8. The evils are very real, grave, and widespread; whether a trifle more or less so than these rough estimates make out, is of small account.
9. His condition was not toxic; for he had never been a worker in paints, minerals, or other poisonous substances, and he did not use alcohol or tobacco.
10. There is no roughness in his manners, although he has certainly not been brought up to the ways of what is generally known as good society; and his smile is winning and sweet.
11. His fidelity was unconditional, unobtrusive, uncomplaining; he was willing to give much and receive little; he consented even to be forgotten, while he never forgot.
12. “I lived with words,” Mr. Stevenson says; and the result is that formal excellence to which we have now grown accustomed, but which dazzled our judgment at the outset.
13. The order leaves only a few hundred places, below those filled by Presidential appointment and Senatorial confirmation and above the grade of laborers and scullions, for the politicians to quarrel over.
14. Sin and misery appealed most strongly to Holmes, but he invariably saw hope; and despair, that stalks through life making a tragedy of the common event to break the universal heart, had no claim upon his pen.
15. Turner’s studies of Carthage represent the death that attends the vain pursuit of wealth; his studies of Rome, the death that attends the vain pursuit of power; his studies of Venice, the death that attends the vain pursuit of beauty.
16. The Scotchman of the world, the gay puritan, insists upon the few articles of his belief when he is openly preaching, as in “A Christmas Sermon”; or covertly preaching, as in “Old Mortality”; or sketching and traveling, as with a donkey.
17. Ruskin says that in a kindly and well-bred society, if anybody tries to please them, they try to be pleased; if anybody tries to astonish them, they have the courtesy to be astonished; if people become tiresome, they ask somebody to sing or play: but they do not criticise.
18. Such a household as that of Zacharias and Elizabeth would have all that was beautiful in the religion of the time: devotion towards God; a home of affection and purity; reverence towards all that was sacred in things divine and human; ungrudging, self-denying, loving charity to the poor; the tenderest regard for the feelings of others, so as not to raise a blush, nor to wound their hearts; above all, intense faith and hope in the higher and better future of Israel.
19. I laid me down and slept; I awaked; for the Lord sustained me.
As the for relation is here unmistakable, it should be made so at a glance in the punctuation by the use of a comma before “for” or by a colon after “slept.”
20. The cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
The above is the punctuation of the Common Version of Isaiah xi, 7. The American Revised Version uses a semicolon instead of the colon, thus making a series of the three groups of words. We think the latter poor punctuation, because the first and second groups form one picture, and the third group forms another. The two pictures are revealed by the use of the semicolon and the colon; and intelligently to read the verse aloud requires a shorter pause at the semicolon than at the colon. The two pictures are clearly indicated by “feeding” in one group, and “eating” in the other.
21. Virtue and wisdom are an up-hill road, where people do not advance without some effort; folly and vice, a down-hill path, where it requires some effort not to advance.
22. The custom of exchanging presents on a certain day in the year is a fine thing or a foolish thing, as the case may be; an encouragement to friendliness, or a tribute to fashion; an expression of good nature, or a bid for favor; an outgoing of generosity, or a guise of greed; a cheerful old custom, or a futile old farce, according to the spirit and the form which it takes.
This sentence, from a well-known writer, is poorly punctuated, and has another fault, which will be revealed by an effort to punctuate the group of words following “farce” so as to show to what it belongs.
The omission of a comma before the first “or” is proper; the use of one before each following “or” is unnecessary.
“A fine thing” and “a foolish thing” are general terms, and are followed by four illustrations in alternative groups,—for instance, “an encouragement to friendliness” is “a fine thing,” and “a tribute to fashion” is “a foolish thing.” This sense relation requires a colon after “be.”
“According to the spirit and the form which it takes” belongs to each semicolon group following the colon; and, moreover, it is a mere duplication in sense of “as the case may be.” It is difficult, by punctuation, unmistakably to separate this group from exclusive modification of the group it follows, and thus tie it to the four groups, where it seems to belong.
The substitution of “according to the spirit and the form it takes” for “as the case may be,” would convey, it seems to us, the author’s full meaning. With the omission of commas as suggested, this would give the following:
22-1. The custom of exchanging presents on a certain day in the year is a fine thing or a foolish thing, according to the spirit and the form which it takes: an encouragement to friendliness or a tribute to fashion; an expression of good nature or a bid for favor; an outgoing of generosity or a guise of greed; a cheerful old custom or a futile old farce.
23. The philosophical elements of his work are not especially profound or novel; its descriptive merits are considerable; but its deficiencies as an orderly and inclusive narrative are, to say the least, perplexing.
The sense relations between the three clauses of the above sentence are not properly expressed by its conjunctions, “and” (understood) and “but.” The incongruity of the and relation becomes apparent upon reading the first and second clauses with “and” between them. The use of two semicolons in the sentence renders the “but” relation indeterminate.
The sentence needs to be recast, which may be done as follows:
23-1. The philosophical elements of his work are not especially profound or novel; and, although its descriptive merits are considerable, its deficiencies as an orderly and inclusive narrative are, to say the least, perplexing.
24. Amateurs in literary composition soon acquire the bad habit of writing carelessly; they spell strange names in two or more different ways; they form capital letters, and even the small lower-case letters, so obscurely that one word may be mistaken for another; they have no clearly defined system, or at least observe none, for the proper placing of capitals, italic, and the marks of punctuation.
The above sentence is from the preface of what is probably the most complete work on composition written in recent years. A preceding sentence contains the statement that our high schools do not “thoroughly teach the correct expression of thought in writing.”
