Grammar question?

Question

Ok, so...in the book "Wuthering Heights" and many other Classics, they wrote:

"I have waited here an hour," he said, while I continued staring; "and the whole of that time....etc.,"

So, my question is, why, when I also used the "semicolon," in the same manner, my editor told me that using a " ; " before a speech is not allowed???!!!!!

And also this (a technique often used by Georgette Heyer):

He put on his hat as he looked at her, saying: "What are you looking at?" (Of course, this isn't from her book though, just made it up.)

But the "colon" ( : ) is often used before a speech . . .and when I used it before, my editor told me it was NOT ALLOWED. Why is it that it was allowed in these books . .. but not allowed nowadays??? Is my editor just wrong, or.....has these grammar rules changed throughout the century??!!

Answer 1

Punctuation rules do vary in at least three ways: (1) They have changed over time: currently, editors tend to prefer a more open punctuation than in, say, the 18th or 19th centuries; furthermore, more experimental punctuation now reaches publicaton, especially in fiction and poetry. (2) There are a few differences between British and American publishers, especially with regard to quotations. (3) Nowadays, most publishers and many periodicals have their own style sheets, which determine how prose will be punctuated, especially in order to maintain consistency on matters in which, generally speaking, variations are allowed.

Therefore, assuming your editor represents a publisher or periodical, your question is better addressed to him or her than to grammarians or the general public.

Semicolons would not be used to introduce a quotation, whether in dialogue or scholarly citation. A semicolon, however, would be used between two independent clauses separated by conjunctive adverbs or having no conjunction at all (the latter usually short, closely related independent clauses; e.g., "I came, I saw, I conquered"). In such cases, the placement of the semicolon will depend on whether (a) the quotation consists of two independent clauses or (b) is a part of one of the independent clauses; for example, in the following two sentences.

(a) "I will not pay," the customer shouted; "you cannot make me."

[Note: many editors probably would prefer that you simply punctuate this as two separate sentences.
"I will not pay," the customer shouted. "You cannot make me."]

(b) She overheard members of the audience whispering, "This has been going on too long"; therefore, she decided to omit her last point.

On the matter of colons, there is greater variation among publishers. For the periodicals that I edited, the style sheet was somewhat conservative on this point. In introducing lists or quotations, it permitted colons only when the introduction consisted of a complete independent clause; for example,

I heard the customer shout the same thing over and over again: "I will not pay; you cannot make me."

BUT
The customer shouted over and over again, "I will not pay; you cannot make me."

NOT
The customer shouted over and over again: "I will not pay; you cannot make me."

Ordinarily, editors for publishers and periodicals expect to edit manuscripts, bringing them into conformity their their style sheets--and they may reserve the right to do so silently, without seeking the writer's permission. They do not expect free-lance writers to do this for them; nor do they expect free-lance writers to object when such editing is done.

By the way, in reviewing manuscripts for possible publicaton, editors are much less likely to wonder about the writer's qualifications when such minor punctuation errors appear than when there are sentences like your last one: "Is my editor just wrong, or.....has these grammar rules changed throughout the century??!!"

This is grammatically incorrect; it should read, "Is my editor wrong, or . . . have these grammar rules changed throughout the century??!!" That kind of grammatical error (subject-verb agreement) does call into question the writer's linguistic maturity, a more serious issue.

Answer 2

The grammar rules have and will continue to change - I'm a great believer in descriptive grammar rather than prescriptive. It is not always an elegant change, but the idea is to ensure that we can understand what we are saying or reading without serious headscratching.

I would have put the first semicolon inside the quotation marks, because it is the character's speech that requires it, and not the author's prose.

In the second instance, it may be that your editor was harking back to a very early rule involving colons and speech: that if you use the colon to indicate speech, then you don't also use quotation marks.

Mind you, this may not be at all what your editor thought. I've never had occasion to use one, but have been told that they are a trial and a burden to a creative writer.

