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

by William Livingston Klein

PUNCTUATION OF A SERIES

Sentence 7-2 suggests two uses of the comma to be found in the simplest sentences, one of which uses we almost take for granted, and the other is a mooted use. Why do we use the comma between nouns standing together? and why do we omit it before the first “and,” and use it before the next “and,” in the second group (the insane, feeble-minded, deaf and dumb, and blind)?

We answer that each use is based upon the fundamental principle of punctuation, the principle of disjunction, which distinguishes between the apparent and the real meaning of words or groups of words standing together.

It may be said, with apparent good reason, that no comma is absolutely necessary to separate the second and third nouns in such a group as “wheat, corn, and oats”; and it is quite common practice not to use a comma before the final “and” in such a group. While this practice may be correct, it is to be remembered that we are seeking helpful punctuation, not the absolutely necessary in each instance; and the most helpful punctuation is that which is most nearly uniform in its treatment of cases falling into well-defined classes.

As we are now considering what is technically called a series, it is well to consider the value of consistency in the punctuation of a series. A few examples will illustrate this point:

8. William Henry and James are at school.

The words in the above stand in the natural order and relations to express thought in almost the simplest form of language. “William” is a noun sustaining to “Henry” the adjective relation, just as it would do in the name William Smith, even though our grammars give it another relation. If we do not wish it to stand in this relation and to convey this meaning, we disconnect the two words by a comma:

8-1. William, Henry and James are at school.

This sentence names three boys; and its meaning is unmistakable at a glance.

We saw in Sentence 1 the tendency of the reader to combine in one group words connected by “and,” which is the natural manner of reading. Because of this fact, notice is to be given by punctuation when “and” does not connect the words between which it stands, unless notice is given in another way, as it often is. As Sentence 8-1 is written, “Henry and James” appears to constitute a group to be followed by other words in a series, just as is the case in the second group of No. 7-2. This tendency to wrong grouping will be seen in reading the following sentence:

8-2. Among the earliest colleges established in America were Yale, Trinity, William and Mary, and Harvard.

In this sentence one college (William and Mary) is named by a group of words connected by “and,” this group being followed by another name also connected by “and” to what precedes. All punctuators admit that such grouping imperatively demands a comma before the final “and,” for without the comma the reader could not possibly ascertain from the language the names of the colleges.

As such grouping is very common, and as the tendency to group together words connected by “and” is quite natural, the use of the comma before the final “and” in every series is helpful punctuation. This punctuation makes the absence of the comma before “and” give notice that a group of words within, and not at the end of, the series, is reached. For this reason it is well to make the punctuation of every series uniform.

This punctuation requires a comma before “and” in No. 8-1:

8-3. William, Henry, and James are at school.

Unless one, in reading aloud, exhibits the grouping by voice-inflection, his hearers may not comprehend the meaning conveyed by the grouping. Failure thus to show the grouping in No. 8-2 would utterly confuse the hearer as to the names of the two colleges designated by a group of words in which two “ands” appear. This relation between voice-inflection and punctuation is considered in our discussion of Sentence 28 and its variations.

A possible and apparent exception to the punctuation exhibited in No. 8-3 may be demanded in the punctuation of a very familiar group of words, the address line of a speech:

8-4. Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen.

The voice-inflection of almost every speaker who uses these words, as well as of almost every person who reads them aloud, exhibits a grouping that inhibits the use of a comma before “and.” In other words, the people addressed by the speaker are divided into two groups,—the “president” constituting one group, and “ladies and gentlemen” another. This grouping is exhibited by the voice-inflection of the speaker or reader and by the omission of a comma before “and” by the printer.

If, on the other hand, three groups are to be made of the persons addressed, the voice-inflection and the punctuation (a comma before “and”) should show the grouping.

In the absence of a comma before “and” in this group, the language of the group does not constitute what we technically call a “series”; and therefore the omission of the comma is only an apparent exception to the punctuation of a series.

We call attention to the punctuation of this group of words because we find it in the two Manuals issued by the University of Chicago Press. It is there printed without an explanation of the omission of the comma, although such omission is contrary to the rule given in each Manual for the punctuation of a series, while the words appear in another place in one of the Manuals with a comma before “and.” The words appear in the Manuals as illustrations of the use of capitals and italics, and not in connection with punctuation.

It may be well to recall that the relation between any two words or groups of words in a series is the relation shown by the final conjunction. If expressed, this conjunction is either “and” or “or”; if not expressed, it is practically always “and.”

It is a quite common practice to use a comma before the final “and” in a series requiring semicolons between the preceding groups. This punctuation often leaves the reader in doubt as to whether the “and” completes a group or ends the series; therefore the better punctuation is to use a semicolon before the final “and” in such a series.

The value of grouping is further shown in the following sentence:

9. There are no better cosmetics than temperance and purity, modesty and humility, a gracious temper and calmness of spirit.

We group the words in this sentence for the same reason that the words are grouped in Nos. 7, 7-1, and 7-2. It is simply natural grouping based upon the sense of the language.

How much would be lost in the absence of such grouping may be seen by breaking up the simple groups in No. 9:

9-1. There are no better cosmetics than temperance, purity, modesty, humility, a gracious temper, and calmness of spirit.

The punctuation of No. 9-1 is just as correct as that of No. 9; but it is purely mechanical and not “elegant.” Forceful grouping, with or without grouping words, requires proper punctuation.

Another quite simple form of this grouping, based upon the sense relation, is sometimes overlooked by distinguished writers, and even by authors of text-books on language. The following sentence exhibits both a correct grouping and a correct sense relation:

10. He is in doubt about the best course for him to pursue; but I am sure about the best course for me to pursue.

Here the but relation is between his doubt and my certainty, as if written, He is in doubt; but I am sure.

A similarly formed sentence may convey a meaning that is clearly not the meaning the writer wishes to convey:

10-1. He is in doubt about the best course for him to pursue; but I am sure his doubt will soon disappear.

The but relation in No. 10-1 is not between his doubt and my certainty, as in No. 10. The meaning of No. 10-1 may be expressed thus: He is in doubt; but his doubt will soon disappear. But the assertion made in the latter part of this statement is too strong, and requires a modifier. “Probably” would nearly express the meaning intended to be expressed by the modifier in No. 10-1. If “I am sure” is preferred as the modifier, its relation to the verb (will disappear) must be made unmistakable. It is not so made in No. 10-1, for it appears to be connected by “but” with what precedes it, just as it is connected with what precedes it in No. 10. To disconnect it, a comma precedes it; and one follows it to disconnect it from what follows.

The new relations are shown by the following punctuation:

10-2. He is in doubt about the best course for him to pursue; but, I am sure, his doubt will soon disappear.

Suppose the sentence read as follows, how would it be punctuated?

