The new relations are shown by the following punctuation:
10-2. He is in doubt about the best course for him to pursue; but, I am sure, his doubt will soon disappear.
Suppose the sentence read as follows, how would it be punctuated?
10-3. He is in doubt about the best course for him to pursue; but I am sure that his doubt will soon disappear.
This sentence cannot be punctuated. The but relation is here between incongruous thoughts; and therefore the sentence must be mended, which can be done by making it like No. 10-2, omitting “that.”
No amount of usage, even among good writers, can justify the absence of commas in No. 10-1, or the construction of No. 10-3.
The discussion of these sentences emphasizes the necessity for observing the meaning of language as expressed by its grouping and by the relation of one group to another.
Additional light will be thrown upon some of the relations already discussed if we consider them from another viewpoint, as we shall do in the next chapter.
EXAMPLES
Note.—As the principles set forth in Chapters I and II will be discussed more in detail in succeeding chapters, the following examples are given as general illustrations:
1. They think as I do.
2. They think, as I do, that you are wrong.
3. Far below, the mill was heard singing merrily.
4. Far below the mill the stream dashed over the precipice.
5. As all will recognize, the methods adopted were wise methods.
6. John is, like his father, a great hunter.
7. Genius finds its own road, and carries its own lamp.
8. He who pursues pleasure only, defeats the object of his creation.
9. Father and son, prince and subject, stranger and citizen, are correlative terms.
10. While principles may abide, the phenomena in which they appear may change.
11. He has the equipment to play saint or sinner, devil or angel.
12. To the wise and good, old age presents a scene of tranquil enjoyment.
13. The people of Miletus are not stupid, but they do the sort of things that stupid people do.
14. In his successes and his failures, in his greatness and his littleness, Burns is ever clear, simple, true, and glitters with no luster but his own.
15. The high-school course includes arithmetic, algebra, and geometry; grammar and composition; ancient and modern history; geography, natural history, and astronomy.
16. If Bacon could find time to write Shakespeare, Marlow, and Greene, I see no reason why he should not have written Ben Johnson, Beaumont and Fletcher, and the whole Elizabethan drama.
17. Aristophanes, Boccacio, Moliére and Cervantes, Dickens and Mark Twain, and our weekly comic papers make us laugh anew over the same old story, told in different accents and in different syntax.
18. With one of his two boys or a friend, and a dog, Tennyson would walk afield for miles.
19. With one of his two boys, or a friend and a dog, Tennyson would walk afield for miles.
In No. 18 the comma before “and” cuts “dog” off from “friend,” and makes a group of “dog” and “one of his two boys or a friend.” It makes this group simply because the sense permits no other grouping. Thus the meaning of No. 18 is, that Tennyson was accompanied by a dog and a person (one of his boys or a friend).
In No. 19 another grouping is made, which says Tennyson was accompanied by one of his boys or by a friend and a dog.
EXPLANATORY AND RESTRICTIVE MODIFIERS
The Greek grammarians gave the name parenthesis to a group of words “thrust into” language, either spoken or written, when such words have no grammatical connection with the language. We retain the word “parenthesis” to describe such a group, and also as the name of the curved lines with which the group is enclosed and thus identified. These lines are called parenthesis, marks of parenthesis, or parentheses.
Such matter is inserted for explanation or qualification; but it is not essential to the meaning of the language into which it is thrust, for matter essential to the meaning would not be so named or so marked.
The parenthesis did the ancient writers a larger service in the involved style of their composition than it does modern writers; however, in a modified form, it does the modern writer a very useful and, at times, an indispensable service.
What we may call a modified parenthesis (modified parenthetical matter) is found, one or more times, in almost every paragraph.
In order to clarify or explain our adopted term, “modified parenthesis,” a parenthesis, enclosed in parentheses, was used in the sentence preceding this one; and, in the same sentence, in order to qualify, in a somewhat peculiar manner, the expression “is found in every paragraph,” the modified parenthetical group of words “one or more times” was inserted. We characterize this parenthesis as somewhat peculiar. In its literal meaning, “one or more times” adds nothing to the statement in which it appears, for whatever occurs must occur “one or more times.” It does, however, add a new and perhaps subtle thought as to the frequency of the occurrence of the parenthesis.
The meanings of these terms, together with the reasons for their punctuation, will appear as we discuss illustrative examples:
11. The author says (page 5) that he did not go to London.
The words “page 5” were inserted in the above sentence by the writer himself simply as a matter of direction to the place in the book where the assertion was made. It has no grammatical connection with any part of the sentence: it is simply “thrust in”—it is “parenthetical.” We may modify its strictly parenthetical nature by putting it in another form:
11-1. The author says, on page 5, that he did not go to London.
Here the expression “on page 5” has still the parenthetical nature; but it is given grammatical connection, by means of the preposition “on,” to what precedes it. Thus we call it a “modified parenthesis”; or we may call it “slightly parenthetical” matter. It is obvious that the expression can be omitted in either No. 11 or No. 11-1 without the slightest effect upon the meaning of the sentence.
If we omit the commas in No. 11-1, we give the sentence practically a new meaning; and to complete the meaning a new clause must be added:
11-2. The author says on page 5 that he did not go to London; but he says on page 6 that he did go to London.
In No. 11-2 the language is used in its natural order; and no mark is required in either clause, for each group of words has its natural or logical relation to the group or groups standing next to it. The meaning is unmistakable. But why was the comma used in No. 11-1 and not in No. 11-2? Let us note carefully that we are still dealing with the proper grouping of words and with the relations of group to group, such relations giving rise to real and apparent meanings. With the real meaning of such groups as we are now considering fully understood, we know that a mark is used to change that meaning. Thus, in the consideration of these sentences, we come back to the principle exemplified in Sentences 1 and 2. We use the commas in No. 11-1 because the real meaning of the sentence is not the same as the meaning of the same language in No. 11-2.
