Is this sentence a comma splice or dangler?

Noah Webster,author of the original Webster's Dictionary,believed that a dictionary should contain more than the definitions of words;therefore,he included their etymologies as well.

OR IS THE SENTENCE PROPERLY CONSTRUCTED?

There is nothing wrong with the sentence. It is not a spliced dangler. A semicolon is correctly used after "words", to separate independent clauses.

In modern usage, however, it would be preferable to omit the comma after "therefore". It is not needed to clarify the thought.

To determine if the sentence is a comma splice or dangler, let's first understand what those terms mean.

A comma splice occurs when two independent clauses (complete sentences) are joined only by a comma, without any coordinating conjunction. This results in a grammatically incorrect sentence.

A dangler, on the other hand, is a construction in which the subject of a sentence does not logically match the verb or introductory phrase. This can lead to confusion or unclear meaning.

In the provided sentence, "Noah Webster, author of the original Webster's Dictionary," is an introductory phrase that provides information about who Noah Webster is. It is followed by a comma, which is appropriate to separate the introductory phrase from the main clause.

The main clause of the sentence is "believed that a dictionary should contain more than the definitions of words." This is a complete sentence with a subject ("Noah Webster") and a verb ("believed").

The semicolon comes after "words" and is correctly used to join two independent clauses. The second independent clause is "he included their etymologies as well." Both clauses make complete sense on their own and are also connected in meaning.

Therefore, the sentence is properly constructed, and it is not a comma splice or dangler.