COMMA AND SEMICOLON
The differentiation of the semicolon from the colon, and the colon from the period, seems to be so well marked that a choice between them is rarely difficult to make in the punctuation of language with proper sense relations between its parts; but the differentiation between the comma and the semicolon is not so well defined, yet it is generally very clear in well-written English. Here the choice of a mark is determined, very largely, by the degree of separation between the groups. In order further to illustrate this point, let us compare No. 63 with a sentence which is quite like it, and yet requires only a comma between its clauses:
66. Experience is fallacious, and judgment difficult.
The first three words of the above form a clause which so completely expresses a thought that the addition, by means of the “and,” of another adjective to follow “fallacious,” is hardly suggested. On the other hand, this degree of completeness might suggest that what is to follow will be a complete clause so changing the direction of the thought as to require a semicolon to show the fact of the change. Let us look at the sentence diagrammatically:
66-1. Experience is fallacious and....
How will this sentence probably continue? This question confronts every intelligent reader, whether he realizes it or not, when reading the complete sentence. If the mark before “and,” or the absence of a mark, conveys to him no information upon this point, he learns only through a tiresome mental process of ascertaining the correct relation of the words that follow “and” to the words that precede it. This process is one of holding in suspense two or more possible combinations. It is always distractive, and very often ends in a wrong combination. A semicolon before “and” would suggest that the preceding group of words is complete in itself, and is to be followed by a complete and coördinate thought (“and” indicates the coördination) in the proper sense relation with the group that has preceded. It would at once preclude the expectation of an adjective coördinate with “fallacious.”
We may complete the sentence thus:
66-2. Experience is fallacious; and therefore it is difficult for us to form correct judgments based upon experience.
To exhibit at once the sense relation between the two groups of words in the above (the relation of correct judgment to experience), we inserted the word “therefore”; to show that “and” is to be followed by a group grammatically coördinate with what precedes it, and of like form, we used a semicolon.
If the relation between the groups were closer than the relation suggested by the semicolon, but not so close as indicated by the absence of a mark, the comma would logically be the proper mark. It would suggest neither a word to be grouped with “fallacious” nor a clause to be grouped with all that precedes “and.” It would suggest a different development of the sentence. Such development would tie what follows to a part, not to the whole, of what precedes; and, as there are but three words in this sentence preceding the mark, what follows must be tied to one of them, and not to the whole, as in No. 66-2. Two sentences will serve to illustrate the point:
66-3. Experience is fallacious, and may not safely be depended upon in the formation of correct judgment.
66-4. Experience is fallacious, and unreliable as a basis of correct judgment.
In No. 66-3 the comma notifies the reader that another adjective in the and relation to “fallacious,” is not to follow.
In No. 66-4 the comma is used to confine “as a basis of correct judgment” to “unreliable,” thus disconnecting it from “fallacious.” This makes the language say that experience is fallacious in all things, and unreliable only as a basis of correct judgment.
If the reasoning in our discussion on the differentiation of the comma from the semicolon, be correct, it seems to establish a rule that the semicolon is the mark of choice between two clauses, whether joined by a conjunction or not. It is not entirely the length or the character of the groups of words that determines the choice. The liability to make wrong combinations, especially such combinations as are suggested by the apparent meaning of the language, is to be lessened by the mark.
In the absence of a mark in Sentence 1, a momentary wrong combination is quite unavoidable, because perfectly good sense is made by the wrong grouping. As a comma before “and” may not give to every reader notice of the development of the sentence, and as a semicolon could hardly fail to do so, it would seem to be the better mark.
In neither No. 66-3 nor No. 66-4 can the reader definitely interpret the meaning of the comma until one or two words following the conjunction are reached. As the process of determining a relation from a mark often requires the reader to consider the mark and one or two words following it, which process becomes almost instantaneous, a comma may thus convey its purpose as readily as the semicolon in No. 66-2 tells its purpose.
A slight change in the language of Sentence 1 will not change either the names of the two groups (clauses) or their relation (coördination); but it will remove the liability, even the possibility, of such wrong combination as is suggested in Sentence 1:
66-5. Respect the rights of children and you will gain their respect.
In this sentence, a mark before “and” is not really needed as a warning to the reader not to connect “you” with “children,” thus making “you” an object of the preposition “of.”
The similarity in form between Nos. 1 and 66-5, with a mark of punctuation imperative in the first, suggests the use of a mark in the second. As the comma is here quite sufficient to prevent a wrong combination by the reader, the comma naturally becomes the mark of choice; and good convention confirms this choice, while convention not so good seems to ignore the need of the semicolon in similarly formed sentences in which the apparent and wrong grouping is much more marked than in Sentence 1.