10-3. He is in doubt about the best course for him to pursue; but I am sure that his doubt will soon disappear.

This sentence cannot be punctuated. The but relation is here between incongruous thoughts; and therefore the sentence must be mended, which can be done by making it like No. 10-2, omitting “that.”

No amount of usage, even among good writers, can justify the absence of commas in No. 10-1, or the construction of No. 10-3.

The discussion of these sentences emphasizes the necessity for observing the meaning of language as expressed by its grouping and by the relation of one group to another.

Additional light will be thrown upon some of the relations already discussed if we consider them from another viewpoint, as we shall do in the next chapter.

EXAMPLES

Note.—As the principles set forth in Chapters I and II will be discussed more in detail in succeeding chapters, the following examples are given as general illustrations:

1. They think as I do.

2. They think, as I do, that you are wrong.

3. Far below, the mill was heard singing merrily.

4. Far below the mill the stream dashed over the precipice.

5. As all will recognize, the methods adopted were wise methods.

6. John is, like his father, a great hunter.

7. Genius finds its own road, and carries its own lamp.

8. He who pursues pleasure only, defeats the object of his creation.

9. Father and son, prince and subject, stranger and citizen, are correlative terms.

10. While principles may abide, the phenomena in which they appear may change.

11. He has the equipment to play saint or sinner, devil or angel.

12. To the wise and good, old age presents a scene of tranquil enjoyment.

13. The people of Miletus are not stupid, but they do the sort of things that stupid people do.

14. In his successes and his failures, in his greatness and his littleness, Burns is ever clear, simple, true, and glitters with no luster but his own.

15. The high-school course includes arithmetic, algebra, and geometry; grammar and composition; ancient and modern history; geography, natural history, and astronomy.

16. If Bacon could find time to write Shakespeare, Marlow, and Greene, I see no reason why he should not have written Ben Johnson, Beaumont and Fletcher, and the whole Elizabethan drama.

17. Aristophanes, Boccacio, Moliére and Cervantes, Dickens and Mark Twain, and our weekly comic papers make us laugh anew over the same old story, told in different accents and in different syntax.

18. With one of his two boys or a friend, and a dog, Tennyson would walk afield for miles.

19. With one of his two boys, or a friend and a dog, Tennyson would walk afield for miles.

In No. 18 the comma before “and” cuts “dog” off from “friend,” and makes a group of “dog” and “one of his two boys or a friend.” It makes this group simply because the sense permits no other grouping. Thus the meaning of No. 18 is, that Tennyson was accompanied by a dog and a person (one of his boys or a friend).

In No. 19 another grouping is made, which says Tennyson was accompanied by one of his boys or by a friend and a dog.

---

CHAPTER III
MODIFIED PARENTHESIS, EXPLANATORY AND RESTRICTIVE TERMS, AFTER-THOUGHT, AND APPOSITIVES

EXPLANATORY AND RESTRICTIVE MODIFIERS

The Greek grammarians gave the name parenthesis to a group of words “thrust into” language, either spoken or written, when such words have no grammatical connection with the language. We retain the word “parenthesis” to describe such a group, and also as the name of the curved lines with which the group is enclosed and thus identified. These lines are called parenthesis, marks of parenthesis, or parentheses.

Such matter is inserted for explanation or qualification; but it is not essential to the meaning of the language into which it is thrust, for matter essential to the meaning would not be so named or so marked.

The parenthesis did the ancient writers a larger service in the involved style of their composition than it does modern writers; however, in a modified form, it does the modern writer a very useful and, at times, an indispensable service.

What we may call a modified parenthesis (modified parenthetical matter) is found, one or more times, in almost every paragraph.

In order to clarify or explain our adopted term, “modified parenthesis,” a parenthesis, enclosed in parentheses, was used in the sentence preceding this one; and, in the same sentence, in order to qualify, in a somewhat peculiar manner, the expression “is found in every paragraph,” the modified parenthetical group of words “one or more times” was inserted. We characterize this parenthesis as somewhat peculiar. In its literal meaning, “one or more times” adds nothing to the statement in which it appears, for whatever occurs must occur “one or more times.” It does, however, add a new and perhaps subtle thought as to the frequency of the occurrence of the parenthesis.

The meanings of these terms, together with the reasons for their punctuation, will appear as we discuss illustrative examples:

11. The author says (page 5) that he did not go to London.

The words “page 5” were inserted in the above sentence by the writer himself simply as a matter of direction to the place in the book where the assertion was made. It has no grammatical connection with any part of the sentence: it is simply “thrust in”—it is “parenthetical.” We may modify its strictly parenthetical nature by putting it in another form:

11-1. The author says, on page 5, that he did not go to London.

Here the expression “on page 5” has still the parenthetical nature; but it is given grammatical connection, by means of the preposition “on,” to what precedes it. Thus we call it a “modified parenthesis”; or we may call it “slightly parenthetical” matter. It is obvious that the expression can be omitted in either No. 11 or No. 11-1 without the slightest effect upon the meaning of the sentence.

If we omit the commas in No. 11-1, we give the sentence practically a new meaning; and to complete the meaning a new clause must be added:

11-2. The author says on page 5 that he did not go to London; but he says on page 6 that he did go to London.

In No. 11-2 the language is used in its natural order; and no mark is required in either clause, for each group of words has its natural or logical relation to the group or groups standing next to it. The meaning is unmistakable. But why was the comma used in No. 11-1 and not in No. 11-2? Let us note carefully that we are still dealing with the proper grouping of words and with the relations of group to group, such relations giving rise to real and apparent meanings. With the real meaning of such groups as we are now considering fully understood, we know that a mark is used to change that meaning. Thus, in the consideration of these sentences, we come back to the principle exemplified in Sentences 1 and 2. We use the commas in No. 11-1 because the real meaning of the sentence is not the same as the meaning of the same language in No. 11-2.

One or two illustrative sentences will lead us, gradually and logically, to the punctuation of a large class of sentences in which the groups of words considered have somewhat more definite names than we have given the same groups in the above sentences.

A thorough comprehension of this punctuation is often indispensable, that the writer may convey to the reader his exact meaning, which may depend entirely upon the punctuation,—that is, upon the absence or the presence of marks:

12. Everywhere in America and England, as well as in Germany, the cry for peace is heard.

What does the language of No. 12 mean? Clearly, that in every part (everywhere) of America and in every part of England, as well as in every part of Germany, the cry for peace is heard. That is the apparent, and it is also the real, meaning of the language; but the writer may have had a different meaning in mind. If he did not wish to limit the “cry for peace” to America, England, and Germany, he would have disconnected from “everywhere” these limiting words, writing the sentence thus:

12-1. Everywhere, in America and England, as well as in Germany, the cry for peace is heard.

