The list below is taken from [Barbara Abbott's 'Definiteness and Indefiniteness.'](https://www.msu.edu/%7Eabbottb/def_and_indef.pdf) My query is not related to the contents of the paper but it is about the punctuation she uses, about the use of semicolons. Why do you think she uses semicolons in these bold parts, where I think simple commas suffice? I think she purposely uses semicolons, but I cannot figure out her intents.

I cannot reproduce her list to a tee here. If you would take the trouble of going to the actual site and see Table 1, it would be much appreciated.

---

> 
> * NP type: [NP *e*]
> * More details: **control PRO; pro; other instances of ellipsis**
> * Examples: ***Mary tried e to fly;* [on a pill packet] *e contains methanol* [=Ariel 1988, ex. 7a]**
> 
> 
> 

('NP' here is actually a subscript in the paper)

---

> 
> * NP type: Pronouns
> * More details: the personal pronouns
> * Examples: *I, you, she, them*
> 
> 
> 

---

> 
> * NP type: Demonstratives
> * More details: **demonstrative pronouns; NPs with demonstrative determiners**
> * Examples: *This, that, this chair over here*
> 
> 
> 

---

> 
> * NP type: Possessive NPs
> * More details: NPs with genitive NPs as determiner
> * Examples: *my best friend's wedding, our house*
> 
> 
> 

---