One or two illustrative sentences will lead us, gradually and logically, to the punctuation of a large class of sentences in which the groups of words considered have somewhat more definite names than we have given the same groups in the above sentences.
A thorough comprehension of this punctuation is often indispensable, that the writer may convey to the reader his exact meaning, which may depend entirely upon the punctuation,—that is, upon the absence or the presence of marks:
12. Everywhere in America and England, as well as in Germany, the cry for peace is heard.
What does the language of No. 12 mean? Clearly, that in every part (everywhere) of America and in every part of England, as well as in every part of Germany, the cry for peace is heard. That is the apparent, and it is also the real, meaning of the language; but the writer may have had a different meaning in mind. If he did not wish to limit the “cry for peace” to America, England, and Germany, he would have disconnected from “everywhere” these limiting words, writing the sentence thus:
12-1. Everywhere, in America and England, as well as in Germany, the cry for peace is heard.
The use of the first comma in this grouping notifies the reader that a grouping different from the apparent grouping must be made. It also notifies him that a meaning different from that of No. 12 is to be conveyed by the new grouping. The second comma readily falls into its place; and by the same reasoning the third comma is called for.
The two groups are slightly parenthetical; and, treated as one group, they could be set off by parentheses.
12-2. Everywhere (in America and England, as well as in Germany) the cry for peace is heard.
They are not properly included in marks of parenthesis, because they do not constitute a pure parenthesis. They are inserted, not to explain the word “everywhere,” but for emphasis, being equivalent in meaning to even in America, etc. It will be observed that “everywhere,” as here used, means in all parts of the world. Nothing can be added to it; and therefore what the group of words under consideration explains is, that the word is used in its inclusive and exact meaning. The marks give a shade of meaning somewhat similar to that given by commas in setting off “one or more times,” discussed above.
It may be noted, in passing, that the middle (the second) comma in No. 12-1 acts with the first comma to form one group and with the third comma to form another group, thus making the three commas equivalent to two pairs of commas.
Our next sentence is an exceedingly interesting one. It has been submitted for interpretation to a number of persons, including editorial writers, authors, teachers, lawyers, and printers. Not a single one of them saw the real meaning; and, when the meaning was pointed out, not one of them could explain why the commas are used. Moreover, not one of the score or more of text-books on punctuation at hand gives a satisfactory explanation. The rules of all the books, it is true, cover the point; but the application of the rules is often so difficult as to render them valueless.
When understood, the sentence is simplicity itself, and the punctuation becomes equally simple and very informing.
The sentence (No. 13) is a part of a larger sentence taken from an essay on “Literature and Education” by Dr. Henry van Dyke, the larger sentence being one of several directions how to determine the value of a story:
13. Ask whether the people in the story develop, for better or for worse.
Let us suggest that the reader study the sentence before proceeding with our discussion of it. Let him put the sentence in the form of a question, and apply it to any story he has recently read. What two answers could be given to the question if applied to two stories requiring different answers?
Now let us ask why the comma is used. The answer is simple, for in our study of marks we have had only one reason for using the comma,—namely, to show that an apparent meaning is not the real meaning. If this is the reason for the use of the comma, the reason will be exemplified by a study of the sentence without the comma:
13-1. Ask whether the people in the story develop for better or for worse.
If the meaning of each sentence is not yet clear, let us consider the group of words following the comma in No. 13 as slightly parenthetical (a modified parenthesis). We may go a step further, and treat them as purely parenthetical, putting them in marks of parenthesis and putting the sentence in the interrogative form:
13-2. Do the people in the story develop (for better or for worse)?
Manifestly, the only answer is yes or no.
Why did Dr. van Dyke add these slightly parenthetical and apparently superfluous words (for better or for worse) to his sentence? He added them, primarily, because he knew some, perhaps many, readers might think “develop” means only growth upward (for better), while it is just as essential for the novelist to depict characters that “develop” downward (for worse) as upward.
But what does No. 13-1 mean? If put in the form of a question, what answer can be given? Only “for better” or “for worse.” This changes the meaning of the language. The first sentence (No. 13) asks whether the people in the story are static or dynamic; the second (No. 13-1) assumes that they are dynamic (they develop), and asks in what direction they develop.
Dr. van Dyke’s entire sentence clearly shows the meaning of the part of it we have been considering. The sentence is as follows:
13-3. Ask whether the people in the story develop, for better or for worse, and how far the change is credible and significant.
The groups of words we have been considering in Sentences 11 to 13-3 are either restrictive or explanatory groups, with the functions of nouns, adjectives, or adverbs, and with the relations that these parts of speech take in the construction of language.
The meanings of the terms “restrictive” and “explanatory” will appear as we consider other sentences; and the differentiation in the punctuation of restrictive and explanatory groups will be plain.
Our next sentence will serve a twofold purpose: first, to show how difficult it is to punctuate a sentence out of its context; and, secondly, to show that a sentence may be given two meanings by punctuation:
14. The boy who is at home is my best pupil.
14-1. The boy, who is at home, is my best pupil.
The person who is thoroughly familiar with the reasons for the use of marks can interpret these sentences; and he can also construct a context requiring the commas or their omission. On the other hand, one not familiar with such reasons could probably do neither.
The value of this knowledge is quite inestimable. Because of ignorance of it on the part of legislators, our courts have been required to determine the meanings of municipal, state, and national laws involving vital social relations and vast financial interests.
Applying the general principles already discussed, we say that the first comma in No. 14-1 is to show that the relation between “boy” and “who is my best pupil” is not the same relation that exists between the same groups in No. 14. But why is this? Let us construct contexts for the sentences, and then study them in the light of the information thus obtained.
Suppose a visitor to a school asks the teacher about a certain class, and the teacher replies as follows:
14-2. The class is composed of six boys. The boy who is at home is my best pupil.
