X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:d68:b0:479:90e7:37d1 with SMTP id 8-20020a0562140d6800b0047990e737d1mr5566821qvs.73.1660343663032;
        Fri, 12 Aug 2022 15:34:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:e643:0:b0:67c:2dfa:2906 with SMTP id
 d64-20020a25e643000000b0067c2dfa2906mr5181046ybh.477.1660343657762; Fri, 12
 Aug 2022 15:34:17 -0700 (PDT)
Path: ...!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2022 15:34:17 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <td5cc0$6s2$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2600:1700:61e0:da40:6dfe:1fe1:89f3:285b;
 posting-account=O2vsnAoAAADTW30Cl6ugvfGrNzRuC1j6
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2600:1700:61e0:da40:6dfe:1fe1:89f3:285b
References: <76873c6e-3427-4e71-83dd-910470aa62e2n@googlegroups.com>
 <5117c3e9-e48a-4b35-9eca-84c2f73fa6e5n@googlegroups.com> <td481b$2a9jb$1@dont-email.me>
 <td5cc0$6s2$1@gioia.aioe.org>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <771172ed-4475-43fc-824f-6c945741dfb9n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: semicolons after or between consecutive adverbial subordinate clauses
From: "David & May Evans" <davidmayevans@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2022 22:34:23 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Bytes: 3007
Lines: 31

On Friday, August 12, 2022 at 4:08:53 AM UTC-7, CDB wrote:
> On 8/11/2022 8:48 PM, Peter Moylan wrote: 
> > Metrist2021 wrote: 
> 
> >> I just had occasion to use my pet controversial semicolon 
> >> construction in a live context, in which I did not set out with 
> >> the intention to use it. I'd like to share it. : ) 
> 
> >> "Unless, as seems unlikely, the construction is somehow uniquely 
> >> awful with 'do'; if the construction is grammatical in general, it 
> >> can be grammatical with 'do,' too." 
> 
> > My immediate reaction was that you need a period instead of a 
> > semicolon, because it looks as if the "unless" part is referring back 
> > to a previous sentence.
> I agree. The part after the semicolon doesn't seem connected to the part 
> before it.

Thanks for your feedback, Peter, Peter, and CDB. My hope, whether or not
it was realistic, was that the semicolon would clarify that the "unless"-clause
applies to the rest of the sentence. If it were a comma instead, it might be
unclear whether the "if"-clause adjoins to the main clause or to the "unless"-clause.

The intended meaning is the same as it would be if the semicolon were a 
comma and the "if"-clause were moved to the end of the main clause: 
"Unless, as seems unlikely, the construction is somehow uniquely aweful with
'do," the construction can be grammatical with 'do' if it is grammatical in general."

> > On further thought, I'm starting to suspect that you meant a comma. 
> > If so, the sentence is so confusing that you really need to scrap the 
> > whole thing and rephrase.
> What we need is more context.