Just kidding, sorry about the misleading title, and the post that follows. I've asked this in several places around the net and haven't been able to get a helpful response, so I was wondering if any of you wonderful people could help me. (please click back on your browser right now if you don't want to read garbage from some kid with a sentence problem).

My paper reads:

However, non-significant results for the four hypotheses may direct attention towards the competing biochemical account; specifically, that the coal fusion chambers contribute to the production of high octane countach fuel.

Is this correct usage of the semicolon?

I feel that a new sentence would break the flow, but I also feel that a comma after "account" makes things drag on.

Sorry If I've missed the correct forum/subforum for this, I had a quick search and this seemed most appropriate.

No. A semicolon in a sentence is used to differentiate a sub-clause forming a separate mini-statement directly related to the main sentence. A comma is more appropiate in the above example as it's not a sub-clause.

I would write the above sentence as:

"However, non-significant results for the four hypotheses may direct attention towards the competing biochemical account, specifically that the coal fusion chambers contribute to the production of high octane countach fuel."

You don't need a comma between "specifically" and "that" either.


Ian (Mackem_Beefy)

it should be "nonsignificant".

Damn the English language, lol. I concur with the sentence structure with the nonsignificant. :-)

I know this was not your original question - but I would never phrase your actual findings as non-significant (or worse still 'nonsignificant' !). What you have found could actually be seen as a really important finding. Therefore, your description of the findings could be clearer.

Whilst your overall findings should never be talked about in this way - The results of an inferential statistical test can be 'not statistically significant' i.e. you have not found enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis that there is no difference or association in the population of interest (depending on what test you have conducted).

So, for example instead you could say ...

'Data analysis revealed that there was not sufficient evidence to accept the four experimental hypotheses as stated at the outset of this study (p values all > .05). This finding may suggest that research attention could now be directed towards the competing biochemical account; specifically that the coal fusion chambers contribute to the production of high octane countach fuel'.

Students I work with often get dismayed when they don't find statistically significant results... but it doesn't necessarily mean these findings are not important, and so care should be taken when reporting analysis that has produced a p value higher than .05

As an aside, do check out this link for a light hearted take on this subject -

I know "non" is not a word in itself, however, I've always used a hyphen in the above example.

Is this another example of the English language evolving? An example is 'single quotes' being used where in the past, "double quotes" would have been expected.

Ian (Mackem_Beefy)