The group of words “who is at home” is an adjective; and the meaning of the noun with the qualification made by the adjective may be thus expressed: the at-home boy. In this form the group specifies what boy, and so restricts the boy named as to mean a certain, definite boy.
We here take the language in its natural order, and obtain a definite and clearly understood meaning.
Another context will show a different relation. The teacher replies as follows:
14-3. The class is composed of one boy and five girls. The boy, who is at home, is my best pupil.
Because of the context, “the boy” needs no identification, no restrictive words to explain who is meant. The sentence could be written thus:
14-4. The class is composed of one boy and five girls. The boy (he is at home) is my best pupil.
In the above sentence the group of words in parentheses explains; but it is not restrictive. It tells something about the boy; but it does not tell what boy, for this information is given in what precedes, which says there is only one boy. In No. 14-3 this group of words is slightly changed, and is given grammatical connection by its form, and thus it becomes only slightly parenthetical.
In Nos. 14 and 14-2 the meaning is not complete without the restrictive words. In Nos. 14-1, 14-3, and 14-4 these words are not essential to identify the boy, being added simply by way of explanation, hence they are called explanatory.
In the consideration of the terms explanatory and restrictive, much confusion arises from the fact that a restrictive group may also be an explanatory group. A purely explanatory group, which requires commas to set it off, is never a restrictive group. This confusion can be entirely avoided by calling the groups restrictive and non-restrictive. The latter group is set off by commas because it conveys a different meaning from that of a restrictive group, and also because it is “slightly parenthetical,” that is, parenthetical in nature, but with grammatical connection.
Not a few writers use the marks of parenthesis or dashes, instead of commas, to set off a non-restrictive (explanatory) group; but, as their writings reveal no differentiation in the uses of these three marks, their system of punctuation is a wholly hit-or-miss one.
Because of the extent and importance of restrictive and non-restrictive groups of words, another like illustrative sentence, with its variations, seems worth while:
15. The committee is composed of women who are not voters.
15-1. The committee is composed of women, who are not voters.
15-2. The committee is composed of men who are not voters.
15-3. The committee is composed of men, who are not voters.
What do these sentences really assert and what meanings do they convey? Let us consider the answers to this question quite fully, and make them a test of all restrictive and non-restrictive groups.
No. 15 says the members of the committee are not voters, implying that other women are voters. The members of the committee might not be voters because of age, non-residence, etc.
No. 15-1 says all women are not voters,—that is, no women are voters. The group “who are not voters” is explanatory of women.
No. 15-2 is the same as No. 15.
No. 15-3 is the same as No. 15-1; but, as men enjoy universal political suffrage, the statement in No. 15-3 is somewhat more striking than that made in No. 15-1, and therefore we must seek conditions giving sanction to such an assertion. For instance, a woman’s society might admit men to honorary membership in the society without the privilege of voting. If a committee was composed of such men, the statement made in No. 15-3 would be applicable.
Our next three sentences are perhaps more typical of the sentences met in general reading:
16. In 1826, an edition of this work, designed solely for printers, was first published.
Mr. Teall quotes the above sentence, among others from books on punctuation, and says that the commas setting off “designed solely for printers” should be omitted.
The sentence is from a late edition of Mr. Wilson’s work; and it shows that author’s discriminating use of marks. The omission of the commas would entirely change the meaning of the language. The meaning of the language may be more clearly expressed as follows:
16-1. In 1826, the first edition of this work was published, and was designed solely for printers.
With the commas omitted the meaning of the sentence would be as follows:
16-2. In 1826, the first edition of this work designed solely for printers, was published.
Sentences 16 and 16-1 say that the first edition of the work was published in 1826. Sentence 16, with the commas omitted, as Mr. Teall says they should be, and Sentence 16-2 say the first printers’ edition was published in 1826; and they imply that other editions not designed solely for printers were previously published. As no such edition was published, Mr. Teall is in error, and Mr. Wilson’s punctuation (No. 16) is correct.
Many writers set off such explanatory or slightly parenthetical modifiers by parentheses, as illustrated in Sentence 12-2; other writers use dashes for this purpose. As we shall show later, neither mark finds sanction in punctuation by reason.
17. In medicine the anesthetic of choice is chloroform or ether; in dentistry it is laughing-gas, or nitrous oxide.
The conjunction “or” appears twice in the above sentence. In the first clause it stands between two words, one of which is excluded when the other is selected, just as if written “either chloroform or ether.” In the second clause a new relation between the words is set up. Here the apparent meaning is not the real meaning.
In this second group the words following “or” are explanatory of the word preceding “or.” One anesthetic with two names is spoken of. The comma notifies the reader that the relation in the second group is not the relation existing in the first,—that is, the apparent relation in the second group is not the real relation.
Many writers would put “or nitrous oxide” in parentheses. The meaning would be unmistakable; but the punctuation is not commendable, as we have already seen. “Nitrous oxide,” without the “or,” could properly be enclosed in parentheses.
AFTERTHOUGHT
There is a very common use of the comma before “or” which reveals a nice meaning of language. The punctuation grows out of a writer’s desire to modify a meaning which he has expressed, frequently, in a word that is too strong. He follows this word with another in the or relation to the too-strong word. In order to show that the real or relation, as discussed under No. 17, does not exist between the two words, and that the relation of explanation (slightly parenthetical), as discussed under No. 11, is the real relation, he applies the principle of disjunction, exhibited in another form in the discussion of Sentence 1, and uses the comma.
In our first illustrative sentence (No. 17A) the fact that a word of milder, not coördinate, meaning is to follow “or,” is indicated both by the group of words (I should say) and by the modifier (even) preceding the word in the or relation to “independent.” The comma before “or” would be required in the absence of either or both of these modifiers, as shown in Nos. 17A-1 and 17A-2. It is especially needed in No. 17A-2 to distinguish the real from the apparent meaning:
17A. This capital does not make him independent, or, I should say, even aspiring.