The use of the first comma in this grouping notifies the reader that a grouping different from the apparent grouping must be made. It also notifies him that a meaning different from that of No. 12 is to be conveyed by the new grouping. The second comma readily falls into its place; and by the same reasoning the third comma is called for.

The two groups are slightly parenthetical; and, treated as one group, they could be set off by parentheses.

12-2. Everywhere (in America and England, as well as in Germany) the cry for peace is heard.

They are not properly included in marks of parenthesis, because they do not constitute a pure parenthesis. They are inserted, not to explain the word “everywhere,” but for emphasis, being equivalent in meaning to even in America, etc. It will be observed that “everywhere,” as here used, means in all parts of the world. Nothing can be added to it; and therefore what the group of words under consideration explains is, that the word is used in its inclusive and exact meaning. The marks give a shade of meaning somewhat similar to that given by commas in setting off “one or more times,” discussed above.

It may be noted, in passing, that the middle (the second) comma in No. 12-1 acts with the first comma to form one group and with the third comma to form another group, thus making the three commas equivalent to two pairs of commas.

Our next sentence is an exceedingly interesting one. It has been submitted for interpretation to a number of persons, including editorial writers, authors, teachers, lawyers, and printers. Not a single one of them saw the real meaning; and, when the meaning was pointed out, not one of them could explain why the commas are used. Moreover, not one of the score or more of text-books on punctuation at hand gives a satisfactory explanation. The rules of all the books, it is true, cover the point; but the application of the rules is often so difficult as to render them valueless.

When understood, the sentence is simplicity itself, and the punctuation becomes equally simple and very informing.

The sentence (No. 13) is a part of a larger sentence taken from an essay on “Literature and Education” by Dr. Henry van Dyke, the larger sentence being one of several directions how to determine the value of a story:

13. Ask whether the people in the story develop, for better or for worse.

Let us suggest that the reader study the sentence before proceeding with our discussion of it. Let him put the sentence in the form of a question, and apply it to any story he has recently read. What two answers could be given to the question if applied to two stories requiring different answers?

Now let us ask why the comma is used. The answer is simple, for in our study of marks we have had only one reason for using the comma,—namely, to show that an apparent meaning is not the real meaning. If this is the reason for the use of the comma, the reason will be exemplified by a study of the sentence without the comma:

13-1. Ask whether the people in the story develop for better or for worse.

If the meaning of each sentence is not yet clear, let us consider the group of words following the comma in No. 13 as slightly parenthetical (a modified parenthesis). We may go a step further, and treat them as purely parenthetical, putting them in marks of parenthesis and putting the sentence in the interrogative form:

13-2. Do the people in the story develop (for better or for worse)?

Manifestly, the only answer is yes or no.

Why did Dr. van Dyke add these slightly parenthetical and apparently superfluous words (for better or for worse) to his sentence? He added them, primarily, because he knew some, perhaps many, readers might think “develop” means only growth upward (for better), while it is just as essential for the novelist to depict characters that “develop” downward (for worse) as upward.

But what does No. 13-1 mean? If put in the form of a question, what answer can be given? Only “for better” or “for worse.” This changes the meaning of the language. The first sentence (No. 13) asks whether the people in the story are static or dynamic; the second (No. 13-1) assumes that they are dynamic (they develop), and asks in what direction they develop.

Dr. van Dyke’s entire sentence clearly shows the meaning of the part of it we have been considering. The sentence is as follows:

13-3. Ask whether the people in the story develop, for better or for worse, and how far the change is credible and significant.

The groups of words we have been considering in Sentences 11 to 13-3 are either restrictive or explanatory groups, with the functions of nouns, adjectives, or adverbs, and with the relations that these parts of speech take in the construction of language.

The meanings of the terms “restrictive” and “explanatory” will appear as we consider other sentences; and the differentiation in the punctuation of restrictive and explanatory groups will be plain.

Our next sentence will serve a twofold purpose: first, to show how difficult it is to punctuate a sentence out of its context; and, secondly, to show that a sentence may be given two meanings by punctuation:

14. The boy who is at home is my best pupil.

14-1. The boy, who is at home, is my best pupil.

The person who is thoroughly familiar with the reasons for the use of marks can interpret these sentences; and he can also construct a context requiring the commas or their omission. On the other hand, one not familiar with such reasons could probably do neither.

The value of this knowledge is quite inestimable. Because of ignorance of it on the part of legislators, our courts have been required to determine the meanings of municipal, state, and national laws involving vital social relations and vast financial interests.

Applying the general principles already discussed, we say that the first comma in No. 14-1 is to show that the relation between “boy” and “who is my best pupil” is not the same relation that exists between the same groups in No. 14. But why is this? Let us construct contexts for the sentences, and then study them in the light of the information thus obtained.

Suppose a visitor to a school asks the teacher about a certain class, and the teacher replies as follows:

14-2. The class is composed of six boys. The boy who is at home is my best pupil.

The group of words “who is at home” is an adjective; and the meaning of the noun with the qualification made by the adjective may be thus expressed: the at-home boy. In this form the group specifies what boy, and so restricts the boy named as to mean a certain, definite boy.

We here take the language in its natural order, and obtain a definite and clearly understood meaning.

Another context will show a different relation. The teacher replies as follows:

14-3. The class is composed of one boy and five girls. The boy, who is at home, is my best pupil.

Because of the context, “the boy” needs no identification, no restrictive words to explain who is meant. The sentence could be written thus:

14-4. The class is composed of one boy and five girls. The boy (he is at home) is my best pupil.

In the above sentence the group of words in parentheses explains; but it is not restrictive. It tells something about the boy; but it does not tell what boy, for this information is given in what precedes, which says there is only one boy. In No. 14-3 this group of words is slightly changed, and is given grammatical connection by its form, and thus it becomes only slightly parenthetical.

In Nos. 14 and 14-2 the meaning is not complete without the restrictive words. In Nos. 14-1, 14-3, and 14-4 these words are not essential to identify the boy, being added simply by way of explanation, hence they are called explanatory.

In the consideration of the terms explanatory and restrictive, much confusion arises from the fact that a restrictive group may also be an explanatory group. A purely explanatory group, which requires commas to set it off, is never a restrictive group. This confusion can be entirely avoided by calling the groups restrictive and non-restrictive. The latter group is set off by commas because it conveys a different meaning from that of a restrictive group, and also because it is “slightly parenthetical,” that is, parenthetical in nature, but with grammatical connection.

Not a few writers use the marks of parenthesis or dashes, instead of commas, to set off a non-restrictive (explanatory) group; but, as their writings reveal no differentiation in the uses of these three marks, their system of punctuation is a wholly hit-or-miss one.