In view of this charge against our high schools, and because the sentence under consideration is itself a type of careless construction, very common among even good writers, the sentence becomes interesting. It is divided by semicolons into four clauses, apparently in a series; but an analysis of the meaning of the language will show that the four clauses do not constitute a series.
Four charges against amateurs are made in the sentence, in brief, as follows:
1. Writing carelessly.
2. Spelling names differently.
3. Forming letters obscurely.
4. Possessing, or observing, no system in the use of capitals, italics, and marks of punctuation.
If these four faults form a series, what does “writing carelessly” mean? To spell a word in different ways, to form letters obscurely, or to observe no system in the use of capitals, etc., is “writing carelessly.” In short, the first term of the four is a general statement, of which the three terms that follow are details. This fact should be shown by the punctuation.
A colon after the first clause will show its relation to what follows.
It is often said that the dash is the mark of ignorance in punctuation. When a writer does not know how to punctuate his own language at any point he uses a dash. When one, in the preparation of another’s manuscript for the printer, cannot exactly make out the meaning at any point, and therefore does not know what mark to use, he inserts a dash. When the printer, who does most of the world’s punctuation, is in doubt, he uses a dash.
Out of this mass of hit-or-miss punctuation, many writers of text-books on punctuation have attempted to formulate rules for the use of the dash. The result is—“all that could be expected.”
The dash is a useful mark. It came late into our language; and it came to meet a real need, which our illustrative sentences and discussions, we hope, will reveal.
One of the distinctive uses of the dash is to indicate a rhetorical pause made by a speaker for a specific and well-understood purpose. Mr. De Vinne says “the dash should be selected whenever there is an abrupt change in a statement.” This is the primary use of the mark, and is the one generally understood by persons with even a slight knowledge of punctuation. Mr. De Vinne illustrates his definition by a sentence which possesses special interest for the student of punctuation. This sentence appears also in the works of Mr. Wilson and Mr. Bigelow, and in several other text-books on punctuation. As Mr. Wilson’s work antedates all the others, it is probable that he first used the sentence.
As Mr. Bigelow and Mr. De Vinne made changes, even though slight, in the sentence, its study becomes both interesting and informing. We give the sentence as written by each of these writers:
28. Here lies the great—False marble! where?
Nothing but sordid dust lies here.—Wilson.28-1. Here lies the great— False marble! where?
Nothing but sordid dust lies here.—Bigelow.28-2. Here lies the great—false marble! where?
28-2. HerNothing but sordid dust lies here.—De Vinne.
Let us carefully compare these examples, and ask the meanings of the different modes of printing them.
In No. 28 the first four words are in small-capital letters, the first word of the sentence beginning, of course, with a capital. The word “false” begins with a capital.
In No. 28-1 there are no small-capital letters, and there is a space after the dash.
In 28-2 “false” begins with a small letter.
We are not particularly concerned with the second part of the example (nothing but sordid dust lies here).
What is the meaning of the small-capital letters in No. 28?
What is the meaning of the space following the dash in No. 28-1?
What is the meaning of the capital letter beginning “false” in Nos. 28 and 28-1, and of the small letter beginning the same word in No. 28-2?
What punctuation will best reveal the full meaning of this sentence, so differently treated by these well-known writers?
We venture to assert that few readers would grasp at the first reading the real relations in this sentence, and, further, that not a few cultured readers would make bad work of the sense in reading No. 28-2 at sight.
Mr. Wilson makes no explanation of his use of the small-capital letters; and their absence from Nos. 28-1 and 28-2 imply that Mr. Bigelow and Mr. De Vinne attached no importance to them. We think they serve a useful, if not an indispensable, purpose; and it requires little imagination to picture the scene which this typographical device suggests. Let us imagine it, and learn one important use of the dash.
On an anniversary day, a crowd stands before the monument of a great man. Let us assume it to be a monument of Shakespeare. The speaker is in the midst of his oration, his listeners “hanging” on his words. He turns to the statue, and, with pointing finger, directs the attention of his hearers to the inscription on the base of the monument, which inscription reads as follows:
HERE LIES THE GREAT SHAKESPEARE
The orator begins slowly to read the inscription. When he reaches the name of the great man, he hesitates, turns his attention from the inscription to the monument as a whole, and, without uttering the name “Shakespeare,” passionately addresses the monument thus:
“False marble! Where lies the great Shakespeare? Nothing but sordid dust lies here.”
Having heard the speech, we come to prepare it for the printed page. How shall we punctuate the part of it now under consideration so as to convey the meaning expressed by the speaker in the break made after the word “great”? Mr. De Vinne’s mode (No. 28-2) of printing the language fails to show the grammatical end of the first group of words (the inscription); and, in the absence of such knowledge, the reader will not readily catch the relation of “great” to “false marble.” Mr. Wilson (No. 28) shows the change in two ways: by a change in the style of letters in the first word after the dash, and by beginning this word with a capital letter. The sense of the language clearly shows that the first group of words would have ended, in the absence of the dash, where the dash ends. The change from the style of letters (small capitals) also shows this. As the practice of using no period after a dash in sentences like No. 28 is thoroughly established, the reader learns from the first letter of the next word whether such word begins a new sentence. As printed in Mr. De Vinne’s work, “false,” beginning with a small letter, appears to be a part of what precedes, giving the meaning of “the great, false marble.” As printed in Mr. Wilson’s work, “False” begins a new sentence, and should have the usual space before it; but is it correct?
