I don't see a general grammar questions thread.

This has been bugging me and I can't find if it's correct. It feels correct to me but I'm probably horribly wrong:

So, is using a semicolon there correct? I think post people would put a full stop there but I don't think that's right.

 

Most people would use a full stop or a comma here (either is appropriate), the latter working if the dialogue is interpreted as interrupted. While a semicolon might be technically acceptable, it isn't often used with dialogue in this way and the whole point of punctuation after all is to facilitate reading. Don't be weird.

Incidentally, unless you go with a full stop, the second passage ("that's...") should not be capitalized.

 

Thinking about it, I want to say that the correct choice should be a colon, but the fact that I don't remember ever seeing it used like that gives me some doubts. I think a full stop would be incorrect. I'm on the fence with comma and semi-colon.

 

I was thinking a full stop isn't right because it's describing what the girl said before the dialogue while at the same time it's not unbroken dialogue so a colon isn't right either.

---------- Post automerged at 00:44 ---------- Previous post was at 00:43 ----------

But yeah, it's not normal, but i think the normal way might not be correct.

 

In the phrase presented you would use a comma since the previous phrase is waiting for the dialog. A semi-colon takes the place of a full stop when the two otherwise independent sentences are closely related.

"Enough, Mr. Potter!" Professor McGonagall's irritation showed in the rising influence of her Scottish heritage; "Ahmurny tae hear yer blootered gibbering."

 

How is the first phrase waiting for dialogue? It's not much different from what you presented.

 

I would use the colon. Semi-colon, full stop and comma are not correct. A comma could be made correct with a small adjustment to the sentence.

Semi-colon

When you use a semi-colon, the clauses which the colon separates must each be capable of forming an independent clause. For example:

Both "I like the green one" and "It's my favourite colour" make sense independently of each other. However, they relate to the same idea so we use a semi-colon rather than a full-stop to show that relation.

In this case this requirement is not met:

This is not an independent clause, because you've used "adding" as a transitive verb and we are thus anticipating its object (the thing she adds).

Full-stop

Incorrect for the same reason as the semi-colon: the first sentence would be incomplete.

Comma

The comma is more complicated because there are tons of rules surrounding its use e.g. lists, adjectives, sentence flow, etc. The relevant rules here are a) main and subordinate clauses and b) parenthetical elements. Using a comma here would fit neither rule. Reading it feels obviously ugly, like something is left hanging.

The reason is twofold:

A) "That's right, isn't it?" is a restrictive relative clause i.e. removing it from the sentence makes the sentence nonsense (see above for why). Restrictive relative clauses, being essential parts of the sentence, are not marked off with commas (which generally indicate non-essential parts of the sentence).

B) A comma would work here if "with a touch of fear" was marked off as a parenthetical element. But since there is no comma before that phrase, a comma after it does not work to mark it off.

This would be correct.

Colon

A colon works well, because it tells us that the object of "adding" is on its way, nicely connecting the speech and the preceding remark.

 

For the sample presented,

The little girl is adding [x] with a touch of fear. If the dialog isn't included, the previous phrase is incomplete.

In my sample, the reader could take the suggestion of her brogue applying to the previous dialog and anything subsequent said by her in the scene, but instead an immediate sample is provided. If I hadn't included the dialog, the semi-colon would have been replaced by a full stop and stood as a complete sentence.

EDIT: Ninja'd by the local grammar guardian.

 

In some ways this makes me wish English was like French and had a group who writes very specific rules for the language.

 

The confusion is caused by the fact that it's common to use a comma to connect two pieces of dialogue like so:

But note that this passes the "restrictive relative clause" test above (i.e. it's not a restrictive relative clause). I can remove the second part of the dialogue and we still have something that makes sense:

The particular piece of dialogue we're faced with here is different because of the transitive use of "adding".

 

Can we please use that sentence - obviously lifted directly from canon - in all grammatical mini-lectures?

Thanks

 

So, using a colon would look something like this:

 

-The Best Revenge