If I were there, I wouldn't have done that

[jotham]

Well, I got to thinking after you said that — I forgot that linguists think all native speakers are expert. I suppose my modus operandi is foreign to them. I try to keep humble about my abilities, recognize that I can write more clearly, and actually take the opportunity in these posts (which I've never done before) to practice and sharpen my writing skills.

[Stephen Jones]

The missing comma before the descriptive relative clause that Menand complains about is in the introduction, written by Frank McCourt, a English graduate of Colombia University, and ex-New York High School teacher.

It suggests the proof readers are not up to scratch, but neither Truss, nor the Brits can be blamed for it.

The chapter in Truss's book on commas is quite explicit on the problem. The comma has two functions, to convey meaning and prosody, which are not always linked. Many prescriptionists in the US attempt to legislate out the latter function, and give a fixed series of rules for when to use the comma.

One thing is clear: there are a lot less commas in use now than there were a hundred and fifty years ago.

Now obviously there are places where there is no disagreement that a comma is mandatory, lists and descriptive relative clauses being two of them, but there are others where they are optional, including after the first two words of this sentence.

Menand can only criticize Truss for not following the rules she gives in her book; not for ignoring what Menand thinks the rules for semi-colons and commas should be.

So he would be on surer ground for asking for "the zero-tolerance guide", since Truss is ignoring her own rule, though some would say her rule was wrong and that the use of the hyphen is only required to prevent ambiguity.

[jotham]

The missing comma before the descriptive relative clause that Menand complains about is in the introduction, written by Frank McCourt, a English graduate of Colombia University, and ex-New York High School teacher. It suggests the proof readers are not up to scratch, but neither Truss, nor the Brits can be blamed for it.

There were two such instances, which is two too many — pun not intended, but applies at any rate. The one in the dedication was by Truss. But grammar even in the introduction would also normally be subject to an American editor's eye, not to mention the author's, especially an author talking about correct punctuation.

The comma has two functions, to convey meaning and prosody, which are not always linked.

Agreed. By prosody, you mean rhetoric, as when pausing to express an afterthought, right? I think that can play a role once in a while, but most commas aren't used that way (if scientifically observed). Commas are primarily employed for meaning. The author doesn't deny there is a rhetoric comma; he thought Truss was possibly overemphasizing or militating for this role of punctuation to the extreme of taking us back to earlier times, or into the world of email smileys.

One thing is clear: there are a lot less commas in use now than there were a hundred and fifty years ago.
Now obviously there are places where there is no disagreement that a comma is mandatory, lists and descriptive relative clauses being two of them, but there are others where they are optional, including after the first two words of this sentence.

Agreed. I don't think the author challenged Truss where these principles apply.
The semicolon can be used for simple lists if you want I suppose:
I want an apple; an orange; and a pear.
But it should be for a special reason since we don't normally do that. We use them when there is internal punctuation; then the semicolons can act as super commas: I want an apple, which is my favorite food; an orange, which I don't like as well; and a pear, which I like least.
Truss apparently didn't use the semicolons deliberately, but rather mindlessly. But technically, I guess you're right: it isn't really wrong, just unnecessary. We can employ our full freedom; relax requirements of logic; and mix up our punctuation. Semicolons is certainly one mark that affords us ample opportunity.

[Stephen Jones]

We starting to discuss something intelligent. Must be some kind of virus

By prosody, I mean simply a pause: that is to say one use of a comma is to tell you when to pause. For example, "But, I don't agree" is to be said differently from "But I don't agree". Now (,) many American commentators are most reluctant to accept this idea because they dislike judgement; they want a hard and fast (hard-and-fast) rule for as much as possible in language use.

Another point to mention is the use of the comma as a graphic delimitator. This obvously is linked to the pause.

These two principles explain the general British attitude on the serial comma. It wouldn't be used in "Eats, shoots and leaves", but would be in "Eats home-made spaghetti, shoots the bartender dead, and then leaves a tip for the funeral. Note that when I say British attitude, I am talking about
British commentators, since, even were it possible to gather a large amount of data of punctuation usage unaffected by copy-editors, I doubt that there is the unanimity many claim for American educated usage.

I am thankful for your explanation about Menand's comment on semi-colons in lists. I have never heard it before. The norm I know is to use semi-colons in lists where each item approximates short-sentence length, though there are other ramifications. Now, using Menand's rules for commas, most of these items would have commas in them but the prior exisence of commas is not a requisite.

This last rule of Menand's seems to me to embody a tendency seen in most places in his prescriptions/proscriptions: that of replacing good judgement on individual cases with an artificially-defined rule based on a subset of those cases.

[jotham]

Now (,) many American commentators are most reluctant to accept this idea because they dislike judgement; they want a hard and fast (hard-and-fast) rule for as much as possible in language use.

Well, I don't know about that. I think those commas are okay in dialogue, which your example is (which fits the smiley situation). But generally speaking, as you mentioned, fewer commas are being used — and because it slows us down. And perhaps because we have other tools to deal with pauses. If I were conscious of a pause and wanted to bring it out in formal writing, I could use an em dash (which I use often), or even ellipses. These work especially well in dialogue; but when dealing with documentary material, which Truss was doing, it's cleaner, faster, and more efficient to leave those commas out when they don't change meaning or mitigate confusion. It's not necessarily wrong, just not advised.
Rather than seeing hard and fast rules, grammarians nowadays see tried and true principles. We always have freedom, however, to use judgment and go against these principles — but when a writer does so, he or she should be aware of the principle being violated and have logical justification for doing so. It happens all the time in good writing. I'm under the impression that Truss wasn't aware of the principle, and thus didn't violate it consciously: that's why I said she didn't use the semicolons deliberately, but mindlessly.
I'm also assuming that it isn't just an American principle. Although when I looked up Burchfield, it talks of semicolons in lists, but doesn't mention internal punctuation specifically. Surely Fowler mentioned it. I can't imagine that it is predominantly American, as in the case with serial commas and that/which. If it truly is an American thing, then your point on this is more legitimate. Sometimes it's so hard tackling British-American differences.