17A-1. This capital does not make him independent, or even aspiring.
17A-2. This capital does not make him independent, or aspiring.
The word or words used in modification of an idea expressed either too strongly or too weakly, are aptly called an “afterthought”; and such word or words themselves suggest the parenthetical nature of the added language.
Our next illustrative sentence shows the use of a word that is too weak; and therefore the sense requires a stronger word. The sentence is particularly interesting because it is a type of sentences that are almost invariably punctuated wrong, even by our best writers:
18. It is a matter of whim, or, worse, of economy.
The word “worse” is introduced to characterize what follows. It is a short form of “what is worse.” It requires a comma before it to cut it off from “or,” and a comma after it to cut it off from what follows. When cut off, the sense relation between “whim” and “economy” is made unmistakable. But sentences of this type are, as stated above, almost invariably punctuated wrong; and the sense relations are thus obscured. The wrong punctuation is as follows:
18-1. It is a matter of whim, or worse, of economy.
In the next illustrative sentence (No. 18A) the new word is simply one that more nearly expresses the writer’s meaning. The comma before “or” is clearly required; but why put a comma after “easier”?
18A. It belongs in the lower, or, as it would be better to call it, the easier, grades of work.
The comma after “easier” acts with the comma before “or” to suspend what comes between “lower” and “grades,” just as a similar group of words is suspended in Sentence 3-1.
OR and AND
The relations expressed by “or” and “and” are so nearly identical that every rule or principle of punctuation requiring a mark before one of them requires it before the other in similarly formed sentences. Only an occasional use of “and” expresses a shade of meaning like that expressed by “or” in the above sentences. For this reason it may be well to caution the student against the common error of using a comma before “and” in a sentence formed like No. 18A, but not like it in meaning:
18A-1. We are not willing to give our sanction to the broad and, when applied in a case like that at bar, harsh rule of instruction.
APPOSITIVES
A class of words called “appositives” falls under the classification and reasoning we have been considering; and an example or two will suffice to show this:
19. The word, eagle, is derived from the Latin.
19-1. The word eagle is derived from the Latin.
In No. 19 “eagle” is used to explain what word, and might very properly go into the class of words that we have called purely parenthetical. It seems to be more closely allied to the class of appositives, and thus takes a grammatical relation which makes it slightly parenthetical, or explanatory.
In No. 19 “word” is the subject of the sentence; “eagle” shows with what “word” we are dealing. In No. 19-1 “word” is adjectival in meaning, and can no more take a comma than can “good” in “good man.” “Eagle,” as a word, is the subject of the sentence.
19-2. His son John did all the work on the farm.
19-3. His son, John, did all the work on the farm.
In No. 19-2 we are told that one of his sons, named “John,” did the work. In No. 19-3 we are told that his son, not his daughter nor one of his sons, did the work. “John” is simply explanatory, as is “who is at home” in No. 14-3.
In Nos. 19 and 19-3 we have language that expresses a different meaning from that expressed in Nos. 19-1 and 19-2; and therefore we use the commas to show that the apparent meaning of the two former sentences is not the real meaning of the two latter.
VOCATIVES
Likewise the so-called vocatives, or words of address, come, though somewhat indirectly, under this same classification and reasoning:
19B. Ring out, wild bells.
If expressed in full, the sentence would read as follows:
19B-1. Ring ye, wild bells, out.
Here “wild bells” is merely an appositive of the subject, “ye,” which is understood in No. 19B.
EXAMPLES
1. I shall be there when the train arrives.
1-1. I shall be there at two o’clock, when the train arrives.
2. You will find the word in the index, at the back of the book.
2-1. You will find the word in the index on page 111.
3. He preached his first sermon, in Brooklyn, July 20, 1895.
3-1. He preached his first sermon in Brooklyn July 20, 1895.
4. His creditors wanted to know what resources, in cash and credits, he had.
4-1. His creditors wanted to know what resources in cash and credits he had.
5. Were my statements plain? They were, as usual.
6. You will deduct from the deposit, or deposits, the amount due you.
7. At this time my entire force mustered less than 50,000 men, of all arms.
8. He has affection for all men, whom he knows to be his brothers, whether they love or hate him.
9. On the Western frontier there was no place for the unemployed, rich or poor.
10. The injured vessel was able to proceed, under reduced speed, to her destination.
10-1. The new type of engine will enable vessels to run under high speed, however great the storm may be.
11. One can never read a book, and like it, or dislike it, and keep the fact to himself.
12. Many persons are out of work because they are unwilling or unable, or both, to do the work they can get to do.
13. The central quality of manliness, around which all others must be built up, is that of a sense of honor.
14. That such a sentiment should ever have been believed, or expressed, is proof of how prone the human mind is to mistake a coincidence for a cause.
15. Artemus Ward’s happy saying, that on a certain occasion he tried to do too much, and did it, exactly fits the program of these men.
16. Architecture is the art which so disposes and adorns the edifices raised by man, for whatever uses, that the sight of them contributes to his mental health, power, and pleasure.
17. The ancient Greeks, who were intellectual, and the ancient Romans, who were warlike, agree upon this point.
18. I leave today on the train for home, where I hope to be, thankful for a safe journey, on Monday.
19. When our deeds and motives come to be balanced at the last day, let us hope that mercy, and not justice, may prevail.
20. The physician says the case presents a classical picture of atrophy, or marasmus.
21. The warning of the ship’s danger came from a whistling buoy, or, as it is technically called, a siren.
22. The expression “It is worth a Jew’s eye” is proverbial, and probably dates from the middle ages.
23. You gentlemen must solve this problem.
23-1. You, gentlemen, must solve this problem.
24. The trouble grows less, or ceases altogether, during the winter.
25. We should not forget how confidently and how frequently his failure was predicted.
25-1. We should not forget how confidently, and how mistakenly, his failure was predicted.
