Any examples of where a full-stop can't replace a semi-colon?

By virtue of separating two closely related but separate thoughts, the semi-colon can generally be replaced by a full stop. I don't mean in the beauty and sound of it, but just grammatically. Can you think of any examples where the full stop, if used, changes the meaning or sense from what the semi-colon would provide? Again, I don't mean in terms of poetic license or what would make for better writing. I just mean in terms of meaning of the 2 thoughts.

Of course, if you believe that my first line itself is contentious, discuss it. But if you do get my drift, then think up some sentences please.

Solution 1:

The semicolon is indistinguishable from a full stop in speech, i.e, language. Hence its use is purely stylistic, applicable to the technology of writing, not language. And certainly not grammar. In writing a semicolon is a handy piece of artifice that can be made to serve a writer's purpose, like any other tool.

One of the purposes a writer may have is distinguishing nested lists that would be easy to understand by intonation and rhythm in speech, by representing certain comma intonations with a semicolon, as in the article that Armen posted. But mostly they're used the way Akin suggests in the question.

As Lewis Thomas put it,

I have grown fond of semicolons in recent years. The semicolon tells you that there is still some question about the preceding full sentence; something needs to be added; it reminds you sometimes of the Greek usage. It is almost always a greater pleasure to come across a semicolon than a period. The period tells you that that is that; if you didn't get all the meaning you wanted or expected, anyway you got all the writer intended to parcel out and now you have to move along. But with a semicolon there you get a pleasant little feeling of expectancy; there is more to come; to read on; it will get clearer.