Sentences 66 and 66-5 stand at one extreme of the class of sentences in the punctuation of which we seek to differentiate between the comma and the semicolon. The relation is made quite unmistakable by the shortness and completeness of the first group of words, and also by the fact that the word in each sentence following the conjunction does not suggest, even in the slightest degree, a connection for itself with anything that precedes.
Let us consider a sentence at the other extreme, where a wrong combination is wholly unavoidable without a semicolon, and quite suggestive with one:
66-6. I do not mean that the people are conscious of this fact; but that the leaders of the people are conscious of it, I think, there is no doubt.
In this sentence a semicolon is quite indispensable in order to disconnect the second group beginning with “that” from “mean,” to which the preceding similarly formed group, beginning with “that,” belongs.
Between these extremes are many sentences which may take either the comma or the semicolon without distractive effect. The close punctuator will generally prefer the semicolon; the open punctuator, the comma. (For a discussion of close and open punctuation, see Chapter XV.)
The degrees of variation in the relationship between parts of language are so great that a differentiation between the comma and the semicolon is at times almost impossible. Fortunately, a quite indiscriminate use of these two marks in the class of sentences under consideration is not always misleading or distractive to the reader; but the indiscriminate use of marks tends to lessen the importance attached by a reader to punctuation.
EXAMPLES
1. He suffered much, and he also suffered long.
2. Virtue is intolerant of vice, and virtue is just as contagious as vice ever was.
3. Be the first to say what is self-evident, and you are immortal.
4. In some states the legislatures meet annually, and in others biennially.
4-1. In some states the legislatures meet annually; in others, biennially.
5. Want of intellect makes a village an Eden, a college a sty.
In each of the first four examples above the relation between its groups is indicated by a conjunction; and the grouping is so readily apparent that the comma serves to show it.
In No. 4-1, in the absence of a conjunction, the semicolon at once shows that another clause is to follow as in No. 7, below. Such clause, however, is contracted by the omission of a group of words common to the two clauses. This omission is indicated by a comma in the second clause, which also shows that the two words in the group are not in any grammatical relation to each other.
In the first group of No. 5 we have a double object of the verb (explained later as requiring no comma), and the object is repeated, in form, in what follows the comma. The comma may be said to be used to indicate the omitted verb, or, as in Sentence 1-1, to indicate the relation.
6. The sentences of Seneca are stimulating to the intellect; the sentences of Epictetus are fortifying to the character; the sentences of Marcus Aurelius find their way to the soul.
7. In the world of reality suffering is not a thing to be read or heard or talked about, but a living truth. Being defied, it maketh for bitterness; or ignored, for selfishness; or accepted, for wisdom.
8. Venice, it has been said, differs from all other cities in the sentiment which she inspires. The rest may have admirers; she only, a famous fair one, counts lovers in her train.
| 9. | Fame is what you have taken, |
| Character’s what you give; | |
| When to this truth you waken, | |
| Then you begin to live. |
10. Homer has not Shakespeare’s variations: Homer always composes as Shakespeare composes at his best; Homer is always simple and intelligible, as Shakespeare is often; Homer is never quaint and antiquated, as Shakespeare is sometimes.
11. There are many beautiful letters in Cary’s “Life of Curtis”; there is no other so beautiful as that written just after the death of Lincoln, nor is it possible to read it without a great trembling of the heart.
12. If there is ever a time to be ambitious, it is not when ambition is easy, but when it is hard. Fight in darkness; fight when you are down; die hard, and you won’t die at all.
The comma before “and” in No. 12 divides the semicolon group into two parts, and does not stand between groups coordinate with the first and second groups.
“Die hard, and you won’t die at all” is really a bull; and the incongruity of ideas might well be expressed by a dash before “and.”
13. All association [among people] must be a compromise; and, what is worse, the very flower and aroma of the flower of each of the beautiful natures disappears as they approach each other.
14. All religions, even the most conservative and traditional, are in constant flux, they either advance or decay.
The above sentence is thus punctuated in the Enclycopedia Britannica and the New Standard Dictionary. We know of no [129]meaning of the comma that indicates the real sense relation between “in constant flux” and what follows. Nor is this relation that shown by the colon; for a thing,—for instance, the ocean,—may be in constant flux, and yet not either advance or decay.
The meaning of the language requires “and” after “flux,” preferably with a semicolon before it.
15. Lily Dyer was a favorite with the village folk; she had just the qualities to arouse admiration. She was good and handsome and smart.