Because of the extent and importance of restrictive and non-restrictive groups of words, another like illustrative sentence, with its variations, seems worth while:

15. The committee is composed of women who are not voters.

15-1. The committee is composed of women, who are not voters.

15-2. The committee is composed of men who are not voters.

15-3. The committee is composed of men, who are not voters.

What do these sentences really assert and what meanings do they convey? Let us consider the answers to this question quite fully, and make them a test of all restrictive and non-restrictive groups.

No. 15 says the members of the committee are not voters, implying that other women are voters. The members of the committee might not be voters because of age, non-residence, etc.

No. 15-1 says all women are not voters,—that is, no women are voters. The group “who are not voters” is explanatory of women.

No. 15-2 is the same as No. 15.

No. 15-3 is the same as No. 15-1; but, as men enjoy universal political suffrage, the statement in No. 15-3 is somewhat more striking than that made in No. 15-1, and therefore we must seek conditions giving sanction to such an assertion. For instance, a woman’s society might admit men to honorary membership in the society without the privilege of voting. If a committee was composed of such men, the statement made in No. 15-3 would be applicable.

Our next three sentences are perhaps more typical of the sentences met in general reading:

16. In 1826, an edition of this work, designed solely for printers, was first published.

Mr. Teall quotes the above sentence, among others from books on punctuation, and says that the commas setting off “designed solely for printers” should be omitted.

The sentence is from a late edition of Mr. Wilson’s work; and it shows that author’s discriminating use of marks. The omission of the commas would entirely change the meaning of the language. The meaning of the language may be more clearly expressed as follows:

16-1. In 1826, the first edition of this work was published, and was designed solely for printers.

With the commas omitted the meaning of the sentence would be as follows:

16-2. In 1826, the first edition of this work designed solely for printers, was published.

Sentences 16 and 16-1 say that the first edition of the work was published in 1826. Sentence 16, with the commas omitted, as Mr. Teall says they should be, and Sentence 16-2 say the first printers’ edition was published in 1826; and they imply that other editions not designed solely for printers were previously published. As no such edition was published, Mr. Teall is in error, and Mr. Wilson’s punctuation (No. 16) is correct.

Many writers set off such explanatory or slightly parenthetical modifiers by parentheses, as illustrated in Sentence 12-2; other writers use dashes for this purpose. As we shall show later, neither mark finds sanction in punctuation by reason.

17. In medicine the anesthetic of choice is chloroform or ether; in dentistry it is laughing-gas, or nitrous oxide.

The conjunction “or” appears twice in the above sentence. In the first clause it stands between two words, one of which is excluded when the other is selected, just as if written “either chloroform or ether.” In the second clause a new relation between the words is set up. Here the apparent meaning is not the real meaning.

In this second group the words following “or” are explanatory of the word preceding “or.” One anesthetic with two names is spoken of. The comma notifies the reader that the relation in the second group is not the relation existing in the first,—that is, the apparent relation in the second group is not the real relation.

Many writers would put “or nitrous oxide” in parentheses. The meaning would be unmistakable; but the punctuation is not commendable, as we have already seen. “Nitrous oxide,” without the “or,” could properly be enclosed in parentheses.

AFTERTHOUGHT

There is a very common use of the comma before “or” which reveals a nice meaning of language. The punctuation grows out of a writer’s desire to modify a meaning which he has expressed, frequently, in a word that is too strong. He follows this word with another in the or relation to the too-strong word. In order to show that the real or relation, as discussed under No. 17, does not exist between the two words, and that the relation of explanation (slightly parenthetical), as discussed under No. 11, is the real relation, he applies the principle of disjunction, exhibited in another form in the discussion of Sentence 1, and uses the comma.

In our first illustrative sentence (No. 17A) the fact that a word of milder, not coördinate, meaning is to follow “or,” is indicated both by the group of words (I should say) and by the modifier (even) preceding the word in the or relation to “independent.” The comma before “or” would be required in the absence of either or both of these modifiers, as shown in Nos. 17A-1 and 17A-2. It is especially needed in No. 17A-2 to distinguish the real from the apparent meaning:

17A. This capital does not make him independent, or, I should say, even aspiring.

17A-1. This capital does not make him independent, or even aspiring.

17A-2. This capital does not make him independent, or aspiring.

The word or words used in modification of an idea expressed either too strongly or too weakly, are aptly called an “afterthought”; and such word or words themselves suggest the parenthetical nature of the added language.

Our next illustrative sentence shows the use of a word that is too weak; and therefore the sense requires a stronger word. The sentence is particularly interesting because it is a type of sentences that are almost invariably punctuated wrong, even by our best writers:

18. It is a matter of whim, or, worse, of economy.

The word “worse” is introduced to characterize what follows. It is a short form of “what is worse.” It requires a comma before it to cut it off from “or,” and a comma after it to cut it off from what follows. When cut off, the sense relation between “whim” and “economy” is made unmistakable. But sentences of this type are, as stated above, almost invariably punctuated wrong; and the sense relations are thus obscured. The wrong punctuation is as follows:

18-1. It is a matter of whim, or worse, of economy.

In the next illustrative sentence (No. 18A) the new word is simply one that more nearly expresses the writer’s meaning. The comma before “or” is clearly required; but why put a comma after “easier”?

18A. It belongs in the lower, or, as it would be better to call it, the easier, grades of work.

The comma after “easier” acts with the comma before “or” to suspend what comes between “lower” and “grades,” just as a similar group of words is suspended in Sentence 3-1.

OR and AND

The relations expressed by “or” and “and” are so nearly identical that every rule or principle of punctuation requiring a mark before one of them requires it before the other in similarly formed sentences. Only an occasional use of “and” expresses a shade of meaning like that expressed by “or” in the above sentences. For this reason it may be well to caution the student against the common error of using a comma before “and” in a sentence formed like No. 18A, but not like it in meaning:

18A-1. We are not willing to give our sanction to the broad and, when applied in a case like that at bar, harsh rule of instruction.

APPOSITIVES

A class of words called “appositives” falls under the classification and reasoning we have been considering; and an example or two will suffice to show this:

19. The word, eagle, is derived from the Latin.

19-1. The word eagle is derived from the Latin.

In No. 19 “eagle” is used to explain what word, and might very properly go into the class of words that we have called purely parenthetical. It seems to be more closely allied to the class of appositives, and thus takes a grammatical relation which makes it slightly parenthetical, or explanatory.

In No. 19 “word” is the subject of the sentence; “eagle” shows with what “word” we are dealing. In No. 19-1 “word” is adjectival in meaning, and can no more take a comma than can “good” in “good man.” “Eagle,” as a word, is the subject of the sentence.

19-2. His son John did all the work on the farm.

19-3. His son, John, did all the work on the farm.