Why do we use commas in No. 25-1, and not in No. 25? In No. 25, “confidently” and “frequently” are coördinate in sense, and are bound together to complete a thought. In No. 25-1 “confidently” and “mistakenly” are not coördinate in sense, and express quite different thoughts. “Mistakenly” is an afterthought, a slightly parenthetical word, and here stands in an apparent relation to another word, which relation the comma shows is not its real relation.
26. Mr. Smith promises this magazine another article which cannot fail to be interesting.
26-1. Mr. Smith promises this magazine another article, which cannot fail to be interesting.
In No. 26 the kind of article to be furnished is described; and an uninteresting article will not fulfill the promise. In No. 26-1 any article furnished will fulfill the promise; if it is an uninteresting one, the prediction made as to the kind of article in No. 26-1 has failed.
27. Every foot of ground from London to Land’s End was examined by him.
27-1. Every foot of England, from John o’Groat’s to Land’s End, was examined by him.
In No. 27 the ground is defined or restricted by the group of words that follows London. In No. 27-1 the group of words following “England” is a mere repetition, one point named being at one end of England, and the other point at the opposite end. This group of words is added as an afterthought, and to give a certain degree of emphasis to the assertion by making its language literal, inclusive, and not general.
28. After we had dined, or supped, royally, the old lady told me a story of Alice Brand.
28-1. After we had dined, or supped royally, the old lady told me a story of Alice Brand.
What difference in meaning does the difference in punctuation give in the above sentences? And which is the better punctuation?
No. 28 says the meal was a royal one. The word supped is added, as an afterthought, in order to define the meal as an evening meal, for the word “dined” signifies to many a midday meal. No. 28-1 defines the meal as worthy to be called a dinner, the principle meal of the day, or a royal supper, that is, a meal far above what one expects in a mere supper.
In No. 28 we “dined royally” or “supped royally”; in No. 28-1 “we dined” or “we supped royally.”
The punctuation is correct in each example; but the mode of expressing the meaning conveyed by No. 28-1 is rather fantastic.
29. The defendant, Baker, was a party to the contract.
29-1. Defendant Baker was a party to the contract.
30. The difficulty of defining the word vulgarity precisely, arises from the fact that, like most vehement and expressive words, it covers a large variety of meanings, and is tinged with different kinds of contempt.
Thus far in our discussion we have considered grouping done by commas only, except incidentally in Sentences 6, 6-2, 7, 7-1, and 7-2. We shall now consider the application of our fundamental principle to grouping that requires the semicolon and the colon.
Our first illustrative sentence (No. 20) is from a distinguished writer, noted for the “infinite care he gives to his diction.” We think the sentence decidedly distracting:
20. I have an arrangement to do a serial for Harper’s, and a series of wayside pieces for Scribner’s, Smith illustrating, is on the tapis.
Probably very few persons, in reading the above sentence at sight, would take notice from the first comma that the sentence is here divided into two shorter sentences (the grammarians call these sentence-parts clauses). In the absence of such notice, the reader goes on to “is” before discovering the real relation of the group of words following “and.” The comma before “and” does not clearly show that “and” connects the two larger groups of the sentence, and so gives notice to the reader that the first group, which is one of the clauses, is complete; nor, in the absence of such notice, is the reader told that the words immediately following “and” look forward, instead of backward, for their completion as a group.
The confusion or uncertainty of grouping is here further increased by the character of the two groups between which “and” appears to stand. Each begins with the same word (a), thus making them appear to be coördinate groups; and each group appears to be the object of “do.”
Perhaps the author would contend that the comma before “and” is sufficient to give notice of the proper grouping, just as we used a comma for a somewhat similar grouping in Sentence 1-1. Such contention would not be without merit; but Sentence 1-1 is much shorter, and the consequent liability to make the wrong grouping is much less. Our discussion might thus end in a difference of opinion without determining the degree of separation requiring a mark of higher rank than the comma. The discussion could be opened by an admission on our part that a semicolon in No. 1-1 would be better than the comma; for its warning of the change of grouping would be unmistakable by any reader.
Two reasons may be given for the use of the comma in No. 1-1, instead of the semicolon; and we give them in order to emphasize the fact that we cannot always have in language one degree of separation that calls unmistakably for the comma, and another degree that calls unmistakably for the semicolon. The reasons for the use of the comma in No. 1-1 are as follows:
1. As the sentence is very short, the eye readily catches the relation requiring the grouping that carries “their mothers” forward for its connection, instead of backward to “children.”
2. The use of a semicolon in this sentence might seem to justify a rule requiring a semicolon in every sentence composed of two clauses, while convention hardly justifies such punctuation. On the other hand, if we prefer the use of the semicolon in No. 1-1, under what conditions would the comma be preferred? If what immediately follows the conjunction between any two clauses, especially short ones, does not suggest connection with what precedes, a comma before the conjunction gives sufficient notice of the grouping of the language into two clauses.
Thus we have forced upon us, at least apparently, the necessity of making choice in many sentences between the comma and the semicolon. The problem is further complicated by the need of the different classes of readers for whom the marks in language are used, and still further by convention.
The proper punctuation of No. 20 is as follows:
20-1. I have an arrangement to do a serial for Harper’s; and a series of wayside pieces for Scribner’s, Smith illustrating, is on the tapis.
Our next sentence is particularly interesting because of its character and its source. It is from a book by a distinguished literary man, who is the professor of English in one of our leading universities and the author of a text-book on English composition. The book from which the sentence is taken was printed at The Riverside Press, which has long been considered by many to be the best printing-office in the world:
21. The deliberate good sense with which Franklin treated matters of religion and morality, he displayed equally in his scientific writings; and, a little later, in his public documents and correspondence,4 which made him as eminent in diplomacy and statecraft as he had earlier been in science and in local affairs.