Mr. Bigelow, apparently seeing the difficulty we are discussing, puts a space after the dash, thus ending the sentence with the dash. This of course requires that “false” begin with a capital letter, the word being the first word in a new sentence.
We believe that if “false” is written with a capital letter, thus making a new sentence, the dash should be followed by the space that is used to separate sentences.
Our conclusions would require that the sentence be written in the following way:
28-3. “Here lies the great”— False marble! where?
Let it be remembered that we are attempting in the above sentence to reproduce on the printed page what a speaker said and how he said it.
If the first four words are a part of the inscription, the fact must be shown; and it is shown in No. 28-3 by the quotation-marks. The use of small capitals in No. 28 is much more suggestive of an inscription than the use of the quotation-marks in No. 28-3.
In our next illustrative sentence, the grammatical connection within the sentence is perfect, but the sense changes. Here the dash is used to suspend the thought in preparation for the surprise to come. It is a rhetorical mark, for it indicates how the words would be spoken:
29. He never lacked a good word—from those who spoke his praise.
A speaker or a writer often wishes to repeat a part of or all that he has said, and then continue with his line of thought, using different words for emphasis, for exactness, or for other reasons. Or he may wish in this way to summarize what he has already said, completing the sentence with the summarizing word as the subject. There seems to be no grammatical relation between the summarizing group of words and what precedes them. The dash serves to show the break in the sentence, and is thus merely a rhetorical mark:
30. He has been unkindly—he has been shamefully treated.
31. Persecution, injustice, ruined fortune—all seemed insignificant.
The office of the dash in each of the above sentences might be performed by a blank space of equal length; but such space might not always be easily distinguished from the usual spaces between words.
Some English writers use dots or two or more periods where we use dashes in sentences like the above.
Our next illustrative sentence, with its modifications, shows a very useful and quite indispensable office of the dash. The sentence exemplifies one of the commonest errors made by good writers.
32. The expenditure of this vast sum is entrusted to school officers, trustees, inspectors, and commissioners.
32-1. The expenditure of this vast sum is entrusted to school officers: trustees, inspectors, and commissioners.
32-2. The expenditure of this vast sum is entrusted to school officers (trustees, inspectors, and commissioners).
32-3. The expenditure of this vast sum is entrusted to school officers,—trustees, inspectors, and commissioners.
The punctuation of No. 32 is erroneous, for it does not show the relation between “school officers” and what follows.
That of No. 32-1 is not bad; but the words following “school officers” are not formally introduced, and therefore do not require a colon.
That of No. 32-2 is not wholly bad; but the words introduced are not a pure parenthesis, and to use the marks of parenthesis in this way would unduly extend their office.
That of No. 32-3 is the best, because the true relation (apposition) of the words is maintained, and is shown by a mark (the comma) already seen to be the proper mark for this relation. The failure of the comma to show the relation of apposition in No. 32 is due to the fact that the words following “officers” form an apparent series with “officers.” The comma here needs re-enforcing by a special grouping mark, which office the dash performs. The comma shows the relation; the dash does the grouping.
We spoke above of extending the office and limiting the value of a mark. We mean by this that the more uses and, in consequence, the more meanings a mark has, the more difficult it is for the reader to interpret it when he meets it. For this reason the comma and dash seem to be the best mode of punctuating sentences like the above.
As we saw in Sentence 6, the colon is used to mark the largest divisions of a sentence; and it is used, as in Sentence 25, for the formal introduction of particulars. The former use is determined by the colon’s rank, which is above the semicolon and below the period; the latter use is conventional, and is without reference to its rank.
If two colons appear in a sentence, one because of its rank and one in the enumeration of particulars, there may be a seeming inconsistency in grouping. The same is true when a colon is used within a group made by a semicolon. For instance, in No. 25-3 we used a colon in each of two groups, the groups themselves being separated by a semicolon. We think it much better to use within each group the comma and dash than to use the colon, thus emphasizing the grouping done by the semicolon, instead of apparently subordinating the colon in each group to the semicolon making the two groups. This would give the following punctuation for No. 25-3:
33. In a bill of exchange there are three original parties,—drawer, drawee, and payee; in a promissory note, only two,—maker and payee.
We have thus used a comma and a dash to set off particulars formally introduced, making the punctuation of No. 33 inconsistent with that of No. 25, and apparently inconsistent with No. 32-2. If this resulted in misleading a reader, objection might be raised; but, we feel confident, this exceptional mode of punctuation is justified.
In our next illustrative sentence we get away from details either formally or almost formally introduced; yet the relation to be shown by the punctuation is just the same and quite as evident:
34. She had a face altogether of the sunny south,—a pure skin, black hair, and blue eyes.
Professor Wendell uses this punctuation a great deal and, we think, very effectively. Other good writers do not use it at all; but they seem to have no satisfactory substitute for it. Professor Wendell frequently uses it twice in one sentence, as it is used in No. 33. The following sentence is from his “Literary History of America” (page 2):
35. These records [of things seen and felt by men] are often set forth in terms which may be used only by those of rarely special gift and training,—the terms of architecture and sculpture, of painting and music; but oftener and more freely they are phrased in the terms which all men learn somehow to use,—the terms of language.
We may perhaps turn aside from our discussion of the dash to consider a point in the above sentence which illustrates our general principle of grouping, especially as exhibited in Sentences 10 to 10-3.
