DASHES AND PARENTHESES
The indiscriminate substitution of dashes and parentheses for commas, which is quite common in some literary periodicals and in some books by authors of recognized literary ability, greatly weakens the value of marks; for there can be no differentiation between the marks so used, and, consequently, the first part of either mark fails to give to the reader notice of what is to follow. The value of the punctuation is thus weakened. In some sentences, such use of these marks is not objectionable; but the necessity of the substitution is not always apparent.
The occasional substitution of parentheses for commas, where the use of semicolons is thus avoided, is desirable; but the occasion for such use is rare. In the following sentence the use of commas is strictly correct, but the result is not pleasing:
70. The following were appointed a committee on organization: John Smith, chairman, Henry Jones, and William Brown.
This punctuation seems to throw the four nouns following the colon into a series. This effect can be avoided by the use of a semicolon after “chairman”; but this punctuation would require another semicolon after “Jones,” thus grouping the words as words are grouped in Sentences 7, 7-1, and 7-2. The better punctuation of sentences like this is to enclose the descriptive word in parentheses, and retain the commas for the other words:
70-1. The following were appointed a committee on organization: John Smith (chairman), Henry Jones, and William Brown.
It seems surprising that good writers will adopt the punctuation of No. 70, and use it when it tends to obscure the sense. As illustrative of this point, we give a sentence from the current issue of the Literary Digest:
71. This new magnet is used for the study of light, the motions of electrons, the smallest components of matter, and the minute movements in the interior of an atom.
For the sake of clearness, which is a chief object of punctuation, the sense relations of the things named in this sentence as objects of study should be shown by the punctuation. As “electrons” are “the smallest components of matter,” the punctuation should reveal the fact:
71-1. This new magnet is used for the study of light, the motions of electrons (the smallest components of matter), and the minute movements in the interior of an atom.
By reserving dashes for the large groups of words which are purely parenthetical in nature, but are tied to what precedes by a connective, generally a conjunction or a preposition, we do not violate the fundamental meaning of either the dash or the marks of parenthesis; and therefore when we meet either mark its meaning is unmistakable. In short, we do not make a mark serve an additional and unnecessary use, and so render it more difficult to interpret as a sign-board.
When we speak of the “fundamental” meaning of a mark, we refer to the meaning implied in its name, the name, of course, being descriptive of a feature of the language which is to be pointed out by the mark. The word dash, as has already been said, points out that the writer has dashed aside, as it were, in his line of thought, and is going to “parenthesize” something, keeping his thought, however, grammatically connected with what precedes. We violate this principle in the use of the single dash exemplified in Sentence 33, just as we violate a fundamental principle in the use of the parentheses in No. 70-1. We think there is no objection to the former use of the dash; for it serves a good purpose, and its meaning can hardly be mistaken. The relation indicated by the comma and dash is suggested before the mark is reached, as, in Sentence 33, details are suggested by the words “three original parties.”
The indiscriminate use of dashes and parentheses for commas has become quite common; but, after a very careful study of language thus punctuated, we can find no justification or excuse for such usage. It may give the writer a choice of marks, but it gives no light to the reader. It is too much like using either red or yellow for a danger-signal when red better answers the purpose.
Although the differentiation between commas and parentheses is at times somewhat difficult, generally it is very easy. The following sentences will illustrate common uses of the marks where the shades of meaning are nice, but unmistakable:
72. Ian Maclaren (Dr. John Watson) wrote “Beside the Bonnie Briar Bush.”
73. Ian Maclaren, a noted Scotch minister (Dr. John Watson), is the author of “Beside the Bonnie Briar Bush.”
74. Ian Maclaren (the pen-name of Dr. John Watson) is unmistakably Scotch.
In No. 72 “Dr. John Watson” is purely parenthetical matter, used to give the reader some information about the name of the man already mentioned. As we have been talking about the man, the information about his name is like an aside,—that is, it is purely parenthetical. This matter may be omitted without affecting the sense of the language in any manner; and, as it is purely parenthetical, it properly takes the marks of parenthesis.
