.

 

[LouisaB]

I would go for a comma personally, but I'm sure there will be those who will differ.

I'm afraid I would.

Personally I'd go for the semi-colon, because the relationship between the two sentences is so close. The second explains the first.

Don't just invite every Tom, Dick and Harry to the party; some could be hoodlums!

If you really want a cheat's option, you can use my own favourite cop-out, which is the dash. Purists loathe it, but it's a great thing to use when you're not sure....

Don't just invite every Tom, Dick and Harry to the party - some could be hoodlums!

Personally I wouldn't use the comma to join two complete sentences, unless I added a conjunction.

Louisa

 

[Porteño]

I think it's rather a matter of style. My second choice was a semi-colon, but I love the idea of the dash, that covers everything.

 

[Trina]

I would vote for a colon.
The second part explains the first.

I agree.

It also can be used between two independent clauses, just as a semicolon can. The big difference is that you use a colon to set up reason, evidence, or justification in the second clause.

http://www.frugalfun.com/accuratewriting/w1-8.shtml

I would use a colon in formal writing. Informally, I favour the dash.
Don't just invite every Tom, Dick and Harry to the party - some could be hoodlums.

 

[LouisaB]

I agree.

http://www.frugalfun.com/accuratewriting/w1-8.shtml

I would use a colon in formal writing.

I think you're right, Trina. When I suggested the semi-colon, I was forgetting the colon has that specific explanatory role as well as the usual one of a list...

 

[JamesM]

I'd vote for a colon after "party".

 

[panjandrum]

The colon is used to indicate that what follows it is an explanation or elaboration of what precedes it. That is, having introduced some topic in more general terms, you can use a colon and go on to explain that same topic in more specific terms.

Source

 

[Joelline]

Personally, I prefer LouisaB's option of the semi-colon (for the reasons she gives above). The colon would be a distant second choice quite simply because it always strikes me a more of a "stop" that the semi-colon and because it really deserves to follow something a bit more elegant than "every Tom, Dick and Harry"! (I'm a colon snob.) My final choice, a truly distant third, would be the period. In no case, is a comma sufficient.*

*I'm trying to break myself of the habit of overusing the dash!

 

[mjscott]

I vote for the semicolon.

http://chuma.cas.usf.edu/~olson/pms/semicolon.html

Oh, well....

 

[LouisaB]

Interesting link, mjscott. Naturally, I love its first section, because that's just how I've always used the semi-colon myself, but I'm worried that the second section (on the 'Supercomma') shows a clear confusion between colon and semi-colon. Not only would I personally use the colon in all their examples of this - but so does whoever wrote the link!

 

[maxiogee]

1. Don't just inivte every Tom, Dick, and Harry to the party, some could be hoodhums.

What would you place after party, comma, semicolon, or period?

• I would omit the big red comma, it is made redundant by the "and" following it.
• I would use a colon or a dash after party.
• I would switch the 'i' and the 'v' in invite.
• I would spell the last word with an "l' - hoodlums.

Don't just invite every Tom, Dick and Harry to the party - some could be hoodlums.​

 

[Mister Micawber]

.
'Semicolon' here, as long as the floor is open-- and the correction of a few typos:

Don't invite just every Tom, Dick, and Harry to the party; some could be hoodlums.

I think the colon is overkill; it insults my intelligence.
.
.

 

[panjandrum]

'Semicolon' here, as long as the floor is open-- and the correction of a few typos:

Don't invite just every Tom, Dick, and Harry to the party; some could be hoodlums.

I think the colon is overkill; it insults my intelligence.

Oh, I certainly didn't mean to do that.
Could you explain why a colon should be so offensive?

 

[Outsider]

As a rule, I would prefer a semicolon or a period (a dash is possible, too). However, in some literary styles, using just the comma can make the sentence sound more fluid and colloquial -- but don't try that at home unless you're gifted for writing.

 

[Porteño]

Outsider - However, in some literary styles, using just the comma can make the sentence sound more fluid and colloquial -- but don't try that at home unless you're gifted for writing.

Well, that's nice to hear, I'd never thought of it in that light. I just prefer commas in general, unless a colon or full stop is obviously required.

 

[river]

You might want to go with the em-dash:

Americans have long regarded the semi- colon with suspicion, as a genteel, self-conscious, neither-one-thing-nor-the other sort of punctuation mark, with neither the butchness of a full colon nor the flighty promiscuity of the comma. Hemingway and Chandler and Stephen King wouldn’t be seen dead in a ditch with a semi-colon (though Truman Capote might). Real men, goes the unwritten rule of American punctuation, don’t use semi-colons... Semi-colons are transvestite hermaphrodites, standing for absolutely nothing. All they do is show you’ve been to college."