Many punctuators would set off by commas the group “oftener and more freely” in No. 35 on the ground that it is “an intermediate parenthetical group.” This would be thoughtless punctuation based upon a rule of questionable meaning. The but relation in this sentence is between two groups of words restricted, respectively, in meaning by “often” and “oftener”; and commas should not be permitted to destroy a grouping that shows the contrast. Somewhat shortened, the sentence would read thus, readily exhibiting the point under consideration:
35-1. These records are often set forth in terms of architecture; but oftener they are phrased in terms of language.
The italicized words here emphasize the restriction of the thoughts that are in the but relation in this sentence. In No. 10-2 commas perform this office by holding the proper words in the but relation. We may not assert that commas in the second clause of No. 35 would change the meaning to the extent that it is changed by the absence of commas in No. 10-1; but the point of emphasis would be somewhat changed by their use in No. 35.
The combination of a comma and a dash to express apposition is most useful when the thing to be explained by the appositive words is suggested, as in No. 34, and not indicated, as in No. 33. We find a good illustration of this point in Gray’s Elegy as punctuated by the author; and we also find in this illustration what, we believe, is a late development of the dash. The poet Gray was one of the most painstaking writers known in literature. There was a comma in the first line of the manuscript of his Elegy in a Country Churchyard when sent to the printer:
35A. The curfew tolls, the knell of parting day.
The comma here means just what the comma in No. 34 means. What follows “tolls” is in apposition with the thing which “the curfew tolls” suggests, as what follows the comma and dash in No. 34 is in apposition with a picture suggested by what precedes. The suggestion in No. 35A is less apparent and more subtle than in No. 34.
The printer who received the manuscript of the Elegy did not see the picture, and so left out the comma, thus making the intransitive verb “tolls” a transitive verb. The poet’s musical ear felt the improvement made thus unconsciously by the printer; and the change was accepted.
In order more clearly to show the meaning of the manuscript line, we should punctuate it with the comma and dash:
35A-1. The curfew tolls,—the knell of parting day.
Thus the dash is an aid to the comma in grouping the appositive words, especially when following a thought only implied.
There is a very common use of the dash that is commended by all writers on punctuation; but not one of these writers has formulated a rule that differentiates the dash so used from marks of parenthesis.
A writer frequently uses a group of words that are purely parenthetical in nature; and yet he desires to give them grammatical connection with the sentence. Such connection clearly takes them out of the class of groups of words requiring marks of parenthesis; but, because of their purely parenthetical nature, it does not put them into the class requiring commas or semicolons alone. As the group retains a twofold nature, such nature may well be shown by two marks. If it be said this is not good reasoning, we may well resort to a rule which, with the explanation of the conditions above given, together with a very general practice, will quite distinctly differentiate the class of sentences to be thus punctuated. Such a rule will have, at least, the merit of producing a certain degree of uniformity in punctuation. The rule may be about as follows:
Rule.—Matter that is purely parenthetical in nature, and yet is given grammatical connection, slight or otherwise, with what precedes it, may be set off by a dash or dashes together with the mark that would be required by the language with the parenthetical matter omitted.
One or two sentences will illustrate the points under discussion:
36. He cannot understand—nor can any of his leisurely countrymen—why tomorrow will not answer as well as today.
The matter here set off by dashes is a side-remark, purely parenthetical in nature, but given grammatical connection by the use of the conjunction “nor.” If the matter were not purely parenthetical, it would, of course, not take the dashes. A sentence similar in form will illustrate this point:
36-1. He cannot understand, nor does he want to understand, why tomorrow will not answer as well as today.
In the next sentence the grammatical relation is in the nature of apposition; and yet what follows “heroines” is not purely an appositive, for all “female characters” are not “heroines.” The added thought goes beyond the office of parenthetical matter, and becomes an integral part of the sentence, which cannot be omitted without changing the sense:
37. George Eliot’s heroines—her female characters, from first to last—are drawn with the serene firmness of omniscience.
The group of words here set off by dashes expresses too much to be either an appositive of “heroines” or a parenthesis explaining the meaning of “heroines”; in short, it is neither wholly one nor the other, and cannot be properly punctuated as belonging to one or the other class of words.
It may be well to note here the difference between Sentences 36 and 37 and Sentence 32-3, the latter being a type of sentences often improperly punctuated when the sentence is continued beyond the appositive group of words. We have just read such a sentence in the morning newspaper:
38. There is literature in our newspapers—a lively, colloquial, vivid literature, reflective of the life we lead—and we are grateful for his [Augustine Birrell’s] admonition that in the making of it we have regard first for truth and afterward for beauty, if we find it.
The error in the punctuation of the above sentence was probably due to the lack of a clear definition, in the mind of the writer, of the meanings of the dash. The relation of the matter between the dashes to what precedes is clearly that of apposition; and the dash alone is quite generally used to express it. We prefer, however, the comma and dash, as was shown in our discussion of No. 32.
This relation makes the appositive group of words a part of what has gone before, thus ending the first clause with the end of the appositive group of words. This puts the and relation between the two larger groups of the sentence, thus making the use of the second dash erroneous, and requiring a new grouping. A semicolon will best perform this office.
Punctuated in accordance with the above reasoning, and with some commas added, the sentence will read as follows:
THE DASH AS A PARAGRAPH-MARK
In order to save space, the dash is used, purely conventionally, between paragraphs not put in paragraph form,—that is, between paragraphs run together, as are sentences. Such usage may be seen in the definitions of any dictionary. It is permissible especially on postal and correspondence cards, or wherever economy of space is important.