In No. 73 we have both an explanatory group of words and a parenthesis. The first is equivalent to “who is a noted Scotch minister.” In either form it is an essential part of the information the writer wishes to convey. We have already defined such a group as slightly parenthetical, to be set off by commas.
No. 74 is a particularly distractive sentence, although its punctuation may be technically correct. The first picture given in this sentence to the reader is that of a man; the next one, given by the parenthesis, is that of a name. A third thought follows; and this thought is applicable to either a man or a name. As “Watson” is an Irish name, the question may arise in reading No. 74 whether the writer wishes to say “Ian Maclaren,” the man, is Scotch, or “Ian Maclaren,” the name, is Scotch.
There is a conventional way of writing a name of this kind to show that the name is referred to merely as a word. This is done by the use of italics or quotation-marks; and therefore to avoid the distractive effect of No. 74, it may be written thus:
74-1. Ian Maclaren (the pen-name of Dr. John Watson) is unmistakably Scotch.
Here the italics notify the reader that he is to consider the name, not the person named; and this name is a Scotch word.
Like notice would be given by the use of quotation-marks in place of the italics.
The distractive effect caused by producing two impressions through a wrong use of marks of parenthesis, should be avoided.
EXAMPLES
1. I am a lady, and a coward.
2. I am a lady and—a coward.
In No. 1 the comma makes “a coward” an afterthought. In No. 2 the dash shows a hesitancy on the part of the writer about calling herself, or one (a lady) of her sex, a coward. The shade of meaning between the two sentences is clearly marked.
3. On these occasions I have been grateful to the happy accident, or design, that made me a participant in such scenes.
4. On these occasions I have been grateful to the happy accident—or design?—that made me a participant in such scenes.
In No. 3 the commas indicate an afterthought; in No. 4 the writer makes an aside, as if asking someone a question, thus requiring a dash to show the change in thought.
5. The Syracuse (New York) Journal asserts that the spoilsman must go.
6. The following sentence contains three nouns: Do (1) good by (2) stealth, and blush to find it (3) fame.
7. She walked away, a very straight, beautiful—yes, certainly beautiful—young figure, and disappeared.
8. Crime is merely an unrebuked temptation, a natural instinct running at large,—a very natural thing.
In No. 8 the second group is a mere appositive or definition of the first; but the third group is a restatement of the thought implied in the two preceding groups. The comma shows the relation; the dash does the grouping.
9. The examination embraces spelling, punctuation, the use of capital letters, grammar, arithmetic, geography (descriptive and physical), languages, etc.
10. If you will take my advice, you will throw that letter into the fire. (A bright one was blazing on the hearth.) If you keep it, it will probably tempt you into an outlay beyond your means.
11. His voice and manner,—the manner of the old Oxford scholar of the best type, and, alas! of a bygone generation, with its indescribable indication of cultured and lettered ease,—were singularly attractive.
12. Measure as we may the progress of the world,—materially, in the advantages of steam, electricity, and other mechanical appliances; sociologically, in the great improvements in the conditions of life; intellectually, in the diffusion of education; morally, in a possibly higher standard of ethics,—there is no one measure which can compare with the decrease of physical suffering in man, woman, and child when stricken by disease or accident.
The consideration of the use of the dash in No. 12 does not strictly fall in this chapter; and yet its position gives what follows it the appearance of an aside with grammatical connection (apposition) with what precedes. “As we may” is equivalent to “in any manner”; and the matter set off by dashes gives details of “in any manner,” or, more strictly, of “measure in any manner.”
Let us here note, parenthetically, that if “as we may” were [144]changed to “as we can,” these words would be set off by commas, being simply an explanatory group, and not a restrictive group, as they are now, being equivalent to “in whatever way.”
