Reference no: EM13868024

I have attempted to try and educate myself on strict, proper grammar usage recently. I read this chapter: https://www.bartleby.com/116/402.html from The King's English by H.W. Fowler, and have ended coming away far more confused than before.

Two sections in particular didn't make sense to me. These were sections 8 and 9.

In section 8, Fowler criticises the use of the conjunctions 'for' and 'nor' with a comma, saying it isn't acceptable in any circumstance. This goes againt what is generally accepted today, which counts both 'for' and 'nor' in the FANBOYS list of coordinate conjunctions.

On the flip side, in the same section, he states that the and conjunction can sometimes be used without a comma at all when following an independent clause:

It will not be irrelevant to add here, though the point has been touched upon in Understopping, that though a light and-clause may be introduced by no more than a comma, it does not follow that it need not be separated by any stop at all, as in:

When the Motor Cars Act was before the House it was suggesed that these authorities should be given the right to make recommendations to the central authorities and that right was conceded.-Times.

This again conflicts with what I understand as the rules today, stating a comma must always be used before a coordinate conjunction that joins two independent clauses.

Furthermore, in Section 9 on using semicolons, Fowler suggests a change to this passage from Rudyard Kipling:

One view called me to another; one hill to its fellow, half across the county, and since I could answer at no more trouble than the snapping forward of a lever, I let the county flow under my wheels.-Kipling.

Fowler says:

In the [Kipling passage] the second comma and the semicolon clearly ought to change places.

Is that correct? Is "one hill to its fellow" not independent? Which would make a semicolon fine? Also, putting a semicolon after the word "county" would then make it a semicolon plus a coordinate conjunction-a combination that today's rules state as unnecessary.

In fact, now that I come to think of it, I have seen many examples in classic literature where one of the coordinate conjunctions is used directly after a semicolon. Is it an old-fashioned thing to do?

If there are any grammarians out there, I would be very thankful if you could help shed a little light on my confusion; I really want to try and improve my grasp of good grammar. As part of the younger generation, I never really had lessons on proper grammar and punctuation usage in my education. All I had to go on was that commas equal small pauses, full stops equal long pauses, and semicolons are somewhere in the middle.