EXAMPLES
1. Men, of your own family and out of it, sometimes put you on trains, and take care of you—sometimes.
2. To have courage without pugnacity, conviction without bigotry, charity without condescension, faith without credulity, love of humanity without mere sentimentality, meekness with power, and emotion with sanity—that is Christianity.
3. The weather was perfect,—the days warm, the nights cool.
4. Royalty bred in Saul what it bred in most kings of the East,—an imperious temper, a despotic will.
5. Nurses who cherish the professional spirit will be minor players in the drama,—faithful attendants in the day, silent watchers in the night.
6. Stevenson never lacks precision, clearness, proportion,—the classic qualities; but, outside of them, the variety of his masters helped him to be various.
7. This spider springs for his mark, and is remarkably sure of his aim,—a fact which proves that for distances of several inches the vision of hunting spiders is perfectly distinct and clear.
8. Serenity of soul is a divine gift,—prop, shield, and unfailing cordial in one.
9. Now, if it were possible that you, Sir,—and the keen eyes surveyed the young man closely,—could command the confidence of these dealers, you might make your visit profitable.
10. Mr. Newman’s syntax presents Homer’s thought in a way which is something more than unconstrained,—over-familiar; something more than easy,—free and easy.
11. Jackson’s conquests had been those of war,—always more dazzling than those of peace; his temperament was of fire,—always more attractive than one of marble.
12. The subject divides itself naturally into two main topics,—the political and the social and economic.
13. The work of his administration is represented by the City Hospital,—its buildings and equipment and its domestic administration.
14. Walt Whitman is the globe itself,—all seas, lands, forests, climates, storms, snows, sunshines, rains, of universal earth.
15. A few northern warblers were chirping in the evergreens along the edge of the summit, between the inn and the Point,—black-polls and bay-breasts, with black-throated greens and Carolina wrens; and near there I saw with pleasure my first Tennessee phoebes.
16. The patient has the symptoms resulting from dilatation,—dyspnea and serous effusion.
Without knowing the meaning of the three technical terms in the above sentence, the reader is informed by the comma and dash that “the symptoms” are “dyspnea and serous effusion.”
17. Her economies were frantic child’s play,—methodless, inexperienced, fitful; and they were apt to be followed by remorse.
In this sentence “child’s play” is not sufficiently specific to define “economies”; and therefore the characteristics of “child’s play” are added in the form of a group of adjectives looking back to “economies” and descriptive of child’s play.
18. A young man or a young woman may go, unaided and unfriended, to a large city,—may go with nothing and to nothing,—and yet build up a beautiful and successful life.
In this example the comma is required because it would be required after “city” if the dash group (may go with nothing and to nothing) were omitted. The dashes set off the group, and thus connect what follows the second dash with what precedes the first one.
19. We made a brave effort to smoke the rats out with the vilest imaginable compound of vapors,—brimstone, burnt leather, and arsenic,—and spent a cold night in a deck-bivouac to give the experiment fair play.
This sentence is from an English classic, Dr. Kane’s “Arctic Explorations.” The first comma and dash perform a double office: they indicate and set off the appositive group that follows, and also act as the dash and comma in the preceding example.
20. The same note of character—the craftsman’s keen delight in work—is struck in “Adam Bede” and in the little poem on Stradivarius.
Here is a fairly well-established conventional punctuation which we do not like. The relation of the group of words following the first dash to what precedes it, is that of apposition, and is best shown by the comma, with the dash for grouping. This use would require the repetition of the comma and dash after the group. The comma and dash would conform to the punctuation of the examples considered above.
21. We went into the trenches a full regiment. We came out to retreat again with four hundred men—and I left my younger brother there.
22. In spite of his harsh, stern exterior, the man had wonderful depths of emotion and nervous sensibility. I think you can see it in his face—when you have discovered it otherwise.
Much of the beauty of language is lost to one who cannot read into the dash in No. 21 a scene of tender emotion, and into the dash in No. 22 a bit of philosophy, as well as a bit of humor.
We shall discuss in this chapter some uses of marks determined partly by reason and partly by convention. In a subsequent chapter we shall take up the purely conventional uses of marks.
Among the commonest uses of marks is that of a comma before the conjunction that introducing a group of words. Our next two examples illustrate two classes of sentences in which “that” connects the parts of each sentence somewhat differently, permitting a difference in punctuation. As such modes of punctuation are not well settled by practice, and cannot be determined by reason, the use or omission of the comma in the second sentence (No. 40) becomes a matter of taste. We prefer the comma:
39. The court holds that the evidence is material.
40. The truth is, that we very much exaggerate the power of riches.
If it be said that punctuation which is a matter of taste necessarily becomes inconsistent punctuation, we may reply that some inconsistency in such punctuation does not in the least affect the value of the proper use of marks where they have real worth. A discussion of these seemingly minor points bears this value, that it may show niceties in grouping overlooked in our discussion of sharply defined groups.
No comma is required after “holds” in No. 39 because there is no grouping of words in the sentence that requires to be made in order to show a relation different from the relation that exists in the simplest form of expression, such, for instance, as the relation of adjective to noun, noun to verb, verb to object, etc.
In Sentence 40 “that” does not grow out of or coalesce with “is” as “that” grows out of and coalesces with “holds” in No. 39. The reader almost invariably pauses after “is” in such relations, as if to group into a whole what follows, such whole constituting the predicate of the sentence. The comma serves to show a grouping that is at once natural and helpful in reading, whether aloud or silently. This relation, with the need of the grouping, may be shown somewhat more clearly in a sentence where the use of the comma is quite unquestioned by good writers:
41. The benefit of a right good book depends upon this, that its virtues just soak into the mind, and there become a living, generative force.