13. Shooting stars are only little masses of matter,—bits of rock or metal, or cloudlets of dust and gas,—which are flying unresisted through space, just as planets and comets do, in paths which, within the limits of our solar system, are controlled by the attraction of the sun.
Why not use marks of parentheses in No. 13, instead of dashes? The reason lies in the meaning of the former marks. If “matter” or “little masses of matter” were an obscure term requiring explanation, the explanatory term would properly take the form of a parenthesis; but we have here a mere apposition, used by way of example or illustration, as we might use the words apples and pears to explain what we mean by the word fruit in a sentence.
14. That child of so many prayers, who was to bear the significant name of John (Jehochanan, “the Lord is gracious”) was to be the source of joy and gladness to a far wider circle than that of the family.
15. Such scanty record was kept of Sebastian Cabot’s voyages of 1497 and 1498 that we cannot tell what land the Cabots first saw,—whether it was the bleak coast of Northern Labrador, or some point as far South as Cape Breton.
15-1. Such scanty record was kept of Sebastian Cabot’s voyages of 1497 and 1498 that we cannot tell what land the Cabots first saw; whether it was the bleak coast of Northern Labrador, or some point as far South as Cape Breton, is still a matter of dispute.
The differentiation between the comma in No. 15 (here aided by a dash) and the semicolon in No. 15-1, is very plain; [145]and each mark, when reached, unmistakably notifies the reader what relation exists between what precedes and what follows it.
When one is reading these sentences aloud, each mark determines the voice-inflection that will convey the meaning to the listener.
16. An ellipsis or omission of words is found in all kinds of composition. (Remarks d and i.)
17. When a quotation is short, and closely connected with the words preceding it, a comma between the parts is sufficient.—See page 108.
18. Capitalize the exclamations “O” and “Oh” (see chap. iii, sec. 6).
19. In resolutions, italicize the word “Resolved,” but not the word “Whereas.” (See chap. iv, sec. 36.)
The above four examples show a variety of treatment of reference matter (real or apparent) that is perplexing, not only because of the sources of the examples, but because the same is found many times in the books from which the examples are taken. Nos. 16 and 17 are from Mr. Wilson’s work, and Nos. 18 and 19 are from “A Manual for Writers.”
No. 16 is one of a number of examples to be punctuated according to a preceding rule and the “Remarks” under such rule. (The punctuation of No. 16 is to follow “Remarks d and i,” which require commas before and after “or omission.”) Thus “Remarks d and i” above is purely parenthetical matter in its relation to the language of the example. As it explains no word or group of words within the example it is treated as an independent sentence, and is therefore properly punctuated.
No. 17 is a “Remark” under a general rule. “See page 108” is a part of this “Remark.” Instead of condensing the information found on page 108 and adding it to what precedes, in the example such information, additional to and not explanatory of what precedes it, takes the form of a sentence,—“See page 108.” It has no reference by way of explanation to what precedes, but stands for an additional sentence. It also belongs in another paragraph; and this fact is shown by the dash, the use of which here is purely conventional punctuation.
We do not understand why the references in Nos. 18 and 19 should not be treated alike. We think No. 19 is correct, except that “Resolved” should not here be italicized. It is properly italicized in a resolution, while “Whereas” in a resolution should be written with a capital and small-capital letters.
Note.—We do not think that “oh” is often written with a capital, except when it begins a sentence.
20. None of the ills from which England is at present suffering are due to democracy or to freedom, but to inherited conditions and traditions which British democracy (one of the finest and most devoted bodies of men and women in the world) has been working manfully to throw off. These go back to the days—not yet wholly past—of British Imperialism and paternalism.
The above example is a good illustration of the improper use of both the dash and the marks of parenthesis. The group of words enclosed in parenthesis is an appositive of “British democracy,” appositional in form and adjectival in meaning. The group of words set off by dashes is adjectival in both form and meaning. Each group is explanatory, not restrictive; and therefore, according to the principles we have discussed herein, each should be set off by commas.