Grammar question

>>9396187
Cue debate about Oxford commas

Semicolon is just a more accentuated comma, if one of these said-its requires greater emphasis (for example, if 'he' is some authority figure who sets the tone, which would make the third option the best), use it. The second sentence is prescriptively ungrammatical, especially if you're one of these autists who screech about oxford comma.

File: 1408849633576.jpg (76KB, 500x653px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 500x653px

>>9396193
The first three are correct, the fourth is not. I would recommend against the second for style reasons, if you are unwilling to drop the "and".

Guys


>Further, [someone] published [something] on the dangers of [something], claiming that in [year] there were more than [number] [things].


What's the rule that justifies the comma before "claiming"?

>>9397216
OK I got it; you gotta put a comma before introducing a non-restrictive participial phrase at the end of a sentence

>>9396187
>>This is controversial because there's a coordinating conjunction after the semicolon while a comma is expected
false, a semicolon is not a colon, so it is fine to put an and after it

File: 2017-04-18-184259_740x561_scrot.png (45KB, 740x561px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 740x561px

>>9397412
I said it's controversial; and that's not false

>>9397216
There is no rule.

Whether one puts a comma there or not depends on how parenthetical or relevant the participle clause is to the main verb's meaning.

Since, in your example, the participle's meaning that 'some things have increased in number' is quite relevant to the main clause's meaning of 'someone publishing something about the dangers of them'. I would therefore suggest that a comma is not needed, since the participle clause is essential to the main verb.

But, again, it's down to personal taste.

>>9397318
Not necessarily. The participle clause could be put at the beginning of the sentence, or anywhere else where it made sense.