Let us note that the relation here marked by a comma is quite suggestive of two similar relations which we indicated, respectively, by a colon (Sentence 26-3) and by a comma and dash (Sentence 34). It is plain that the relation in each of the three sentences (Nos. 26-3, 34, 41) is that of apposition; but it takes a different form in each, and so we punctuate the three sentences differently, each sentence falling into a different class.
While the above sentences present no difficulty in their punctuation, the punctuation of other sentences quite like them seems to be somewhat puzzling, yet it is based upon reason.
In court decisions the finding or findings generally appear in a separate paragraph or paragraphs, following a review of the case. The punctuation here is not entirely uniform; but, although it seems inconsistent with that of No. 39, it is easily explained:
42. Held, that the evidence is material.
If the decision covers two or more points, it may take this form:
42-1. Held—
1. That the evidence is material.
2. That the lower court did not err in its instructions to the jury.
If there is a reason for the use of a comma after “held” in No. 42, the same reason seems to require a comma after “held” in No. 42-1, the dash being used for another purpose, to be considered later. A comma is not used in No. 42-1, because its omission is the conventional usage.
The punctuation of No. 42 probably follows the mode of reading the sentence, a decided pause being made after “held,” which would not be the case in reading No. 39.
It could not be said that a colon after “this” in No. 41 would not be good punctuation.
As we have said elsewhere, Mr. Wilson’s work is very masterful and exhaustive, even though exceedingly puzzling; and therefore we feel justified in drawing frequent lessons from it. We take from it our next two illustrative sentences, which are so much alike that we wonder how there can be a difference in their punctuation after the verb followed by “that”:
43. The writer just quoted says, that “the grammatical pauses, which are addressed to the eye of the reader, are insufficient for the speaker, who addresses himself to the understanding ‘through the porches of the ear.’”
44. Mr. Maglathlin says that “the comma occurs sometimes where there should be no pause in reading or speaking; nor can the length of any required stop be inferred with much certainty from the common stop-mark used.”
We fail to find a rule in Mr. Wilson’s work explaining the use of the comma before “that” in No. 43. The sentences, however, are taken, not from Mr. Wilson’s illustrative examples, but from the text of his work; and therefore the punctuation is more likely a typographical error.
Writers on punctuation seem to find the use of marks required by such words as first, second, when, now, because, etc., very puzzling; and their rules to determine the punctuation are exceedingly puzzling to the reader.
This punctuation falls quite readily under the principles of grouping and relationship exemplified in practically all of our illustrative sentences considered up to this point. It will be seen that the difficulty is to determine the actual relation of the word to what precedes or follows, or to both. Illustrative examples will serve to solve this difficulty:
45. You ask me, perhaps, even you, who are all charity, why parts of this book are what they are.
46. You ask me, perhaps even you, who are all charity, why parts of this book are what they are.
In No. 45 the speaker makes in the first three words a statement which may be merely an assumption; and, perceiving this fact as the statement is finished, he wishes to soften the possible severity of his language. This he does by the insertion of a slightly parenthetical word (perhaps). Besides having this parenthetical character, “perhaps” has here also a squinting character (looking both ways),—that is, it may be intended to qualify what precedes it or what follows it. As it is entirely cut off by a comma from what follows it, the reader must determine what it does qualify; and this he readily determines from his knowledge of language. Of course, it here qualifies the statement that precedes it. If “perhaps” were placed before “ask,” the meaning would be unmistakable; but, as the effect of the language would not be exactly the same, the former mode of expression is necessary, and demands proper punctuation.
In No. 46 “perhaps” stands in the regular position of a word that qualifies what immediately follows it, and therefore needs no mark. The commas in this sentence are used to suspend a group of words, as diagrammatically illustrated in Sentence 4-3, coming between words closely connected in sense. The more natural position of this appositive group of words is immediately after the first “you”; but even here it would require the commas, because it is an appositive. They are placed where they are for the same reason that “perhaps” is placed out of its natural order in No. 45.
47. The word therefore sometimes stands, as an adverb, in the natural position of an adverb, and therefore requires no mark, at least after it; it likewise stands, as a conjunction, in the natural position of a conjunction, and therefore no mark is required after it; it also sometimes stands, as either part of speech, out of the regular order of such part of speech, breaking the continuous flow of the thought, and thus becoming slightly parenthetical and requiring the marks (commas) used to show this office of the word. If, therefore, this distinction between the word’s uses be carefully noted, the punctuation required will not be difficult to learn.
The above sentence will serve to illustrate the punctuation required by “therefore” and also by its synonyms, which are accordingly, because, hence, since, thence, wherefore, etc. These words belong to a large group of words whose punctuation is readily determined by the sense relations. The word however, in its relation to other parts of the sentence, will serve to emphasize the distinction between the two uses of many of these words:
48. He was reluctant to discuss the subject. He replied, however, to all questions put to him, however pointed such questions were.
This sentence may be so formed as to bring the first “however” into the usual position of the conjunction:
48-1. He was reluctant to discuss the subject; however, he replied to all questions put to him, however pointed such questions were.
In this form, another word, but, yet, although, or the like, would be preferred to the first “however.”
The relation indicated by the word because is easily misunderstood, and therefore often wrongly indicated in the punctuation by the presence or absence of a mark. The meaning of a sentence may thus be entirely changed by the punctuation:
49. John did not go to town because his father was absent.
49-1. John did not go to town, because his father was absent.
