So, I've got a little bit of a confusion with the following sentence as to what punctuation I would need (if any); "It was the strangest army that I had ever seen: an army of paupers." with the bold and underlined ":" where I am getting confused as to what punction I should use. Can anyone illuminate me in this situation and why it should be X or Y?
I would use a comma, not a colon there. It's a simple modifier phrase, identifing why the narrator considered it strange. If you instead wrote A colon would be a good choice for two closely coupled sentences. After a colon, the first word should always be capitalized, but I would not choose a colon to join a sentence and a fragment, in general.
Thanks. ...but I thought you didn't capitalize after a colon?.... mhmmm. don't tell me i've been doing it wrong all these years.....
Or you could restructure it like "The Army of Paupers was the strangest I had ever seen." It might be a cleaner option.
I think the colon overcomplicates things. It depends on the drama of the pause. It was the strangest army that I had ever seen. An army of paupers. It was the strangest army that I had ever seen, an army of paupers. The first is more dramatic. That doesn't somehow make it "more correct." It depends on what your goal is. The second is more subdued and seamless. The first uses a fragment. The surrounding text will decide whether or not that gets rejected. The second is using an appositive that expands a noun phrase. Here's the appositive and the noun phrase that it's renaming. It was the strangest army that I had ever seen, an army of paupers.
Also, your original sentence is just fine in fiction. 'It was the strangest army that I had ever seen: an army of paupers.' The fragment after the colon can be considered an explanation. It all comes down to your own Style.
It would depend upon your intention. Generally speaking, a colon is used to denote a summary to list or a list to summary. So, if you imagine that the first portion of this is a summary, and the second portion is a list of one thing, it is correct. If this is what you are hoping to emphasize, so be it. Otherwise, a simple comma would be called for in most cases. Examples of the former, wherein we have a summary, followed by a list of one thing, whether it be an example of one item on a list, or the sole item on the list: I felt it only right that I confess: “It is said I am a witch.” Summary: A confession. List: The list of one thing that is the confession in specification. (Again, I need emphasize that you can, and most often will, so this with a comma, given you generally are just using the first portion as a dialogue tag.) Then again, they knew a good deal about their husbands: if his mother was a hag, what he looked like, if he was lazy, did he always stink, if he had any skill at building a house. Summary: a good husband. List: Specific traits that make up a good husband. I sang to the peanut butter cracker sandwich on the lab desk: “We the Haudenosaunee ask that you, Okwiraseh, give this kin of the three great sisters to the animal soul of Mr. Neeley, so it might be carried to Mr. Neeley’s leg. May the pain ease many days and maybe his leg even mend a little. He has quit the war and now sees the great vision of Deganawida. He is deserving of a mighty orenda.” Summary: sang to the peanut butter cracker. List: Many versus of the song. But, in most cases, you are not intending to emphasize a kind of scaling up from sumnarized intention to list. In the original case it is a judgment call. Do you hope to emphasize that the strangeness (summary) is embodied in the single detailed list, peasant? If that is the powerful message you hope to double down on and push, use a colon. If it's just an incidental thought, you have the much more commonly applied comma, as well as the choice of not TELLING prior to SHOWING., because that also comes to play in your decision making process when using a summary.