In No. 19-2 we are told that one of his sons, named “John,” did the work. In No. 19-3 we are told that his son, not his daughter nor one of his sons, did the work. “John” is simply explanatory, as is “who is at home” in No. 14-3.

In Nos. 19 and 19-3 we have language that expresses a different meaning from that expressed in Nos. 19-1 and 19-2; and therefore we use the commas to show that the apparent meaning of the two former sentences is not the real meaning of the two latter.

VOCATIVES

Likewise the so-called vocatives, or words of address, come, though somewhat indirectly, under this same classification and reasoning:

19B. Ring out, wild bells.

If expressed in full, the sentence would read as follows:

19B-1. Ring ye, wild bells, out.

Here “wild bells” is merely an appositive of the subject, “ye,” which is understood in No. 19B.

EXAMPLES

1. I shall be there when the train arrives.

1-1. I shall be there at two o’clock, when the train arrives.

2. You will find the word in the index, at the back of the book.

2-1. You will find the word in the index on page 111.

3. He preached his first sermon, in Brooklyn, July 20, 1895.

3-1. He preached his first sermon in Brooklyn July 20, 1895.

4. His creditors wanted to know what resources, in cash and credits, he had.

4-1. His creditors wanted to know what resources in cash and credits he had.

5. Were my statements plain? They were, as usual.

6. You will deduct from the deposit, or deposits, the amount due you.

7. At this time my entire force mustered less than 50,000 men, of all arms.

8. He has affection for all men, whom he knows to be his brothers, whether they love or hate him.

9. On the Western frontier there was no place for the unemployed, rich or poor.

10. The injured vessel was able to proceed, under reduced speed, to her destination.

10-1. The new type of engine will enable vessels to run under high speed, however great the storm may be.

11. One can never read a book, and like it, or dislike it, and keep the fact to himself.

12. Many persons are out of work because they are unwilling or unable, or both, to do the work they can get to do.

13. The central quality of manliness, around which all others must be built up, is that of a sense of honor.

14. That such a sentiment should ever have been believed, or expressed, is proof of how prone the human mind is to mistake a coincidence for a cause.

15. Artemus Ward’s happy saying, that on a certain occasion he tried to do too much, and did it, exactly fits the program of these men.

16. Architecture is the art which so disposes and adorns the edifices raised by man, for whatever uses, that the sight of them contributes to his mental health, power, and pleasure.

17. The ancient Greeks, who were intellectual, and the ancient Romans, who were warlike, agree upon this point.

18. I leave today on the train for home, where I hope to be, thankful for a safe journey, on Monday.

19. When our deeds and motives come to be balanced at the last day, let us hope that mercy, and not justice, may prevail.

20. The physician says the case presents a classical picture of atrophy, or marasmus.

21. The warning of the ship’s danger came from a whistling buoy, or, as it is technically called, a siren.

22. The expression “It is worth a Jew’s eye” is proverbial, and probably dates from the middle ages.

23. You gentlemen must solve this problem.

23-1. You, gentlemen, must solve this problem.

24. The trouble grows less, or ceases altogether, during the winter.

25. We should not forget how confidently and how frequently his failure was predicted.

25-1. We should not forget how confidently, and how mistakenly, his failure was predicted.

Why do we use commas in No. 25-1, and not in No. 25? In No. 25, “confidently” and “frequently” are coördinate in sense, and are bound together to complete a thought. In No. 25-1 “confidently” and “mistakenly” are not coördinate in sense, and express quite different thoughts. “Mistakenly” is an afterthought, a slightly parenthetical word, and here stands in an apparent relation to another word, which relation the comma shows is not its real relation.

26. Mr. Smith promises this magazine another article which cannot fail to be interesting.

26-1. Mr. Smith promises this magazine another article, which cannot fail to be interesting.

In No. 26 the kind of article to be furnished is described; and an uninteresting article will not fulfill the promise. In No. 26-1 any article furnished will fulfill the promise; if it is an uninteresting one, the prediction made as to the kind of article in No. 26-1 has failed.

27. Every foot of ground from London to Land’s End was examined by him.

27-1. Every foot of England, from John o’Groat’s to Land’s End, was examined by him.

In No. 27 the ground is defined or restricted by the group of words that follows London. In No. 27-1 the group of words following “England” is a mere repetition, one point named being at one end of England, and the other point at the opposite end. This group of words is added as an afterthought, and to give a certain degree of emphasis to the assertion by making its language literal, inclusive, and not general.

28. After we had dined, or supped, royally, the old lady told me a story of Alice Brand.

28-1. After we had dined, or supped royally, the old lady told me a story of Alice Brand.

What difference in meaning does the difference in punctuation give in the above sentences? And which is the better punctuation?

No. 28 says the meal was a royal one. The word supped is added, as an afterthought, in order to define the meal as an evening meal, for the word “dined” signifies to many a midday meal. No. 28-1 defines the meal as worthy to be called a dinner, the principle meal of the day, or a royal supper, that is, a meal far above what one expects in a mere supper.

In No. 28 we “dined royally” or “supped royally”; in No. 28-1 “we dined” or “we supped royally.”

The punctuation is correct in each example; but the mode of expressing the meaning conveyed by No. 28-1 is rather fantastic.

29. The defendant, Baker, was a party to the contract.

29-1. Defendant Baker was a party to the contract.

30. The difficulty of defining the word vulgarity precisely, arises from the fact that, like most vehement and expressive words, it covers a large variety of meanings, and is tinged with different kinds of contempt.

---

CHAPTER IV
GROUPING DONE BY THE SEMICOLON AND THE COLON

Thus far in our discussion we have considered grouping done by commas only, except incidentally in Sentences 6, 6-2, 7, 7-1, and 7-2. We shall now consider the application of our fundamental principle to grouping that requires the semicolon and the colon.

Our first illustrative sentence (No. 20) is from a distinguished writer, noted for the “infinite care he gives to his diction.” We think the sentence decidedly distracting:

20. I have an arrangement to do a serial for Harper’s, and a series of wayside pieces for Scribner’s, Smith illustrating, is on the tapis.

Probably very few persons, in reading the above sentence at sight, would take notice from the first comma that the sentence is here divided into two shorter sentences (the grammarians call these sentence-parts clauses). In the absence of such notice, the reader goes on to “is” before discovering the real relation of the group of words following “and.” The comma before “and” does not clearly show that “and” connects the two larger groups of the sentence, and so gives notice to the reader that the first group, which is one of the clauses, is complete; nor, in the absence of such notice, is the reader told that the words immediately following “and” look forward, instead of backward, for their completion as a group.

The confusion or uncertainty of grouping is here further increased by the character of the two groups between which “and” appears to stand. Each begins with the same word (a), thus making them appear to be coördinate groups; and each group appears to be the object of “do.”