In the above example the semicolon relation does not exist between the groups of words (clauses) between which it is placed, for the second group does not add something to the first to make a complete thought. Moreover, the third group bears an unmistakable relation to the second group; and such relation is not the period relation. The language needs regrouping, to show the sense relations:
15-1. Lily Dyer was a favorite with the village folk. She had just the qualities to arouse admiration: she was good and handsome and smart.
16. It is a party which is as yet without a name. And what is even stranger, without a nickname.
No. 16 is a somewhat extreme, though common, result of seeking to make one’s sentences short. No mark at all is needed, or permissible, before “and” in such a sentence:
16-1. It is a party without a name and, what is even stranger, without a nickname.
17. Polemic is always dreary. Devotion always interests. This is because men are nearly always wrong when they want their own way, and always partly right when they worship.
As the third sentence in the above example does not grow out of the sentence preceding it, sentence unity is destroyed; and, besides, the use of “this” clearly shows reference to a thought expressed in the two preceding sentences. A semicolon is the proper mark after “dreary,” to make one sentence of the two, out of which the third grows.
18. Milton does not paint a finished picture, or play for a mere passive listener. He sketches, and leaves others to fill up the outline. He strikes the key-note, and expects his hearers to make out the melody.
In this example sentence unity is wholly disregarded: the first picture is put into one sentence, instead of two; the second picture is put into two sentences, instead of one. Moreover, as the second picture is but an amplification of the first, both pictures may be put into one sentence, and should be so put, in accordance with the punctuation we have discussed.
As now punctuated, the second sentence does not grow out of the first, but out of the first half of the first; and the third sentence, instead of growing out of the second, grows out of the second half of the first, ignoring the second sentence entirely.
Uniting the second and third sentences by a semicolon will improve the grouping and the punctuation; but making one sentence out of the three is still better:
18-1. Milton does not paint a finished picture, or play for a mere passive listener: he sketches, and leaves others to fill up the outline; he strikes the key-note, and expects his hearers to make out the melody.
The relations between the groups may be shown in another way; but such mode of expressing thought is not tolerable:
18-2. Milton does not paint a finished picture (he sketches, and leaves others to fill up the outline), or play for a mere passive listener (he strikes the key-note, and expects his hearers to make out the melody).
CHAPTER VIII
COMMA, DASH, AND PARENTHESES—THEIR DIFFERENTIATION
We know of no writer who has attempted to differentiate the above marks; but some writers have dismissed the subject by saying that these marks are interchangeable. Such a statement, we believe, is merely a confession of failure to comprehend the inherent meanings of the marks, and the need of giving marks definite meanings. The confusion resulting from such failure is, at least at this point, chaos in punctuation and, not infrequently, in the meaning of language so punctuated.
Mr. Garrison,[7] in his able Atlantic article, says: “Dash, comma, and parenthesis have equal title to employment in this sentence of Thackeray’s.” The following is the sentence punctuated in the three ways recognized by Mr. Garrison as correct punctuation:
67. If that theory be, and I have no doubt it is, the right and safe one.
67-1. If that theory be (and I have no doubt it is) the right and safe one.
67-2. If that theory be—and I have no doubt it is—the right and safe one.
Let us first ask why any mark is required before “and” in the sentence, and then what the mark, if used, says to the writer. When the reader reaches the conjunction, two questions at once confront him: First, does “and” connect the words between which it immediately stands? second, does “and” carry the if meaning over to the second group of words? As “and” does not connect the words between which it immediately stands, some mark is suggested; and that mark is the comma, but a comma may not clearly exclude if from the second group. If the if meaning is not to be conveyed, a larger grouping is suggested; and this would call for a semicolon, which would more widely separate parts (subject and predicate) of the whole sentence which should be held together.
The and relation is here what we may call a strained one; in fact, the and relation hardly exists in this sentence.
The punctuation of No. 67-1 is all right if we accept a meaning of the term parenthesis that will cover the group of words we are here dealing with; but the punctuation is wholly wrong if we use marks according to fundamental principles. Both the New International and the New Standard dictionaries give definitions of a parenthesis that are incomplete and misleading. Their definitions are almost identical in their wording, and call a parenthesis, in substance, a group of words inserted, for explanation or qualification, “in a sentence which would be grammatically complete without it.” This definition ignores both the root meaning of the word and the common usage of the parenthesis. It is an excellent definition for an explanatory word or group of words, except a complete explanatory sentence, which we set off by commas, as shown in our discussion of Sentence 11 et seq. We do not know what would become, under this definition, of a parenthesis in the form of a complete sentence; for the definition confines the parenthesis to a word or words inserted in a sentence.