No. 49 asserts that John went to town, and states that his reason for going was not his father’s absence. No. 49-1 asserts that John did not go to town, and that the reason for not going was his father’s absence. In No. 49 the language is used in its natural order and without any turn in the thought, which is not complete until the end of the sentence is reached. In No. 49-1 the same language is made to give an entirely different meaning by changing the relation between the two groups of words constituting the sentence. A like change of real meaning is seen in Sentences 13 and 13-1; and a like change of apparent meaning is seen in Sentences 1 and 1-1. This principle is clearly exemplified in Sentences 11-1 and 11-2.
A very important principle of language is involved in this punctuation; and we should thoroughly comprehend it. In No. 49 the relation expressed by “not” goes on to the group of words beginning with “because,” although apparently confined to “go.” In No. 49-1 the relation is confined entirely to “go.” We find a counterpart of this form of expression in the use of “only” and similar modifiers. “Only” is used out of place so generally, often by excellent writers, that we hesitate to criticize such usage. In the expression, I only assisted the boys to work the example, we are not sure whether the writer means to say that he only assisted,—that is, did not do all the work; or that he assisted only the boys,—that is, not the girls; or that he assisted them only to work the example, and not to explain it.
A careful writer will always avoid such ambiguous expressions, for it is not easy for the reader to differentiate the meanings in such sentences as Nos. 49 and 49-1.
Our next two sentences (Nos. 50 and 51) are especially interesting because of their sources. No. 50 is a part of Mr. Teall’s general rule (page 1) for the use of the comma; and No. 51 is a sentence from the text of Mr. Wilson’s work (page 3), quoted by Mr. Teall in the discussion of his own rule.
We quote No. 50, not to consider it as a rule, but to consider the use of the comma in its language. No. 51, as it appears in Mr. Wilson’s work, has a comma before “unless”; and Mr. Teall quotes the sentence to illustrate an erroneous use of the comma:
50. When there is no break in sense no comma should be used, unless necessary for clearness of expression.
51. Scarcely can a sentence be perused with satisfaction or interest, unless pointed with some degree of accuracy.
No. 50, like No. 49-1, is practically completed at the comma, what follows in each being added as an additional thought. In No. 51 the language up to the comma is almost meaningless, or, at least, makes an untrue statement. What follows the comma restricts the assertion to a definite and true statement, just as what follows the comma in No. 49 restricts the meaning of the assertion made in the language preceding it. Because of this relation between the parts no comma is used, and for the reasons already discussed.
Sentences 50 and 51 are not unlike Sentences 13 and 13-1; and therefore the same reasoning determines their punctuation.
Mr. Wilson’s use of a comma before “unless” in No. 51 is wrong, and is contrary to one of his own rules.
Such mistakes can be found, probably, in the text-book of every writer on punctuation. They are generally mere oversights, and should not be construed as evidence of the writer’s lack of knowledge. It is the system of a writer which determines the value or lack of value of his work.
The punctuation between clauses connected by when, where, and like connectives, presents difficulties only when an attempt is made to rob such connectives of their apparent meanings, respectively, of time and place, as is done by some writers, and perhaps correctly in rare cases.
In each of our next three illustrative sentences the thought of time is equally manifest; and therefore there is no more need of a comma in one than in the other:
52. You may fire when you are ready, Gridley.
52-1. You may fire now, Gridley.
52-2. You may go tomorrow, Gridley.
It is true that “when” may lose, at least in a measure, its sense of time, and then indicate a somewhat different relation between the clauses it connects. Mr. Wilson gives the following sentence to illustrate this point:
53. Refrain not to speak, when by speaking you may be useful to others.
Here “when” may not refer to time, but may be equivalent to if, thus introducing a condition under which to speak; or it may be equivalent to because, thus giving a reason. Such meaning would make a sentence very much like No. 49-1.
We find an exact counterpart of No. 53, with similar punctuation, in the following sentence from the New Testament, Common Version:
53-1. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you.
The same sentence in the Revised Version appears without the comma, thus giving “when” its full sense of time:
53-2. Blessed are ye when men shall reproach you.
In Sentence 47 we saw the various uses of the word “therefore”; and in Sentences 48 and 48-1 we saw the different meanings of “however” with a change of position. In our next five or six sentences, we shall see that the meaning to be conveyed determines the relation, this relation being indicated by the mark of punctuation:
54. Fortunately for me, the work was easy.
54-1. Fortunately, for me the work was easy.
In No. 54 the good fortune (fortunately) is for me, as if the language read, “It was fortunate for me.” In 54-1 the comma cuts “fortunately” off from “for me”; and the meaning is thus changed.
If the meaning of No. 54-1 is not perfectly clear to the reader, it may be made so by a change in the form of the sentence:
54-2. Fortunately, the work was easy for me.
Sentence 54 is not capable of such transposition; and this shows that the sentences are different in meaning.
Words and groups of words like this and in like use are very numerous; yet practically all of them readily fall into their respective classes, and are easily punctuated. A change in meaning, however, even without a change in form, will require different punctuation, although the proper punctuation is rarely seen. That it is so seems strange in view of the fact that the meaning logically permits of no other than the obviously correct punctuation:
55. In conclusion, I wish to say that the evidence does not justify the verdict.
The relation of “in conclusion” will be clearly seen if we transfer the term:
55-1. I wish to say, in conclusion, that the evidence does not justify the verdict.