[metal56]

You talk a lot about punctuation, but I don't understand your choices here:

I'm also assuming that it isn't just an American principle. Although when I looked up Burchfield, it talks of semicolons in lists, but doesn't mention internal punctuation specifically.

Why is there a period before "Although" there?

These work especially well in dialogue; but when dealing with documentary material, which Truss was doing, it's cleaner, faster, and more efficient to leave those commas out when they don't change meaning or mitigate confusion.

Why are you using a semicolon and "but" together there?

[jotham]

You talk a lot about punctuation

I'm surprised too since I thought linguists didn't care about studying it that much, but it all got started with serial commas.

Why is there a period before "Although" there?

I wasn't using it as a conjunction, but as an adverb. Can only though be an adverb and not although? I think they both work.

Why are you using a semicolon and "but" together there?

I could use a period effectively, but I wanted to show a stronger connection between the sentences. A comma would make a really long sentence that rambles on and without delineating my two main thought patterns.
Does it somehow make it harder for you to read?

[Stephen Jones]

Rather than seeing hard and fast rules, grammarians nowadays see tried and true principles

The problem is that lacking their reality-distortion advice most of the rest of us don't see anything of the sort.

[metal56]

I wasn't using it as a conjunction, but as an adverb. Can only though be an adverb and not although? I think they both work.

although

SYLLABICATION: al·though

CONJUNCTION: Regardless of the fact that; even though.

ETYMOLOGY: Middle English : al, all; see all + though, though; see though.
USAGE NOTE: As conjunctions, although and though are generally interchangeable: Although (or though) she smiled, she was angry. Although is usually placed at the beginning of its clause (as in the preceding example), whereas though may occur elsewhere and is the more common term when used to link words or phrases, as in wiser though poorer. In certain constructions, only though is acceptable: Fond though (not although) I am of sports, I'd rather not sit through another basketball game.

[metal56]

I could use a period effectively, but I wanted to show a stronger connection between the sentences. A comma would make a really long sentence that rambles on and without delineating my two main thought patterns.

I was questioning the use of the two, together. Normally, a comma and a conjunction are equivalent to a semicolon, so why use a semicolon and a conjunction together?

[jotham]

Garner says:
"...the semicolon sometimes separates coordinate clauses in long, complex setences."
He cites a passage by Charles *beep* in Bleak Houses in which one appears before but. There's no rule against that. Have you seen something? Or it just seems strange to you? Is it another myth falsely imputed to grammarians?

[metal56]

Garner says:
"...the semicolon sometimes separates coordinate clauses in long, complex setences."

He says "sometimes", but only gives one example?

He cites a passage by Charles *beep* in Bleak Houses in which one appears before but.

This has always been my understanding of the rule:

"1. As covered in Section 2 above, when a conjunction merges two simple sentences into one, it should be preceded by a comma. However, if one (or both) of the sentences already contains a comma (or commas), then a semicolon can be used instead."

http://www.grammar-monster.com/lessons/ ... essons.htm

Your sentence did not contain a comma/commas prior to use of the semicolon.

For me, it works here:

In fact, rather surprisingly, the majestic pike is hardly used in cooking today; but in Victorian times, pastry-topped pike was a very common dish.
(Semicolon used before "but" to outrank the other commas in the sentence)

[jotham]

Charles *beep*

Did I make a gross typing error, or did I set off some kind of automatic censor system? I usually edit what I write. I didn't mean to disrespect a well-revered author.

He says "sometimes", but only gives one example?

He gives three examples. One is before an and in Pride and Prejudice and another one that doesn't have to do with conjunctions. He says it was common in Victorian writing.

Your sentence did not contain a comma/commas prior to use of the semicolon.

Your author says that a semicolon is a possibility, but that a comma is fine. I would have used a comma in those sentences since they aren't that long and seem to flow one into the other okay — or an em dash. But it seems to read okay either way. You're reading too much into that website — making it seem like the offered general guidance or information is a hard-and-fast rule. Maybe that's why lot of linguists think and say that grammarians are always making silly rules.

"In certain constructions, only though is acceptable: Fond though (not although) I am of sports, I'd rather not sit through another basketball game."

I think this is what I was meaning to use. I guess I used although incorrectly for though. Good eye. I'll have to be careful about that. (Though [not although] I think the audience understood nonetheless.) But I still think my punctuation is okay. Even if I have an incomplete sentence (which I don't think it is), such a sentence can still be done skillfully, and was done at least acceptably — like the third sentence in this paragraph.

[Stephen Jones]

I fail to see where is the objection to the use of the semi-colon before 'but'. If you can have 'But" after a period, then why not 'but' after a semi-colon.

Metal56 seems to have got hold of some version of Menand's rule.

[Stephen Jones]

Normally, a comma and a conjunction are equivalent to a semicolon,

Never really heard this before.

And 'but' is acting the same as 'however'; are you saying you can't have a semi-colon before 'however'.