In No. 20-1 we use a semicolon expressly to show that what immediately follows the mark looks forward for its connection; and, it seems to us, the semicolon in No. 21 cannot fail to give to any reader, with or without much knowledge of marks, notice that a complete new group, and not an additional part of the preceding group, is to follow the semicolon. If the reader is looking forward for a new group (a clause), the ending of the sentence gives him a surprise, and compels him to read over the entire sentence to make the proper grouping.
It is difficult to say just what notice a comma before “and” in Sentence 21 would give most readers. Let us so punctuate it, and challenge the comma. What will its answer be? This, of course, is a question that the reader puts to himself, testing his own knowledge of the marks. In the light of our discussion of Sentence 1, the comma might seem to say that “and” does not connect “writings” with some noun to follow. We shall see, later in our discussion, that a comma may be necessary in a grouping almost like this; but in this sentence the reader has another aid, in fact two others, thus making the comma unnecessary, if not objectionable. The word “equally,” which comes before “in his scientific writings,” raises the expectation of a similar group to follow and to be introduced by a suitable connecting word. As “and” is such a word, the absence of a mark of punctuation before it at once suggests that a like group is to follow. The second aid to the reader in the process of grouping is the word “in,” which introduces each of the groups connected by “and,” and identifies the second group as the coördinate of the first.
We punctuate to aid the reader quickly to grasp through the eye the groupings of printed language, and to enable him to determine the relations between the groups thus formed. When a mark is not needed for this purpose, it may be omitted.
If we say the man is in a bad state of mind and in an equally bad state of body, the eye catches the words “and” and “in,” at the end of the line, practically at the same instant. The “in” tells of the grouping so distinctly that a comma is not needed to inform the reader that no word follows “and” to be connected by it to “mind.” Therefore we say, when groups are so similarly formed that the word following the conjunction gives ample notice of the grouping, a comma is not needed. We shall consider this point more fully in another place.
By a slight change in the wording of No. 21, we get a counterpart of the illustrative grouping just given:
21-1. He displayed good judgment in his scientific writings and in his public documents.
The grouping here is so unmistakable as to make a comma before “and” quite objectionable. It is unmistakable because of the like formation of the groups, and also because of the absence of any word after “and” that suggests a wrong relation to what precedes.
Now, if we do introduce a word or two between “and” and “in,” and such words do not suggest relation to what precedes, we may still omit the comma before “and.” This reasoning, with that above, suggests the best punctuation of No. 21, which is as follows:
21-2. The deliberate good sense with which Franklin treated matters of religion and morality, he displayed equally in his scientific writings and, a little later, in his public documents and correspondence, which made him as eminent in diplomacy and statecraft as he had earlier been in science and local affairs.
Thus we find no need of any mark before “and” in this sentence, where a painstaking writer uses a semicolon.
As “and,” even in No. 21-1, does not connect “writings” with “documents,” but connects the two groups of words beginning with “in,” the adjective clause in No. 21-2 beginning with “which” can hardly go over into the first group, and there find a noun which it may seem to modify.
To illustrate how puzzling a rule may be, and how wrong, we quote the following rule from Mr. Wilson’s work (page 113):
When a sentence consists of three or more clauses, united by a conjunction, none of which are susceptible of division, a semicolon should be put between those which are least connected in sense, and a comma only between the others.
To illustrate this rule, the following sentence is given in Mr. Wilson’s book (the italics are ours):
22. The woods may disappear, but the spirit of them never will now; for it has been felt by a poet, and we can feel for ever5 what he felt.
Does the punctuation indicate the real sense relations in this sentence? We think not. The semicolon before “for” divides the sentence into two parts; but what follows the semicolon is clearly not in the for relation with all that precedes it, as it should be if the sentence is divided into two parts at this point. The sense relation expressed by “for” is unmistakably between all that follows it and what precedes it back to “but.”
The real division of the sentence into two parts is made at “but,” as shown in the following:
22-1. The woods may disappear, but the spirit of them never will now.
Expanding the above, to emphasize the relations, but still maintaining the sense of No. 22, we get the following:
22-2. The woods may disappear, for they are material and will decay; but the spirit of them never will now, for it has been felt by a poet and we can feel forever what he felt.
In No. 22-2 we added a commonplace modifier to the first statement in the sentence, in order to exhibit more clearly the similar relation between two like groups in the second part of the sentence, which take a semicolon in the quoted sentence (No. 22).
Punctuated so as to show the real sense relations, the sentence reads as follows:
22-3. The woods may disappear: but the spirit of them never will now; for it has been felt by a poet, and we can feel forever what he felt.
A thorough comprehension of the groupings in these sentences, which is based upon sense relations, will illuminate the punctuation already discussed. It will also explain some apparent, if not real, inconsistencies that are inevitable in dealing with marks to express indefinite degrees of relation.
Sentence 1 is composed of two clauses connected by a conjunction, as is also Sentence 22-1. The liability to error in grouping Sentence 1 may be sufficient to require a semicolon; but the grouping in Sentence 22-1 is so unmistakable that a comma is sufficient to give notice of a change in the direction of the thought. In Sentence 21 the semicolon gives notice of a grouping which does not follow. In Sentence 22 the grouping by punctuation does not follow the meaning of the language, and is therefore wrong.
Wrong grouping is perhaps most common in sentences containing groups requiring coördinate conjunctions, such as “and” and “but.” Quite often such sentences cannot be so punctuated as to show the correct grouping by the marks. The following sentence is an example:
This is not bad punctuation, for it conveys the meaning, which, however, is not difficult to obtain; but it is not good punctuation, for the marks do not group the words in accordance with the sense relations that exist between the groups.
If the sentence were divided into two parts by “but,” the but relation would exist between what follows and each of the groups of words coördinated by the conjunction “and.” Thus we would say, “The Society has expelled four of its members for unprofessional conduct, but has been unable to obtain enough evidence to convict them.” As this relation does not make sense, we know that the “but” relation exists between what follows it and what precedes it back to “and.” As the but relation does not extend beyond “and,” this fact should be shown by the mark, thus requiring a larger mark (semicolon) before “and.” But a semicolon before “and” would separate two closely connected groups (predicates),—“has expelled” and “has investigated.” It would also connect the second group with the third, making one larger group in the and relation with the first.
