University at Buffalo Law School & its typos in recruiting materials

[jacy85]

"Nationally known for our clinical programs, concentrations, and interdisciplinary approach; you will graduate with the skills to work in all facets of the law."

But you're right about the second misused semicolon, jakia. Two related and independent clause... good to go.

Um..."Nationally known for our clinical programs, concentrations, and interdisciplinary approach" is not a full, complete thought.  There's no subject to this sentence, hence the inappropriate use of the semicolon.  Unless I'm wrong (and I could be), and a clause doesn't have to include a subject and verb.  I think Pookie's still right.  Sometimes I hate grammar.  I'm so confused!

[jakia]

Not to rain on the Pookie Parade or anything, but you shouldn't make all of the changes that you suggest.  Otherwise, *you* may be the recipient of a red-inked paper.


"In addition to your LSAT score and academic achievements; your personal statement, book essays, letters of recommendation and extracurricular activities will weigh heavily in the decision-making process."

I know semi-colons are great and all, but don't misuse them.

It's not misused.  The semicolon introduces a list.  This semicolon prevents the sentence from being misread.

There are only two items in the first list and no comma is used; thus I don't think a semicolon should be used.  A semicolon makes sense within a list when you're separating list items that contain commas themselves, for example:

This summer, I traveled to Phoenix, Arizona; Las Vegas, Nevada; and San Francisco, California.

Forgive me.  I didn't provide an adequate explanation.  A semicolon is appropriately used when used in place of a comma (that would otherwise cause misreading), which I'm sure that you believe should follow the dependent cluse "In addition to...."  If the semicolon were not in place, the sentence would read that in additon to your LSAT, academic achievements, your personal statement, book essays, etc.  As you can see, that is definitely incorrect.

The example you gave is exactly correct; but, does not apply to this case.

[jakia]

"This coupled with Buffalo's modest cost-of-living, makes UB an obvious choice."

Where's the other comma?

No other comma is needed.  If you are referring to "Coupled with Buffalo's modest cost-of-living", it is a restrictive clause; therefore, no comma is necessary.

I'm saying the sentence should read: "This, coupled with Buffalo's modest cost-of living, makes UB an obvious choice."  The commas in this case separate something that is parenthetical, but they can't serve that function if there is only one comma.  It's like having a ) without a ( to precede it; they work together and need each other.

It's a restrictive clause; it's necessary to convey the complete meaning of the sentence.  My argument is that NO comma is necessary.  The two things must work together to make UB an "obvious choice."

[mukhia]

I'm putting a black bar across your avatars and e-mailing this thread to UB Law...

[jakia]

"Nationally known for our clinical programs, concentrations, and interdisciplinary approach; you will graduate with the skills to work in all facets of the law."

Again with the misused semi-colon.

Not exactly -- The semicolon is used to shift the focus of the sentence.  It also prevents the sentence from being misread.

If a semicolon is being used, both sides of the semicolon should be grammatically complete sentences.  An exception would be the list example I gave earlier.  In the UB sentence, a list precedes the semicolon, and it is not a complete sentence.  A comma would not cause the sentence to be misread because of the "and" symbolizing that the list is coming to a close with that last item (in this case, the "interdisciplinary approach").

You cite the rule that is applicable to semicolon use 90% of the time.  In case you're wondering, I can support that statistic by citing numerous case studies.    As you can see from my other posts, there are exceptions.  I swear that I'm not some grammar-obsessed troll.  I just recognized a fellow type-A in you, and wanted to be sure that you could always be right in the future.  

[jakia]

This is good.

Pookie's right about the semicolon; it's misused. (use in the preceding sentence is correct... and anytime you use a semicolon to join related independent clauses you're working within the rules).

Pookie's also right about the comma, too. We're not dealing with a restrictive clause here; it's an appositive phrase (a phrase defined as the amplification of a word that immediately precedes it). Actually, I think this one might be called an "absolute phrase as appositive." Anyway, appositive phrases are set off by commas on both sides.

But you're right about the second misused semicolon, jakia. Two related and independent clause... good to go.

Ain't grammar great?

It's not an appositive, because it's not describing "this".  It's coupled with "this" -- meaning something in addition to.  But, you're right about grammar; it be great!

[TDPookie1]

Technically, by the book, you're right. But when you're writing a flier you're allowed to leave certain things out for brevity's sake. The conventional wisdom on this is that it packs more punch that way. In this case "Nationally know..." equals "We are nationally know..."

But I'll grant that it would sound better as two separate, complete sentences. Cool?

I disagree.  They would not be two separate, complete sentences, because the first part would not be a complete sentence.  And I disagree that it's the same thing as saying "We are nationally known," which would be grammatically incorrect.

Also, I just noticed that that phrase is actually a dangling modifier (at least I think that's what it's called, but I know I have the right idea):

"Nationally known for our clinical programs, concentrations, and interdisciplinary approach; you will graduate with the skills to work in all facets of the law."

The way it's written implies that *you* are the one nationally known for your clinical programs, etc.  Modifiers must always refer to their subject.

This is fun

[Ginatio]

holy f-ing hell... two pages of grammar comments?  .... i need to step out

[TDPookie1]

Not to rain on the Pookie Parade or anything, but you shouldn't make all of the changes that you suggest.  Otherwise, *you* may be the recipient of a red-inked paper.


"In addition to your LSAT score and academic achievements; your personal statement, book essays, letters of recommendation and extracurricular activities will weigh heavily in the decision-making process."

I know semi-colons are great and all, but don't misuse them.

It's not misused.  The semicolon introduces a list.  This semicolon prevents the sentence from being misread.

There are only two items in the first list and no comma is used; thus I don't think a semicolon should be used.  A semicolon makes sense within a list when you're separating list items that contain commas themselves, for example:

This summer, I traveled to Phoenix, Arizona; Las Vegas, Nevada; and San Francisco, California.

Forgive me.  I didn't provide an adequate explanation.  A semicolon is appropriately used when used in place of a comma (that would otherwise cause misreading), which I'm sure that you believe should follow the dependent cluse "In addition to...."  If the semicolon were not in place, the sentence would read that in additon to your LSAT, academic achievements, your personal statement, book essays, etc.  As you can see, that is definitely incorrect.

The example you gave is exactly correct; but, does not apply to this case.

No, that is not definitely incorrect.  Or rather, it is the way you phrased it, but you modified it to make it incorrect.  It could correctly read:
"In addition to your LSAT score and academic achievements, your personal statement, book essays, letters of recommendation and extracurricular activities will weigh heavily in the decision-making process."

Because of the "and" between "LSAT score" and "academic achievements," it's obvious that the list of "in additions" has ended, and the rest of the items are the subject of the sentence.

[TDPookie1]

"This coupled with Buffalo's modest cost-of-living, makes UB an obvious choice."

Where's the other comma?

No other comma is needed.  If you are referring to "Coupled with Buffalo's modest cost-of-living", it is a restrictive clause; therefore, no comma is necessary.

I'm saying the sentence should read: "This, coupled with Buffalo's modest cost-of living, makes UB an obvious choice."  The commas in this case separate something that is parenthetical, but they can't serve that function if there is only one comma.  It's like having a ) without a ( to precede it; they work together and need each other.

It's a restrictive clause; it's necessary to convey the complete meaning of the sentence.  My argument is that NO comma is necessary.  The two things must work together to make UB an "obvious choice."

But you originally said that no other comma is necessary, implying that they were correct in using only one.  Zero commas or two commas, but not just one comma.  You may be right that no comma is necessary, but I don't think I'm wrong about using two commas.