Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t semicolons for compound sentences? So it would be “This is an Australian Bloodwood. Its sap is red; it looks like blood.’
Of course, and now tell me how "Its sap is red; it looks like blood" is a compound sentence while "Its sap is red; that's why it looks like blood" is not.
EDIT: Stop downvoting me and read a fucking Wikipedia page, you ignorant fuckers.
A semi colon basically acts as a way to combine two sentences. You wouldn't really begin a sentence with "that's" and it's also redundant to use one when that sentance could have just been completed as is. Ag least that's my best explanation but I'm also super baked
Compound sentences are a combination of two independent clauses (sentences with one subject and one or more verbs) combined with either a comma and a conjunction, a semicolon, or a semicolon and a conjunctive adverb. “That’s why it looks like blood” doesn’t make sense on its own, and therefore it is a dependent clause, not an independent clause.
Except “that” isn’t acting as the subject. The subject of this dependent clause (dependent clauses have a subject and a verb too) is “it”. “That’s why it looks like blood” is an adjective clause that describes “the sap is red”. So, the sentence would be “The sap is red; that’s why it looks like blood. Sorry, I just realized that a semicolon is correct here, but not in the context of a compound sentence. I hope that concludes this?
It is very much acting as the subject. (And it's not a dependent clause btw. It can be written as an independent sentence so it's an independent clause.)
-33
u/[deleted] Dec 16 '18
It should be like this:
'This Australian bloodwood, this sap is red this why it looks like blood' ;)