Perhaps the author would contend that the comma before “and” is sufficient to give notice of the proper grouping, just as we used a comma for a somewhat similar grouping in Sentence 1-1. Such contention would not be without merit; but Sentence 1-1 is much shorter, and the consequent liability to make the wrong grouping is much less. Our discussion might thus end in a difference of opinion without determining the degree of separation requiring a mark of higher rank than the comma. The discussion could be opened by an admission on our part that a semicolon in No. 1-1 would be better than the comma; for its warning of the change of grouping would be unmistakable by any reader.

Two reasons may be given for the use of the comma in No. 1-1, instead of the semicolon; and we give them in order to emphasize the fact that we cannot always have in language one degree of separation that calls unmistakably for the comma, and another degree that calls unmistakably for the semicolon. The reasons for the use of the comma in No. 1-1 are as follows:

1. As the sentence is very short, the eye readily catches the relation requiring the grouping that carries “their mothers” forward for its connection, instead of backward to “children.”

2. The use of a semicolon in this sentence might seem to justify a rule requiring a semicolon in every sentence composed of two clauses, while convention hardly justifies such punctuation. On the other hand, if we prefer the use of the semicolon in No. 1-1, under what conditions would the comma be preferred? If what immediately follows the conjunction between any two clauses, especially short ones, does not suggest connection with what precedes, a comma before the conjunction gives sufficient notice of the grouping of the language into two clauses.

Thus we have forced upon us, at least apparently, the necessity of making choice in many sentences between the comma and the semicolon. The problem is further complicated by the need of the different classes of readers for whom the marks in language are used, and still further by convention.

The proper punctuation of No. 20 is as follows:

20-1. I have an arrangement to do a serial for Harper’s; and a series of wayside pieces for Scribner’s, Smith illustrating, is on the tapis.

Our next sentence is particularly interesting because of its character and its source. It is from a book by a distinguished literary man, who is the professor of English in one of our leading universities and the author of a text-book on English composition. The book from which the sentence is taken was printed at The Riverside Press, which has long been considered by many to be the best printing-office in the world:

21. The deliberate good sense with which Franklin treated matters of religion and morality, he displayed equally in his scientific writings; and, a little later, in his public documents and correspondence,[4] which made him as eminent in diplomacy and statecraft as he had earlier been in science and in local affairs.

In No. 20-1 we use a semicolon expressly to show that what immediately follows the mark looks forward for its connection; and, it seems to us, the semicolon in No. 21 cannot fail to give to any reader, with or without much knowledge of marks, notice that a complete new group, and not an additional part of the preceding group, is to follow the semicolon. If the reader is looking forward for a new group (a clause), the ending of the sentence gives him a surprise, and compels him to read over the entire sentence to make the proper grouping.

It is difficult to say just what notice a comma before “and” in Sentence 21 would give most readers. Let us so punctuate it, and challenge the comma. What will its answer be? This, of course, is a question that the reader puts to himself, testing his own knowledge of the marks. In the light of our discussion of Sentence 1, the comma might seem to say that “and” does not connect “writings” with some noun to follow. We shall see, later in our discussion, that a comma may be necessary in a grouping almost like this; but in this sentence the reader has another aid, in fact two others, thus making the comma unnecessary, if not objectionable. The word “equally,” which comes before “in his scientific writings,” raises the expectation of a similar group to follow and to be introduced by a suitable connecting word. As “and” is such a word, the absence of a mark of punctuation before it at once suggests that a like group is to follow. The second aid to the reader in the process of grouping is the word “in,” which introduces each of the groups connected by “and,” and identifies the second group as the coördinate of the first.

We punctuate to aid the reader quickly to grasp through the eye the groupings of printed language, and to enable him to determine the relations between the groups thus formed. When a mark is not needed for this purpose, it may be omitted.

If we say the man is in a bad state of mind and in an equally bad state of body, the eye catches the words “and” and “in,” at the end of the line, practically at the same instant. The “in” tells of the grouping so distinctly that a comma is not needed to inform the reader that no word follows “and” to be connected by it to “mind.” Therefore we say, when groups are so similarly formed that the word following the conjunction gives ample notice of the grouping, a comma is not needed. We shall consider this point more fully in another place.

By a slight change in the wording of No. 21, we get a counterpart of the illustrative grouping just given:

21-1. He displayed good judgment in his scientific writings and in his public documents.

The grouping here is so unmistakable as to make a comma before “and” quite objectionable. It is unmistakable because of the like formation of the groups, and also because of the absence of any word after “and” that suggests a wrong relation to what precedes.

Now, if we do introduce a word or two between “and” and “in,” and such words do not suggest relation to what precedes, we may still omit the comma before “and.” This reasoning, with that above, suggests the best punctuation of No. 21, which is as follows:

21-2. The deliberate good sense with which Franklin treated matters of religion and morality, he displayed equally in his scientific writings and, a little later, in his public documents and correspondence, which made him as eminent in diplomacy and statecraft as he had earlier been in science and local affairs.

Thus we find no need of any mark before “and” in this sentence, where a painstaking writer uses a semicolon.

As “and,” even in No. 21-1, does not connect “writings” with “documents,” but connects the two groups of words beginning with “in,” the adjective clause in No. 21-2 beginning with “which” can hardly go over into the first group, and there find a noun which it may seem to modify.

To illustrate how puzzling a rule may be, and how wrong, we quote the following rule from Mr. Wilson’s work (page 113):

When a sentence consists of three or more clauses, united by a conjunction, none of which are susceptible of division, a semicolon should be put between those which are least connected in sense, and a comma only between the others.

To illustrate this rule, the following sentence is given in Mr. Wilson’s book (the italics are ours):

22. The woods may disappear, but the spirit of them never will now; for it has been felt by a poet, and we can feel for ever[5] what he felt.

Does the punctuation indicate the real sense relations in this sentence? We think not. The semicolon before “for” divides the sentence into two parts; but what follows the semicolon is clearly not in the for relation with all that precedes it, as it should be if the sentence is divided into two parts at this point. The sense relation expressed by “for” is unmistakably between all that follows it and what precedes it back to “but.”

The real division of the sentence into two parts is made at “but,” as shown in the following:

22-1. The woods may disappear, but the spirit of them never will now.

Expanding the above, to emphasize the relations, but still maintaining the sense of No. 22, we get the following:

22-2. The woods may disappear, for they are material and will decay; but the spirit of them never will now, for it has been felt by a poet and we can feel forever what he felt.

In No. 22-2 we added a commonplace modifier to the first statement in the sentence, in order to exhibit more clearly the similar relation between two like groups in the second part of the sentence, which take a semicolon in the quoted sentence (No. 22).

Punctuated so as to show the real sense relations, the sentence reads as follows:

22-3. The woods may disappear: but the spirit of them never will now; for it has been felt by a poet, and we can feel forever what he felt.

