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

by William Livingston Klein

THE SEMICOLON

We believe there are only two purely conventional uses of the semicolon:

1. As stated on a preceding page, a book title with a subtitle introduced by “or,” takes a semicolon before “or” and a comma after it:

96. Why We Punctuate; or, Reason versus Rule in the Use of Marks.

2. Before an example or the specifications of particulars. We will give Mr. Wilson’s rule for their use. He says:

97. A semicolon is put before as, viz., to wit, namely, i. e., or that is, when they precede an example or a specification of particulars....

Note.—The punctuation in the above sentence has a striking peculiarity, which may readily deceive even a very careful reader. The use of “or” apparently makes one of the particulars enumerated the antecedent of “they,” thus requiring the singular pronoun “it,” instead of “they,” in the clause that follows. [172] As Mr. Wilson would neither make nor overlook such a simple error in grammatical construction, we must look more closely for a meaning of the language that will justify the use of “they.” Such meaning is found in the relation between “i. e.” and “that is.” As “i. e.” (id est) is the Latin abbreviation for “that is,” the or relation exists between only these particulars in the list. The comma before “or” follows the punctuation exemplified in Sentence 17. This meaning of the language ends the series with “i. e.”; and the relation between the items of the series is the and relation, which requires the plural pronoun “they.”

The use of the conjunction “and” after “namely” would correct the fault; but the meaning of the sentence might not be easily apprehended by all readers.

These relations can best be revealed by recasting the language. It may be done thus:

97-1. A semicolon is put before as, viz., to wit, namely, and i. e., or its English unabbreviated equivalent, that is, when they....

If we attempt to remedy the fault by putting “that is” in parentheses after “i. e.,” we take “that is” out of the list of words enumerated, making it simply an explanation of “i. e.”

A confusion in grouping, and consequently in meaning, due to the absence of the proper conjunction or the proper mark of punctuation at the end of a series, is very common.

This use of the semicolon and a comma is without reason, so far as we can determine; but it is very firmly fixed conventionally. The objection to it is, that it makes the semicolon a mark of apposition, along with the colon, the comma, and the comma and dash; and its use for such purpose detracts from its more common use of grouping when the and or or relation exists, whether expressed or understood, as exemplified in Sentences 7 and 20-1.

Mr. De Vinne uses a comma before such an introductory particle, and a colon after it; but he makes no reference to the established usage, nor does he give any reason for such punctuation. The reason is simple: the particle is slightly parenthetical, thus requiring to be set off by commas; but the relation between what precedes and what follows is clearly the colon relation. When particulars are formally enumerated, this relation requires a colon on one side of the particle; and the colon will supersede one of the commas. On which side of the particle does the colon belong?

Although Mr. De Vinne, in his own work, puts the colon after the particle, the Century Dictionary, which is issued from the De Vinne Press, puts it before the particle when introducing illustrative examples. The position of the colon in either place is easily explained: if after the particle, the particle is more closely connected with the general term than with the particulars, which follow the colon; if before the particle, the particle is more closely connected with the particulars.

These relations will appear more clearly in examples:

98. The student failed in three studies, namely: spelling, grammar, and history.

98-1. The student failed in three studies: namely, spelling, grammar, and history.

If we substitute “by name” for “namely,” the sense relation between “namely” and “studies,” in one sentence, and between “namely” and the items following in the other sentence, is unmistakable. We can therefore put any such particle where it seems best to reveal the meaning.

We think “by name” is closely associated with “studies,” just as the word “named” or “called” would be, if used in the place of “by name.” This relation therefore requires the colon after the particle.