As the sense relations here require a grouping inconsistent with the grammatical relations, a change in the language becomes necessary before it can be properly punctuated:
23-1. The Society has expelled two of its members for unprofessional conduct; and it has investigated complaints against two other members, but has been unable to obtain enough evidence to convict them.
The insertion of “it” (a new subject) after “and,” and its omission after “but,” with the proper use of the semicolon, make clear the two things done by the Society, and make this clear by the proper grouping of words to show the unmistakable thought-grouping.
If we are required to punctuate language which we are not permitted to change, our punctuation may have to depart from our system, whether established by rule or by reason. A study of such punctuation will lead to a nice discrimination in both marks and relations. Our next sentence, with its different modes of punctuation, will illustrate the point. The sentence is given in three forms: (1) as it appeared in a literary journal; (2) as it is printed in the Common Version of the New Testament (2 Timothy i, 16); and (3) as it is printed in the Revised Version. We shall, however, not follow its division into two verses, as it appears in the Common Version of the Bible:
24. The Lord give mercy unto the house of Onesiphorus; for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain; but, when he was in Rome, he sought me out diligently, and found me.
24-1. The Lord give mercy unto the house of Onesiphorus; for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain: but, when he was in Rome, he sought me out very diligently, and found me.
24-2. The Lord grant mercy unto the house of Onesiphorus: for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain; but, when he was in Rome, he sought me out diligently, and found me.
In each of these three sentences the punctuation divides the language into three larger groups of words, two of which are subdivided by commas. In the second and third a colon indicates a second grouping of each sentence into two main parts, but not at the same point. If the semicolons and the colons were challenged for their meanings, the answers would show an interesting variety of grouping of words, as well as a variety of sense relations. Such a variety of punctuation is common only because the actual significance of marks, in their grouping and relational effects, has not been considered.
These sentences present the same problem, though somewhat further complicated, that was presented by Nos. 22 and 23. We have only to ask ourselves how far the but, for, and and relations extend. Do the marks so group the words as to indicate the sense relations by the grouping? Of course they do not, as is shown by the difference in the groupings. In No. 24 neither semicolon shows how far the for or the but relation extends; and therefore neither mark is an efficient sign-board. If challenged for a meaning, neither could give the reader an intelligent answer.
In each of Nos. 24-1 and 24-2 the colon makes another grouping, dividing each sentence into two still larger groups. Here each mark would give a definite answer to a challenge; but both answers could not be correct. The sentence is unmistakably divided into two parts, the first part ending with “Onesiphorus.” Mercy is sought for him because of what he did; and what he did is specified in the language that follows “for.” The extent of the for relation, therefore, must be shown by the mark. A colon will clearly show that it goes to the end of the sentence, as a like relation was shown by the colon in No. 6-2.
We now have to deal with the proper grouping of all that follows “for”; but we cannot use a colon for this purpose because, having been used once, a second colon in the same sentence would confuse the whole grouping. We thus come to a serious difficulty, which arises out of the number of groups to be made with the marks (comma and semicolon) left at our disposal. This difficulty would be even greater in No. 24-2 had we quoted the sentence in full, the complete verse containing another clause. In the second of the two larger groups we have an and and a but relation exactly like the and and but relations in No. 23, which we could not indicate by marks. As we may not change the language of the sentence under consideration, we must punctuate it with as little violence to the meanings of marks as possible. Probably the clearest punctuation of the sentence would be as follows:
24-3. The Lord grant mercy unto the house of Onesiphorus; for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain, but, when he was in Rome, he sought me very diligently, and found me.
As the sentence is thus divided into two main parts, with only commas in one part, the semicolon is sufficient to mark the larger groups. As the comma before “but” does not suggest to the reader how far back the but relation extends, he is left to ascertain it without the aid of a mark definitely pointing it out.
We do not claim this to be good punctuation, but we think it the best the sentence will permit. The sentence seems to show the fault of bad grouping.
If we are ever in doubt as to how far back a relation, indicated or to be indicated by a mark before the conjunction, extends, we can easily determine this by forming the relation between the words apparently thus connected. Take, for instance, Sentence 24. The for relation between “give mercy” and “was not ashamed” is just as evident as the for relation between “give mercy” and “he oft refreshed me.” We can say “give mercy, for he oft refreshed me” and “give mercy, for he was not ashamed.”
Let us attempt to make a like grouping to determine how far back the but relation extends. It appears to extend to the two preceding groups, which, being connected by “and” and put between two semicolons, constitute one group. This would give us “was not ashamed, but sought me” and6 “refreshed me, but sought me.” The sense, of course, shows that the second group is not a proper group.
A writer, as we shall see later, should always guard against using a conjunction between words or groups of words not bearing to each other the relation indicated by such conjunction. Much confusion in punctuation arises from an effort to indicate by the use of marks relations that are not sense relations, as in the sentences just considered.
A somewhat different, but even more effective, grouping is shown by another use of the colon; but, very singularly, practically all writers on punctuation seem to ignore this use. Before considering it, we shall take up the colon’s conventional use, which is that of the “formal” introduction of any matter, such as particulars, a speech, or a quotation:
25. I purchased the following articles: one dozen pens, one ream of paper, and one box of envelopes.
25-1. The speaker arose, and addressed the audience as follows:
“The occasion which brings us together,” etc.
25-2. The speaker said: “The occasion which brings us together,” etc.
It is difficult to find a reason for this use of the colon, inasmuch as what follows the colon in any of the above sentences, is not a “limb” of the sentence. The relation in No. 25 is clearly that of apposition; and it is the same in Nos. 25-1 and 25-2. In the latter the apposition is between some word not expressed, but understood, and what follows,—for example, “addressed the audience in language such as follows,” “the speaker said these things.”