Answer 3

A semicolon can be used in place of a period when the two sentences have a close relationship. As an editor, I would yell at you more for ending a sentence with "at."

Grammar rules have changed a bit over the years. They are much more relaxed now. Also, it depends on the country where something was written.

I was a little confused about your colon question though. Did he get on to you for that too?

Answer 4

Use the colon to introduce a direct quotation that is more than three typewritten lines in length. In this situation, leave a blank line above and below the quoted material. Single space the long quotation. Some style manuals say to indent one-half inch on both the left and right margins; others say to indent only on the left margin. Quotation marks are not used.

----------

A colon can precede a long quotation.

Example:

The Computing Officer explains the reason for this decision: "Java can enable searching on any kind of platform. Time and money has been wasted by developing 35 different versions, each requiring different programmers. With a joint effort we knew we'd have an amazing product."

Answer 5

I am a published author as well.
Though I do hire an editor, it is a understanding between us,that if I use grammar or structure in an old fashion way ,like the examples you have shown,It is not to be corrected.
That is part of my style and having your own style is important.
New rules are great but old rules can still apply and publishers will not complain about them.

Penny Babson
http://www.impressionsbypenny.com

Answer 6

The preceding comments are all correct; the rules of grammar changes almost unnoticeably, but punctuation uses seldom vary.

Your term "speech" is better identified as dialogue; therefore, the only punctuation that would precede dialogue would be a comma as in:

He said, "Get your act together; punctuation is necessary!"

Many proficient writers prefer the use of what is called action tags that precede dialogue and this omits the need for the "he said, she said" constants.

Example:

The professor's eyes narrowed as his complexion reddened. "No! Do not use semicolons in such fashion! Your grade depends on it."

Answer 7

While it is possible that grammar rules have changed over the years, I feel your usage should be considered proper, as it is the Writer who know what he/she wishes to express. I have seen far more egregious usage of punctuation (and the lack there-of) in much of the current popular fiction and non-fiction.

For an example of atrocious punctuation: see "A Million Little Pieces"

I feel your Editor has his head up his semi-colon.

Answer 8

I think that more than time its what you are writing that matters. Prose twists grammar to suit its own self. You'll find several unconventional grammar and word usage in prose.
If you are writing an article in a magazine a (,) would be more appropriate. If you are directly quoting a third person , as in case of a newspaper article, a (-) would be more effective.
If neither, I think your editor is just plain stupid.

Answer 9

i'm no longer able to believe that i'm in the precise sixteen% - i'm broke each and all of the time!!!!! i assume i've got have been given 2 toddlers and stay in an high priced section. besides - sure you're perfect and that's the subject with grammar colleges. they're wonderful for toddlers who does no longer in any different case have get right of entry to to a minimum of one among those competent education. in spite of the incontrovertible fact that, the alternative - secondary moderns - type 11 year olds as mess united statesand their academic journey is one among disillusionment and occasional aspirations. needless to say there are some exceptions to the figures you have given above and a few undesirable, working type young ones have been given to flow to a grammar college and used their brains to hoist themselves out of poverty and raised their stay opportunities. additionally there are some like John Prescott and Steve Redgrave who went to secondary moderns and nonetheless went directly to realize good stuff. in spite of the incontrovertible fact that, for the overwhelming majority get right of entry to to grammar colleges depended on in spite of if the mum and dad have been midsection type, from a competent history themselves and who had benefitted from a competent education themselves. that's lots, lots greater good for a undesirable baby devoid of computer, no longer many books and occasional parental expectancies to learn get right of entry to to a grammar. If i ought to have my way i could ban grammar colleges and private colleges. That way, each and all of the valuable parenting and wonderful PTA and governor help which those colleges get could be gently disbursed throughout the country's toddlers and we could all be greater effectual off - economically and socially.

Answer 10

Regarding the semicolon: It would depend on what sentence follows it to determine if that punctuation is correct.

"I have waited here an hour," he said, while I continued staring; "and the whole of that time....etc.," (closely related sentence here would justify the semicolon before).