I don’t know if a comma will help or if it needs a slight rewording, but I’m stumped at the moment. I’m also way behind deadline so obsessing over such a trivial issue is counterproductive. So here I am at the Dope. Go figure.
Anyway…
Here’s what I’m working with:
There were 28 joint programmes in the two thematic windows, environment and climate change and water governance.
If it’s not obvious, my problem is that this can be read as:
There were 28 joint programmes in the two thematic windows, (environment and climate change) and (water governance).
or There were 28 joint programmes in the two thematic windows, (environment) and (climate change and water governance).
The first one is correct. That will eventually be clear later in the document, but since this is in the chapter opening I’m a bit fixated on smoothing it out. Among the constraints I’m working with is the order the windows are presented and the severely formal setting of the work as a whole.
I thought about something along the lines of
There were 28 joint programmes in the environment and climate change thematic window and the water governance thematic window.
Depending on what style you have to adhere to can you make it “A & B and C” I think that would convey that A and B go together. But you may not wish to use an ampersand or you might wish the exactly name “A and B.”
That’s probably what I’d opt for. The semi-colon can also be used to clarify items in a series, so Giles suggestion is not right out, but I’m not sure if I’ve ever seen it used just in a series of two.
Yes, a comma after “climate change” helps, but it would also reduce ambiguity if you were to change “environment” to “environmental”. As it is now an adjective, this makes it clear that it must be modifying the noun “change” rather than standing in its own right.
Colon Cleanse to the rescue! I’d putzed around adding just the comma between them but didn’t like the result (There were 28 joint programmes in the two thematic windows, environment and climate change, and water governance). But changing the first comma to a colon is a little more comfortable.
Given the nature of the client and subject I can’t monkey with ampersands and slashes. I do have the freedom to capitalize almost at will as long as I’m consistent, but then I’d have to hunt through 200 pages to make sure those (and other) are all treated similarly.
Unless a major epiphany comes along I’m going with the colon—thanks!
Only in a compound list (in which one or more individual items contain internal commas), which this is not. (Example of a compound list: A, which is red and blue; B, which is green and purple; and C, which is black.)
I would have gone with this:
There were 28 joint programmes in the two thematic windows: (1) environment and climate change and (2) water governance.
The semi-colon is incorrect in the example above. This need for clarity occurs only if a comma is included in one or more list items. Example from the APA Style Blog:
Read a little awkward/choppy to me at first (personal thing), but then consider combining with the above:
There were 28 joint programmes in the two thematic windows. One of the windows is environment and climate change; the other is water governance.
Any reason I can’t use:
There were 28 joint programmes in the two thematic windows. One of the windows is environment and climate change; the other, water governance. Or would relying on the implied ‘is’ get me sent to the back of the class?
That’s somewhat similar to the original, but (1) I hate numbers in paragraphs that don’t correspond to anything or carry meaning (e.g. a chronology or hierarchy). It’s a personal thing, like my aversion to ‘especially’ in non-special contexts. I can easily get over myself, but that brings me to (2) there are other numbers in the subsection and adding two more here would add a touch of confusion.
Ah, yes, that’s right. AP agrees, as well, “TO CLARIFY A SERIES: Use semicolons to separate elements of a series when indiviual segments contain material that also must be set off by commas.” So, I’ll go with my first recommendation, to go with Colibri’s suggestion.
I agree that it’s more conventional to use a comma where I suggested a semicolon. However, I suggested the semicolon to mark off more clearly that there is a list of two, but with one item having an internal “and”. The semicolon makes it more difficult to read the sentence the wrong way.
The two thematic windows – environment and climate change plus water governance – shared 28 joint programmes.
or
Atop one mountain stood environment and climate change. Atop another stood water governance. A loud voice echoed across the valley: “What programmes will join us?” Twenty-eight voices answered in unison: “We will!”