The Century gives a definition that is based upon the Greek roots of the word parenthesis, as well as upon its use by good writers. According to this definition, a parenthesis has no grammatical relation with the language into which it is “put.” (The word thrust would perhaps give a clearer idea of the original.) We “parenthesize” in spoken, as well as in written or printed, language; but in the former we convey the meaning by inflections and pauses, while in the latter we convey the meaning by marks of punctuation.
The use of the conjunction (and) in the sentence under consideration clearly takes the inserted group of words out of the proper definition of a parenthesis; for it puts such words into grammatical connection with what precedes, although the words are quite strongly parenthetical in nature.
Now, having eliminated the comma, the semicolon, and the parentheses as the proper marks for setting off this group of words thrust into the sentence, and still making good sense by their grammatical connection, how shall we punctuate them? It is perfectly evident that this group of words makes a decided break in the thread of the thought, and that they do not have logical or natural connection with what precedes, because the true and relation does not exist between the thoughts, implied or expressed. Such language may be said to be idiomatic and therefore proper; but the group of words is not properly set off in either No. 67 or No. 67-1. As the fundamental use of the dash is to note such a break in language as here occurs, it is the proper mark before “and” in this sentence. In language of this kind it may be said that the writer dashes off the track of his thought for a moment; and therefore the dash is the proper mark to indicate such a break in the continuity of thought.
The second dash is used to close the group in the same way that the second comma of a pair of commas, or the second part of the marks of parenthesis, is used; and this makes the punctuation of No. 67-2 correct punctuation, for it is based upon the fundamental meanings of both the marks and the sense relations of the words.
This careless use of the marks of parenthesis, especially as in No. 67-1, is quite common in some literary periodicals of high standing and in not a few large printing establishments; but, we venture to assert, it is rare among painstaking writers who punctuate their own writings.
Such use of marks utterly prevents a differentiation between commas and parentheses; and this disregard of sense relations finds an exact parallel in a disregard, only too common among careless writers, of such fundamental differences in meanings as exists between the words vocation and avocation.
Let us also note that groups of words defined in Chapter III as “slightly parenthetical” do not make any break in the thread of thought, so that Sentence 67 is not at all similar to such sentences as were considered in that connection. In further proof of this statement, let us compare Sentence 67 with Sentence 10-2. If the and relation in No. 67 does not exist between the two groups of words (all that precedes it, and what follows it up to “is”), the group “I have no doubt” should be set off by commas, as is a similar group in Sentence 10-2. This punctuation would make “and” connect “be” and “it is,” which would not make sense.
If it is not now clear that the punctuation of Nos. 67 and 67-1 violates the fundamental principles of the meanings of both marks and sense relations, it may be worth while to consider the subject further.
Mr. Teall does not go quite so far as Mr. Garrison, who puts the three marks into a class from which any one may be selected for the punctuation of Sentence 67. Mr. Teall, however, makes the following statement (page 50): “As in some instances there is no absolute choice between commas and parentheses, so also there is none between parentheses and dashes.” He illustrates the latter part of his statement, but not the former. His illustrative example is a sentence taken from Mr. Wilson’s work, which sentence, he says, may take either the parentheses or the dashes. We give the sentence (No. 68) as punctuated by Mr. Wilson:
68. If we exercise right principles (and we can not have them unless we exercise them), they must be perpetually on the increase.
Mr. Teall evidently agrees with Mr. Wilson in the punctuation of the sentence, which, he says, may as well take dashes; but he expresses no choice between the two modes of punctuation.
We have already said that this punctuation violates fundamental principles; and that it does so is evidenced by Mr. Wilson’s definitions. In one place (page 168) he defines a parenthesis as “words thrown obliquely into the body of a sentence”; and on the preceding page he says a parenthesis is “an expression inserted in the body of a sentence,[8] with which it has no connection in sense or in construction.” Mr. Teall gives a like definition of a parenthesis.
The meaning of “obliquely thrown into” is, we think, unmistakable. It is equivalent to “thrust into,” and characterizes matter that is “without grammatical connection.”
It does not seem to us true that the parenthesis (group of words) in No. 68 has “no connection in sense” with the sentence. As “and” gives it constructive connection, why does “and” not give it sense relation? and why is “and” used, what does it mean, and what does it connect?
The punctuation of No. 67-2 seems to us to be in accord with the fundamental meanings that determine the use of marks; and it at once differentiates the dash from the two other marks. These principles are violated in the punctuation of No. 68, which requires dashes.