Why We Punctuate; or, Reason Versus Rule in the Use of Marks

by William Livingston Klein

FIRST, SECOND, WHEN, NOW, BECAUSE, ETC.

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.”