A thorough comprehension of the groupings in these sentences, which is based upon sense relations, will illuminate the punctuation already discussed. It will also explain some apparent, if not real, inconsistencies that are inevitable in dealing with marks to express indefinite degrees of relation.

Sentence 1 is composed of two clauses connected by a conjunction, as is also Sentence 22-1. The liability to error in grouping Sentence 1 may be sufficient to require a semicolon; but the grouping in Sentence 22-1 is so unmistakable that a comma is sufficient to give notice of a change in the direction of the thought. In Sentence 21 the semicolon gives notice of a grouping which does not follow. In Sentence 22 the grouping by punctuation does not follow the meaning of the language, and is therefore wrong.

Wrong grouping is perhaps most common in sentences containing groups requiring coördinate conjunctions, such as “and” and “but.” Quite often such sentences cannot be so punctuated as to show the correct grouping by the marks. The following sentence is an example:

23. The Society has expelled two of its members for unprofessional conduct, and has investigated complaints against two other members, but it has been unable to obtain enough evidence to convict them.

This is not bad punctuation, for it conveys the meaning, which, however, is not difficult to obtain; but it is not good punctuation, for the marks do not group the words in accordance with the sense relations that exist between the groups.

If the sentence were divided into two parts by “but,” the but relation would exist between what follows and each of the groups of words coördinated by the conjunction “and.” Thus we would say, “The Society has expelled four of its members for unprofessional conduct, but has been unable to obtain enough evidence to convict them.” As this relation does not make sense, we know that the “but” relation exists between what follows it and what precedes it back to “and.” As the but relation does not extend beyond “and,” this fact should be shown by the mark, thus requiring a larger mark (semicolon) before “and.” But a semicolon before “and” would separate two closely connected groups (predicates),—“has expelled” and “has investigated.” It would also connect the second group with the third, making one larger group in the and relation with the first.

As the sense relations here require a grouping inconsistent with the grammatical relations, a change in the language becomes necessary before it can be properly punctuated:

23-1. The Society has expelled two of its members for unprofessional conduct; and it has investigated complaints against two other members, but has been unable to obtain enough evidence to convict them.

The insertion of “it” (a new subject) after “and,” and its omission after “but,” with the proper use of the semicolon, make clear the two things done by the Society, and make this clear by the proper grouping of words to show the unmistakable thought-grouping.

If we are required to punctuate language which we are not permitted to change, our punctuation may have to depart from our system, whether established by rule or by reason. A study of such punctuation will lead to a nice discrimination in both marks and relations. Our next sentence, with its different modes of punctuation, will illustrate the point. The sentence is given in three forms: (1) as it appeared in a literary journal; (2) as it is printed in the Common Version of the New Testament (2 Timothy i, 16); and (3) as it is printed in the Revised Version. We shall, however, not follow its division into two verses, as it appears in the Common Version of the Bible:

24. The Lord give mercy unto the house of Onesiphorus; for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain; but, when he was in Rome, he sought me out diligently, and found me.

24-1. The Lord give mercy unto the house of Onesiphorus; for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain: but, when he was in Rome, he sought me out very diligently, and found me.

24-2. The Lord grant mercy unto the house of Onesiphorus: for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain; but, when he was in Rome, he sought me out diligently, and found me.

In each of these three sentences the punctuation divides the language into three larger groups of words, two of which are subdivided by commas. In the second and third a colon indicates a second grouping of each sentence into two main parts, but not at the same point. If the semicolons and the colons were challenged for their meanings, the answers would show an interesting variety of grouping of words, as well as a variety of sense relations. Such a variety of punctuation is common only because the actual significance of marks, in their grouping and relational effects, has not been considered.

These sentences present the same problem, though somewhat further complicated, that was presented by Nos. 22 and 23. We have only to ask ourselves how far the but, for, and and relations extend. Do the marks so group the words as to indicate the sense relations by the grouping? Of course they do not, as is shown by the difference in the groupings. In No. 24 neither semicolon shows how far the for or the but relation extends; and therefore neither mark is an efficient sign-board. If challenged for a meaning, neither could give the reader an intelligent answer.

In each of Nos. 24-1 and 24-2 the colon makes another grouping, dividing each sentence into two still larger groups. Here each mark would give a definite answer to a challenge; but both answers could not be correct. The sentence is unmistakably divided into two parts, the first part ending with “Onesiphorus.” Mercy is sought for him because of what he did; and what he did is specified in the language that follows “for.” The extent of the for relation, therefore, must be shown by the mark. A colon will clearly show that it goes to the end of the sentence, as a like relation was shown by the colon in No. 6-2.

We now have to deal with the proper grouping of all that follows “for”; but we cannot use a colon for this purpose because, having been used once, a second colon in the same sentence would confuse the whole grouping. We thus come to a serious difficulty, which arises out of the number of groups to be made with the marks (comma and semicolon) left at our disposal. This difficulty would be even greater in No. 24-2 had we quoted the sentence in full, the complete verse containing another clause. In the second of the two larger groups we have an and and a but relation exactly like the and and but relations in No. 23, which we could not indicate by marks. As we may not change the language of the sentence under consideration, we must punctuate it with as little violence to the meanings of marks as possible. Probably the clearest punctuation of the sentence would be as follows:

24-3. The Lord grant mercy unto the house of Onesiphorus; for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain, but, when he was in Rome, he sought me very diligently, and found me.

As the sentence is thus divided into two main parts, with only commas in one part, the semicolon is sufficient to mark the larger groups. As the comma before “but” does not suggest to the reader how far back the but relation extends, he is left to ascertain it without the aid of a mark definitely pointing it out.

We do not claim this to be good punctuation, but we think it the best the sentence will permit. The sentence seems to show the fault of bad grouping.

If we are ever in doubt as to how far back a relation, indicated or to be indicated by a mark before the conjunction, extends, we can easily determine this by forming the relation between the words apparently thus connected. Take, for instance, Sentence 24. The for relation between “give mercy” and “was not ashamed” is just as evident as the for relation between “give mercy” and “he oft refreshed me.” We can say “give mercy, for he oft refreshed me” and “give mercy, for he was not ashamed.”

Let us attempt to make a like grouping to determine how far back the but relation extends. It appears to extend to the two preceding groups, which, being connected by “and” and put between two semicolons, constitute one group. This would give us “was not ashamed, but sought me” and[6] “refreshed me, but sought me.” The sense, of course, shows that the second group is not a proper group.

A writer, as we shall see later, should always guard against using a conjunction between words or groups of words not bearing to each other the relation indicated by such conjunction. Much confusion in punctuation arises from an effort to indicate by the use of marks relations that are not sense relations, as in the sentences just considered.

