Hmmm
"four nights in Sydney, following [four in Aukland and four in Fiji]"
But there is ambiguity IMhO:
We don't know if it's c + [b + a] or: c + [a + b]
The[] could as easily connote 1) Aukland 2) Fiji as, vice versa.
We are meant to infer that all is in reverse order.
"four nights in Sydney, as follow four in Aukland, which followed four in Fiji"
Maybe (other than stating 1-2-3)
"four nights in Sydney, following four in Aukland; this after initial four in Fiji"
Is that the least ambiguous?
But generally -
Poor neglected ';'
Useful as a [comma and \ufffd]? = just short-of a full-stop [.]
When context is clear - these need not be the formulaic clauses, either (ie with subject and predicate): the subject is most often evident. Speech has metre! D'Oh.
We are indicating ... {pauses} ...
Why can we not better signify l e n g t h ?
(Note how we exaggerate Pause-length - when speaking with children or MBAs;
this is not only to give them more time to pattern-match in their nascent caches (or for latter - TLA-damaged caches.)
It's for Emphasis sometimes.
and separation, if there are say, three related thoughtlets in a sentence.)
Our punctuation rules are primordial. Speech gives all sorts of clues about meaning, which rote use of hoary punctuation rulez elides. No such options were practical with hot-lead type and the labor to set each tiny blotch.
I shall attempt to carry the Guidon for Victor Borge's excellent musical burlesque -- illustrating these deficiencies by zany exaggeration.
Yet Another Treasure gone, recently.
RIP Victor...
no more delicious torturing of (delicious) coloratura sopranos on stage
no more delightfully dissonant key-changes at incredible velocity and virtuosity :(
