A writer was simply not to use semicolons. Ever.

I'm not sure I understand just what part of that sentence (or those sentences) is bothering you. The writer is saying that he read an article written by another well-known author Kurt Vonnegut Jr. This was in the past, some time ago, hence the use of the past tense. Vonnegut's advice to writers, as contained in that article, was that a good writer should never use a semi-colon [ ; ] as a punctuation mark.

What is it that you don't understand?

I understand. I don't happen to agree, unless they are only being used to show the writer knows how.

I agree with the author, who(m) I may need to read more of, and also don't quite understand nateriver's question.

The who(m) is because whom seems so stilted now. I suppose semicolons are stilted. I still like them, but, of course, not all the time.

Okay for you, but when I run out of commas, that and a dash are all I've got left.

I've got ellipses, but that makes me the most annoying person here.

I don't think any of us understand the question. What's not to understand? How else could one phrase it? [Btw, agreeing or disagreeing with the premise re: semicolons is irrelevant.]

That won't stop me, Andy.

Thanks for answering! What I don't understand is the sentence per se.
Suppose there is a sentence, 'a writer is to use semicolons'
And I don't know what this sentece means.

In that case, you are being instructed to use semicolons.

"A writer was simply not to use semicolons."

The author is referring to what Vonnegut had said, "Do not use semicolons."

In keeping with a past action, Vonnegut's advice giving, the author is referring to this in the past tense also.

He could have said, "A writer is simply not to use semicolons," but that wouldn't convey the action of Vonnegut having asserted this advice in the past, which is what the author is reminiscing about. It's more consistent with remembering the past.

Hi ^^ Thanks for answering. But you seem not to understand what I meant.
What I am asking is that the sentence itself ; 'A writer is to use semicolons.'
A writer is to use semicolons.
I can't understand this sentence!! For example, Cathy is to use this machine.
So I am asking is how I do translate 'be to'.
What I am guessing is that 'a writer is to use semicolons' equals 'a writer has to use semicolons'? But I am not sure. And that's why I am asking here. can u understand what I am saying?

I am NOT asking what the author means, but what the sentence per se means.

OK. You know what a semi-colon is, right? It is a punctuation mark that looks like this -- ; . What the writer is saying is that he read an article in which author Kurt Vonnegut said that a writer should never 'use' semi-colons, that is should not write a semi-colon as part of any sentence. That's what to 'use' a semi-colon means. It means to write it or type it as you are writing or typing a sentence. What's the problem?

I think I understand what you are asking about - the construction "is to". This is a way of expressing an instruction or order.

You are to go to London. (I am instructing you to go to London.)

No-one is to leave the room. (No-one is allowed to leave the room.)

Not just an instruction or an order...

She is to be crowned Queen on Tuesday.

Yes, Thank you. That is exactly what I am asking. Really thanks.