A somewhat different, but even more effective, grouping is shown by another use of the colon; but, very singularly, practically all writers on punctuation seem to ignore this use. Before considering it, we shall take up the colon’s conventional use, which is that of the “formal” introduction of any matter, such as particulars, a speech, or a quotation:

25. I purchased the following articles: one dozen pens, one ream of paper, and one box of envelopes.

25-1. The speaker arose, and addressed the audience as follows:

“The occasion which brings us together,” etc.

25-2. The speaker said: “The occasion which brings us together,” etc.

It is difficult to find a reason for this use of the colon, inasmuch as what follows the colon in any of the above sentences, is not a “limb” of the sentence. The relation in No. 25 is clearly that of apposition; and it is the same in Nos. 25-1 and 25-2. In the latter the apposition is between some word not expressed, but understood, and what follows,—for example, “addressed the audience in language such as follows,” “the speaker said these things.”

We have called this the “conventional” use because it has become the accepted punctuation. We introduce it here in order to show that this same relation (apposition) governs in a frequent use of this mark which is not explained by the writers on punctuation.

Before passing to this use of the colon, let us make sure that the meaning of “formal introduction” is quite clear to us. It means that the matter following the colon is announced or suggested in a manner somewhat similar to the announcement made in the words viz., as follows, etc. It thus implies that the matter is introduced according to a form. “He said,” followed by a colon, is one of the usual conventional forms; but he said that is not so considered, and no mark at all follows “said.”

We use a colon throughout this work at the end of the line preceding an example if the example illustrates what precedes. This use of the colon ties the example to what precedes. See the colon preceding Sentence 25, above.

It is also to be noted that the colon loses, in this formal and conventional use, its relative value, that is, its rank above the comma and the semicolon. Thus it often appears in only one or in both of the semicolon-divided groups of a sentence:

25-3. In a bill of exchange there are three original parties: drawer, drawee, and payee; in a promissory note, only two parties: the maker and the payee.

Here we see that the colons are used to group each one of the two parts into which the sentence is divided by a semicolon. We shall show later (Sentence 33) what we consider a much better mode of punctuating such sentences, and thus avoiding the appearance of making the colon subordinate to the semicolon.

We are here seeking to exhibit the relation of apposition. When words or groups of words stand in this relation, the second word or group expresses in another form what is expressed in the first word or group of words. In No. 25 what follows the colon is the same as “articles,” which precedes it. If the word “articles” were omitted, the colon would still be used, “articles” or a like word being understood, as some word is understood in Nos. 25-1 and 25-2. The same relation is shown in Sentence 32-2 by means of parentheses.

With this understanding of the relation between groups separated by the colon, our next illustrative sentence is particularly interesting, not only because of its character, but because of its source. As punctuated, it fails to show a nice meaning in language which is quite easily overlooked in the absence of the proper distinguishing mark; and it is from a letter by Thomas Bailey Aldrich in reply to one, from a friend, which he could not decipher. It appears in the foremost printers’ magazine in the country, a magazine that often discusses the subject of punctuation:

26. There is a singular and a perpetual charm in a letter of yours; it never grows old; it never loses its novelty.

The use of two semicolons, dividing this sentence into three clauses, signifies that these clauses are in like relation to each other,—that is, that they are coördinate in sense. If the and or the or relation exists between the first and second clauses, it must exist between the second and third, just as it exists between the three items named in the second part of No. 25.

A very slight examination of the meaning of the language of this sentence shows that the clauses are not coördinate in sense, although such coördination is indicated by the use of the same mark between them.

The relation between the second and third clauses is exhibited in the following:

26-1. It never grows old; and it never loses its novelty.

We cannot unite the first and second clauses in this way, and retain the real meaning of the language; nor have we, thus far in our study, found a meaning of the semicolon that would give the reader notice of the relation between the first clause of No. 26 and what follows. The second and third clauses of this sentence are as plainly explanatory of the first clause as are the items that follow the colon in No. 25 explanatory of “articles.” A change in the wording of the sentence will show that it is exactly similar in its relation to No. 25:

26-2. Your letter possesses the following singular and perpetual charms: youthfulness and novelty.

If this relation exists between the principal thought and the detailed items, then we may indicate it by the colon, thus dividing the sentence into two groups with the relation of apposition between them:

26-3. There is a singular and a perpetual charm in a letter of yours: it never grows old; it never loses its novelty.

Let us note how carefully language is used in this sentence: the letter possesses a singular charm (it never loses its novelty) and a perpetual charm (it never grows old).

The colon both groups the language and shows the relation (apposition) between the two main groups. On the other hand, the semicolon in this sentence stands where the sense relation is the and relation.

It is not quite proper to say that the second and third clauses are explanatory simply of “charm”: they are explanatory of the entire first clause, repeating and expanding the thought expressed in that clause, just as what follows the colon in the sentence we are writing explains what precedes.

Our next illustrative sentence is from one of Howell’s novels, which was printed at The Riverside Press. It has the fault of No. 26, and the added fault of an indefinite but relation:

27. He was not candid; he did not shun concealments and evasions; but positive lies he had kept from.

The second clause is clearly explanatory of the first; and the third clause simply modifies the second by showing the degree of untruthfulness of the man.

With the new meaning of the colon we are now considering, a colon after “candid” informs the reader of the relation between the main groups of the sentence:

27-1. He was not candid: he did not shun concealments and evasions; but positive lies he had kept from.

So far as the mere grouping is concerned, this could be done in Nos. 26 and 27 by a semicolon and a comma in each; but the semicolon would not inform the reader of the true relation between the two larger groups. The colon would still be required if the next two groups took a comma, or even no mark, between them.

We called this relation that of apposition. We might say, somewhat more specifically, that the second group is an amplification in language to express an extension of the idea, or to fortify the image, of the first group. This purpose may also be accomplished by a contrast between the ideas expressed in the two groups.

The writer on punctuation who says, as do many such writers, that the colon is an obsolete mark, except in its formal use for enumeration, does so, we believe, in ignorance of the useful and beautiful purpose it performs in a very large class of sentences.

EXAMPLES

1. There is purpose in pain; otherwise it were devilish.

2. But not thieves; nor robbers; nor mobs; nor rioters, insurgents, or rebels.

3. The people’s voice is odd; it is, and it is not, the voice of God.

4. He cared little for poetry; fact, and not fancy, satisfied him.

5. The second Folio, reprinted from the first, was published in 1632; the third Folio, in 1664; and the fourth, in 1685.

6. Wealth has greatly accumulated; machinery has come to do a large part of our work; and all sorts of people have more or less leisure on their hands.

7. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.

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.

---

CHAPTER V
SOME USES OF THE DASH

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:

38-1. 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 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.

---

CHAPTER VI
PUNCTUATION BY REASON AND CONVENTION

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.