We have called this the “conventional” use because it has become the accepted punctuation. We introduce it here in order to show that this same relation (apposition) governs in a frequent use of this mark which is not explained by the writers on punctuation.
Before passing to this use of the colon, let us make sure that the meaning of “formal introduction” is quite clear to us. It means that the matter following the colon is announced or suggested in a manner somewhat similar to the announcement made in the words viz., as follows, etc. It thus implies that the matter is introduced according to a form. “He said,” followed by a colon, is one of the usual conventional forms; but he said that is not so considered, and no mark at all follows “said.”
We use a colon throughout this work at the end of the line preceding an example if the example illustrates what precedes. This use of the colon ties the example to what precedes. See the colon preceding Sentence 25, above.
It is also to be noted that the colon loses, in this formal and conventional use, its relative value, that is, its rank above the comma and the semicolon. Thus it often appears in only one or in both of the semicolon-divided groups of a sentence:
25-3. In a bill of exchange there are three original parties: drawer, drawee, and payee; in a promissory note, only two parties: the maker and the payee.
Here we see that the colons are used to group each one of the two parts into which the sentence is divided by a semicolon. We shall show later (Sentence 33) what we consider a much better mode of punctuating such sentences, and thus avoiding the appearance of making the colon subordinate to the semicolon.
We are here seeking to exhibit the relation of apposition. When words or groups of words stand in this relation, the second word or group expresses in another form what is expressed in the first word or group of words. In No. 25 what follows the colon is the same as “articles,” which precedes it. If the word “articles” were omitted, the colon would still be used, “articles” or a like word being understood, as some word is understood in Nos. 25-1 and 25-2. The same relation is shown in Sentence 32-2 by means of parentheses.
With this understanding of the relation between groups separated by the colon, our next illustrative sentence is particularly interesting, not only because of its character, but because of its source. As punctuated, it fails to show a nice meaning in language which is quite easily overlooked in the absence of the proper distinguishing mark; and it is from a letter by Thomas Bailey Aldrich in reply to one, from a friend, which he could not decipher. It appears in the foremost printers’ magazine in the country, a magazine that often discusses the subject of punctuation:
26. There is a singular and a perpetual charm in a letter of yours; it never grows old; it never loses its novelty.
The use of two semicolons, dividing this sentence into three clauses, signifies that these clauses are in like relation to each other,—that is, that they are coördinate in sense. If the and or the or relation exists between the first and second clauses, it must exist between the second and third, just as it exists between the three items named in the second part of No. 25.
A very slight examination of the meaning of the language of this sentence shows that the clauses are not coördinate in sense, although such coördination is indicated by the use of the same mark between them.
The relation between the second and third clauses is exhibited in the following:
26-1. It never grows old; and it never loses its novelty.
We cannot unite the first and second clauses in this way, and retain the real meaning of the language; nor have we, thus far in our study, found a meaning of the semicolon that would give the reader notice of the relation between the first clause of No. 26 and what follows. The second and third clauses of this sentence are as plainly explanatory of the first clause as are the items that follow the colon in No. 25 explanatory of “articles.” A change in the wording of the sentence will show that it is exactly similar in its relation to No. 25:
26-2. Your letter possesses the following singular and perpetual charms: youthfulness and novelty.
If this relation exists between the principal thought and the detailed items, then we may indicate it by the colon, thus dividing the sentence into two groups with the relation of apposition between them:
26-3. There is a singular and a perpetual charm in a letter of yours: it never grows old; it never loses its novelty.
Let us note how carefully language is used in this sentence: the letter possesses a singular charm (it never loses its novelty) and a perpetual charm (it never grows old).
The colon both groups the language and shows the relation (apposition) between the two main groups. On the other hand, the semicolon in this sentence stands where the sense relation is the and relation.
It is not quite proper to say that the second and third clauses are explanatory simply of “charm”: they are explanatory of the entire first clause, repeating and expanding the thought expressed in that clause, just as what follows the colon in the sentence we are writing explains what precedes.
Our next illustrative sentence is from one of Howell’s novels, which was printed at The Riverside Press. It has the fault of No. 26, and the added fault of an indefinite but relation:
27. He was not candid; he did not shun concealments and evasions; but positive lies he had kept from.
The second clause is clearly explanatory of the first; and the third clause simply modifies the second by showing the degree of untruthfulness of the man.
With the new meaning of the colon we are now considering, a colon after “candid” informs the reader of the relation between the main groups of the sentence:
27-1. He was not candid: he did not shun concealments and evasions; but positive lies he had kept from.
So far as the mere grouping is concerned, this could be done in Nos. 26 and 27 by a semicolon and a comma in each; but the semicolon would not inform the reader of the true relation between the two larger groups. The colon would still be required if the next two groups took a comma, or even no mark, between them.
We called this relation that of apposition. We might say, somewhat more specifically, that the second group is an amplification in language to express an extension of the idea, or to fortify the image, of the first group. This purpose may also be accomplished by a contrast between the ideas expressed in the two groups.
The writer on punctuation who says, as do many such writers, that the colon is an obsolete mark, except in its formal use for enumeration, does so, we believe, in ignorance of the useful and beautiful purpose it performs in a very large class of sentences.
EXAMPLES
1. There is purpose in pain; otherwise it were devilish.
2. But not thieves; nor robbers; nor mobs; nor rioters, insurgents, or rebels.
3. The people’s voice is odd; it is, and it is not, the voice of God.
4. He cared little for poetry; fact, and not fancy, satisfied him.
5. The second Folio, reprinted from the first, was published in 1632; the third Folio, in 1664; and the fourth, in 1685.
6. Wealth has greatly accumulated; machinery has come to do a large part of our work; and all sorts of people have more or less leisure on their hands.
7. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.