In each of these sentences “in conclusion” is merely an adverb equivalent to finally. If we make it equivalent to a clause, and thus prevent its performing the office of an adverb, its relation is changed, and its new relation will determine the punctuation. Such a change and such new relation are seen in the next sentence:
55-2. In conclusion: the jury seemed unable to comprehend either the evidence or the charge of the judge; the judge was not entirely free from prejudice; and the prisoner was unable to obtain important evidence.
Here “in conclusion” seems to bear no grammatical relation to what follows. It is, however, the remnant of a clause which bears the colon relation to what follows; and therefore the colon is used after it. Such a clause might read thus, “I will state, in conclusion, the facts in the case.”
The words yes, no, again, to sum up, to proceed, etc., are often used in this way, and so require the colon:
56. Do you think he will meet the expectations of his friends? Yes: he has never failed to meet reasonable expectations.
Apparently in the absence of a comprehension of the colon relation between “yes” or “no” and what follows, even careful punctuators seem to prefer the semicolon after these words; and, it may be said, convention thus overrides reason, making the semicolon far more common than the colon for this punctuation.
The conventional punctuation of the sentence is as follows:
56-1. Do you think he will meet the expectations of his friends? Yes; he has never failed to meet reasonable expectations.
As marks are used mainly to assist the reader in so grouping words that their relations may be readily seen, it is apparent that a mark is not needed when the grouping is unmistakable in its absence. There is a large class of groups so formed and so connected that a mark of punctuation between them is superfluous, although used quite in accordance with our general principle, as exemplified in Sentences 1 and 1-1. The following sentence exhibits such grouping:
57. The author was identified with Maine in blood and spirit and in the ideals of life.
In this sentence the first “and” clearly connects “blood” and “spirit,” forming a group governed by the preposition “in.” Because of the absence of a mark before the second “and,” the reader, in view of what has been said in our discussion, might expect the word following the second “and” to have the same sense relation to “spirit” that “spirit” bears to “blood.” If such relation does not exist, then why should not a comma be used to notify the reader of the fact, as one was used in Sentence 1-1? The reason is, that marks are used to prevent wrong groupings which are easily made because of apparent, but wrong, relations. When the eye does not need a mark, the mark should be omitted, even though consistency in punctuation seems to call for it.
It is to be noted that “in blood and spirit” makes in itself a complete group and a complete picture (the material and the immaterial), thus practically inhibiting the use of a third coördinate word connected by “and”; moreover, the word “in” following the second “and” at once notifies the reader that another in group is to follow the conjunction. For these reasons there is no liability even to momentary wrong grouping, and therefore no mark is needed before the second “and.” This principle may be applied to somewhat long groups, if similarly formed, even though the words beginning the groups are not the same. This applies especially to groups formed by the correlative conjunctions, such as either—or, neither—nor, etc., the first conjunction giving notice that its correlative is to introduce a group bound to the preceding group by the expected complementary conjunction.
If we closely followed the principle exemplified in Sentence 1-1, a comma would be required before the second “and” in No. 57. Such use of marks would be very “close” punctuation, which means subservience to rules based upon an apparent principle. Close punctuation often becomes confusing by making so many groups of the words in a sentence that such groups are not readily grasped and properly joined together by the reader. The same effect is produced by the use of too many short sentences in a paragraph, for the relations existing between such sentences is not easily apprehended. Striving after short sentences is a common fault of many modern writers.
EXAMPLES
1. I shall go unless my orders forbid.
2. We fail to praise the ceaseless ministry of the inanimate world around us only because its kindness is unobtrusive.
3. We never praise the ceaseless ministry of the great inanimate world around us, except when we are compelled to invoke its kindness.
4. They are alike in one respect, that each is susceptible of omission.
5. His emotions are divided between contemptuous hatred of those who are beneath him because they are black, and envious hatred of those who are above him because they are what he calls “aristocrats”; and we are not alarmed if he rallies the “crackers” of a state, or even of a group of states in which the same conditions exist, to his support.
6. No one knew where the boundary line was, because, as we pointed out long ago, there never was a boundary line.
7. Holmes illustrated, perhaps better than any of that remarkable circle of poets of whom he was the surviving member, the brightness and beauty of life in itself.
8. There is no sorrow I have thought more about than this: that one who aspires to live a higher life than the common should fall from that serene height into the soul-wasting struggle with worldly annoyances.
The use of the colon in No. 8 follows conventional punctuation; and, therefore, as many good writers prefer this mode of punctuation, it is well to know the usage.
9. This, however excellent in its way, is neither scientific nor rational.
10. This, however, excellent though it be, is neither scientific nor rational.
11. He lacks all the essentials of a big man.... No, he is not the man for the place.
12. It is possible, yes, probable, that the work can be done in the time set for it.
In examples 11 and 12, “no” and “yes” are not used as sentence words requiring the punctuation of Sentence 56; but they are mere expletives, introducing something more emphatic than what precedes. Each takes the punctuation of an expletive, namely, a comma or commas.
13. The man gave many proofs of complete indifference to death, while he was doing his duty.
14. On the battle-field the man gave many proofs of complete indifference to death, while at home he seemed almost a coward.
No. 13 is an Atlantic Monthly sentence. As “while” is here equivalent to during the time, the use of the comma, which gives “while” the adversative meaning exhibited by “while” in No. 14, is wrong. In No. 14 “while” is almost equivalent to “but,” and here loses the sense of time.
15. The Lord has blessed thee, since my coming.
No. 15 is a clause from Gen. xxx, 30, punctuated as it appears in Webster’s New International. As “since” is a preposition, equivalent in meaning to during the time subsequent to, the use of the comma before it is clearly a typographical error.