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

by William Livingston Klein

INTERMEDIATE RESTRICTIVE GROUPS

Probably at no other point in punctuation do writers obscure the meaning of language so much as in dealing with restrictive and explanatory groups of words. We dealt with the subject in Chapter III, but passed over one feature of it,—namely, the intermediate restrictive group, or a restrictive group coming between two other groups closely tied together in sense, and seemingly requiring the suspension of the intermediate group by commas.

Before dealing with these groups, let us consider an interesting sentence, from very high authority, which tends to confirm our statement concerning the importance of properly punctuating restrictive and explanatory modifiers. The sentence is from a passage in Dean Alford’s notable book, “A Plea for the Queen’s English,” in which passage the Dean severely scolds compositors for their bad punctuation, particularly for the insertion of commas “without the slightest compunction.”

83. I have some satisfaction in reflecting, that, in the course of editing the Greek text of the New Testament, I believe I have destroyed more than a thousand commas, which prevented the text being properly understood.

Mr. De Vinne quotes the passage in which this sentence appears; and he does so in apparent approval of Dean Alford’s condemnation of the misuse of commas. Mr. De Vinne makes a single comment upon the passage, in which he says “the last comma in this extract is superfluous.” The reference is to the comma before “which.”

The comma before “which” is not simply “superfluous”: it is wrong. It is wrong because it changes the meaning of the language by making the writer say, apparently, that he destroyed all the commas in the text, while he, unquestionably, intended to say he destroyed more than a thousand offending commas, that is, commas that (which) obscured the text.

The superfluous comma in the above sentence is, in our opinion, the one after “reflecting.” This comma is used in accordance with the convention of Dean Alford’s day, and follows a rule of “close” punctuation.

But the punctuation is very bad at another point; and, we venture to say, in spite of the great distinction of its author as an English scholar, the language at this point is not the “Queen’s English.” Omitting the intermediate and final groups of words, and the superfluous comma, the sentence will read as follows:

83-1. I have some satisfaction in reflecting that I believe I have destroyed more than a thousand commas.

“Satisfaction in reflecting that I believe,” is, to say the least, a curious satisfaction. This is not the meaning the writer wished to convey.

The obvious error cannot be mended by setting “I believe” off with commas, for this would simply throw doubt upon the statement which follows (I have destroyed), which is a positive statement, needing no qualification. The only doubtful assertion in the sentence is as to the number of commas destroyed. The evident meaning of the language is, that the number of commas destroyed is probably (I believe) more than a thousand. To be sure, “probably” and “I believe” are not exactly equivalent terms; but the word probably here serves to show how “I believe” is used. We set it off by commas because of its slightly parenthetical character.

The entire sentence should be written thus:

83-2. I have some satisfaction in reflecting that, in the course of editing the Greek text of the New Testament, I have destroyed, I believe, more than a thousand commas which prevented the text being properly understood.

The absence of a comma before the adjective group of words beginning with “which,” tells the reader that such adjective group is restrictive, thus confining the destruction to harmful commas.

Let us turn aside again to ask why, in the sentence above and beginning with “The evident,” “probably” takes no commas, while a similar expression (I believe) in No. 83-2 requires them. “Probably” here requires no commas because it coalesces with “more”; while “I believe” does not do so, but makes a decided break in the smoothness of the sentence. The latter expression is like an aside, thus becoming slightly parenthetical. The use of commas with “probably” would make “probably” more emphatic, because the pauses thus indicated would call special attention to it. Such use is good punctuation.

We will now turn to a restrictive group of words that comes between two other groups closely connected in meaning.

Mr. Wilson treats this subject at length, but, we think, in an unsatisfactory way. We find in the wording of one of his rules an illustration of this mode of punctuation which seems more informing than his discussion of the subject. As we do not desire to consider the subject-matter of Mr. Wilson’s rule, we make up a sentence modeled upon its language:

84. When books, that have been thoroughly examined and unqualifiedly approved by a board of college professors, are recommended by a teacher, her pupils should not refuse to read them.

The adjective group of words following “books” is restrictive. It is perhaps made more clearly so by the use of a pronoun (that) formerly used, in the place of who or which, to introduce a restrictive adjective in the form of a pronominal group of words.

If “which” be substituted for “that” in this sentence, the restrictive character of the group may not be so readily apparent; but this would not change the punctuation recommended by Mr. Wilson. Let us deal with the sentence in this form:

84-1. When books, which have been thoroughly examined and unqualifiedly approved by a board of college professors, are recommended by a teacher, her pupils should not refuse to read them.

If it is deemed helpful punctuation to set off by commas the group of words between “books” and “are,” in order to show clearly the dependence of “books” upon “are recommended,” then commas are required. If, on the other hand, we wish to show by the punctuation that the group of words following “books” is restrictive, we must omit the comma after “books.” Thus, apparently, we must here make a choice between two modes of punctuation. As failure to distinguish by punctuation the character of a qualifier,—that is, whether restrictive or explanatory,—not infrequently totally obscures the sense, we do not quite like a rule that calls for a comma before a restrictive group of words.

The sentence may be written without a comma after “books,” but with one after “professors.” The use of the latter would follow the punctuation of No. 79. This mode of punctuation is, after all, only a choice between two modes of punctuation. The better way is to recast all such sentences. No. 84 may be recast in several ways; but it is difficult, without introducing a new word, clearly to express the fact that one kind of books is meant, as shown in the restrictive adjective in both Nos. 84 and 84-1.

We suggest the following form for the recast sentence:

84-2. When certain books have been thoroughly examined and unqualifiedly approved by a board of college professors, and have been recommended by a teacher, her pupils should not refuse to read them.

Every restrictive word or group of words confines the meaning of the word or words so modified to a certain thing or certain things. The man who was here yesterday means a certain man, and means so because of the restrictive group of words following “man”; but “the man, who was here yesterday,” is not so designated by the same group of words set off by commas. These points were considered in another place in this book.