-Kurt Vonnegut

​

 

[Porteño]

Thanks river. I have a particular aversion to the semi-colon, probably because I've never really understood its purpose. In some other languages, notably Spanish, it plays a very important role but I have problems with that, too! Semi-colons don't like me, that's what it is.

 

[Mister Micawber]

.
Well, Grand P, I think I can figure out that the second clause elucidates the first without needing the colon...but-- uurgh! I don't need my masculinity questioned. I'll opt for the m-dash then. Most of the suggestions cannot be considered wrong-- it is just a question of style. Shall we review? The options:

Don't invite just every Tom, Dick(,) and Harry to the party; some could be hoodlums. (formal and homosexual)
Don't invite just every Tom, Dick(,) and Harry to the party-- some could be hoodlums. (but m-dashes are still considered too informal for some written work)
Don't invite just every Tom, Dick(,) and Harry to the party: some could be hoodlums. (direct and obvious; formal and butch)
Don't invite just every Tom, Dick(,) and Harry to the party. Some could be hoodlums. (Some may see this as a copout: the challenge was to punctuate the one sentence. Still, it may reflect the spoken utterance best.)

Dick's comma is BrE, I think. A comma after party just won't fly-- that's a comma-splice error, acceptable in literature but not in student essays (even though I am a devotee of flighty promiscuity). We would need to write perhaps:

Don't invite just every Tom, Dick(,) and Harry to the party, because some could be hoodlums.
.

 

[panjandrum]

There has to be a PhD thesis somewhere on the sexual symbolism of punctuation - indeed, perhaps Mr Micawber is researching it as we write

Dick's comma wouldn't appear universally in BE. I was taught not to place a comma after the list item before and.

 

[Joelline]

Hello Mr. Micawber,

You suggested, "Don't invite just every Tom, Dick(,) and Harry to the party, because some could be hoodlums."

Are you sure you want to put the comma before the dependent clause (because some could be hoodlums)? I was taught that one always puts a comma after a dependent clause but rarely before one.

 

[Trina]

I really think it is a question of formality.

I notice no-one has tackled the question of whether to use the comma, semicolon, colon or dash in speech.

For the record, in case anyone is interested, I use the dash but if I were speaking to a member of the British royal family, I would chose the colon.

Analysing the responses thus far, I would opt for using the semi-colon if speaking to the other type of queen (as per Mr Micawber's suggestion.)

 

[Mister Micawber]

.

Are you sure you want to put the comma before the dependent clause ('because some could be hoodlums')? I was taught that one always puts a comma after a dependent clause but rarely before one.

I don't think it is as simple as that, Joelline. Dependent clauses are subject to the restrictive / non-restrictive dilemma-- and I say 'dilemma' because it is often problematical.

The comma is slipperier than other punctuation marks anyway (which can be good or bad-- good for the descriptivists, bad for the prescriptivists). Let me ask you whether you conceive these two sentences (and the use of the comma) differently?--

1-- I wish you wouldn't do that, because I don't like it. (Non-restrictive. 'Don't do it, and I'll give you the reason.')
2-- I wish you wouldn't do that because I don't like it. (Restrictive. 'You're spiting me: you do it because I don't like it.')

Those are my constructs, but whether 'because some could be hoodlums' is limiting or non-limiting is mostly in the mind of the writer; so in the present case we could argue a long time over the righteousness of the comma before because. Still, there is a necessity in the world of punctuation for both options, I think. Huddleston & Pullum call this use of the comma the 'information-packaging function': the comma separates the message into units of information, so that in the case of my #1, the comma indicates that the negative in the main clause does not have scope over the reason in the dependent clause; in #2, it does (which is why we experience the queasy feeling of the double negative).

no-one has tackled the question of whether to use the comma, semicolon, colon or dash in speech.

I presume that we have all been mouthing the sentence to ourselves as we pondered our decisions and composed our responses-- and I would guess we all came up with a definite pause as the spoken marker, no matter what written mark we settled upon. Do you think the pause varies in speech with the punctuation assigned it?-- with the exception of the full stop, of course, during which we could easily step into the kitchen, crack a beer and return to the conversation between party and because.
.

 

[Joelline]

.

I don't think it is as simple as that, Joelline. Dependent clauses are subject to the restrictive / non-restrictive dilemma-- and I say 'dilemma' because it is often problematical.

The comma is slipperier than other punctuation marks anyway (which can be good or bad-- good for the descriptivists, bad for the prescriptivists). Let me ask you whether you conceive these two sentences (and the use of the comma) differently?--

1-- I wish you wouldn't do that, because I don't like it. (Non-restrictive. 'Don't do it, and I'll give you the reason.')
2-- I wish you wouldn't do that because I don't like it. (Restrictive. 'You're spiting me: you do it because I don't like it.')

Those are my constructs, but whether 'because some could be hoodlums' is limiting or non-limiting is mostly in the mind of the writer; so in the present case we could argue a long time over the righteousness of the comma before because. Still, there is a necessity in the world of punctuation for both options, I think. Huddleston & Pullum call this use of the comma the 'information-packaging function': the comma separates the message into units of information, so that in the case of my #1, the comma indicates that the negative in the main clause does not have scope over the reason in the dependent clause; in #2, it does (which is why we experience the queasy feeling of the double negative).

I freely admit that I generally do not make such fine distinctions with restrictive/non-restrictive phrases and clauses! I wouldn't trust such subtle meaning to a comma. This is but one of the reasons I brought up the comma in my post to you in the form of a question and used the weasel-word "rarely"!

 

[panjandrum]

[...]
I notice no-one has tackled the question of whether to use the comma, semicolon, colon or dash in speech.

For the record, in case anyone is interested, I use the dash but if I were speaking to a member of the British royal family, I would chose the colon.

Analysing the responses thus far, I would opt for using the semi-colon if speaking to the other type of queen (as per Mr Micawber's suggestion.)

I am intrigued.
Short of using Victor-Borge-style vocalising of punctuation, I don't think anyone could tell which of these I intended in speech.

 

[Trina]

I am intrigued.
Short of using Victor-Borge-style vocalising of punctuation, I don't think anyone could tell which of these I intended in speech.

Forgive me,;:.!- I was passing through a cloud of facetiousness and I must have been affected by the fallout!
Thank you for the Victor-Borge image,;:. - if more people vocalised their punctuation, we probably would be much clearer as to which is the correct punctuation to use!

 

[panjandrum]

Forgive me,;:.!- I was passing through a cloud of facetiousness and I must have been affected by the fallout!
Thank you for the Victor-Borge image,;:. - if more people vocalised their punctuation, we probably would be much clearer as to which is the correct punctuation to use!

Ah - facetiousness. The ultimate mitigating factor. It gets me into trouble all the time.
All is forgiven - huge sigh of relief. And please forgive my insensitivity - I should have recognised the symptoms. Note to self: file Trina in the "prone to flippancy" section

Ahem.
For those in other sections.
This and the preceding two posts relate to the vocalisation of punctuation marks. Those of us who read aloud frequently are particularly aware that written punctuation marks are ... of limited value. I feel a new question coming on.

 

[DaiSmallcoal]

Agree with Maxiogee above - what's the comma doing there after "Dick"
it's "Tom, Dick and Harry"

otherwise there's a pause -as if Harry is an afterthought ?
" Tom, Dick, ........................ and Harry " ??

 

[Nasdiego]

To me, I will use a sami-colon, for they are two individuals sentences, and they are akin each other. However, I wouldn't use comma unless I use conjunction I will use comma. I will bet that it will be fine if we use period as well, but I would prefer to use semi-colon.

 

[bmo]

Agree with Maxiogee above - what's the comma doing there after "Dick"
it's "Tom, Dick and Harry"

otherwise there's a pause -as if Harry is an afterthought ?
" Tom, Dick, ........................ and Harry " ??

A teacher in a writing class told a story of a will stipulating distribution of an estate. It goes like this:

Tom, Dick, and Harry ---- each gets 1/3.
Tom, Dick and Harry ------ Tom gets 1/2, Dick and Harry together get 1/2.

She recommended keeping the comma.

Thanks for all your help.

bmo

 

[Trina]

A teacher in a writing class told a story of a will stipulating distribution of an estate. It goes like this:

Tom, Dick, and Harry ---- each gets 1/3.
Tom, Dick and Harry ------ Tom gets 1/2, Dick and Harry together get 1/2.

She recommended keeping the comma.

Thanks for all your help.

bmo

I believe that this scenario would be the only reason to keep the comma.
In your original sentence, the comma is not needed.

This scenario also shows how important it is to be the first one named as a beneficiary (particularly if the will has been written by someone whose knowledge of punctuation is a little weak)
If the will started "Trina, Dick, and Harry...", a careful blob of liquid paper could fix it!

 

[Mister Micawber]

.
Tom, and Dick and Harry ------ Tom gets 1/2, Dick and Harry together get 1/2.
.