YES, NO, AGAIN, ETC.
The words yes, no, again, to sum up, to proceed, etc., are often used in this way, and so require the colon:
56. Do you think he will meet the expectations of his friends? Yes: he has never failed to meet reasonable expectations.
Apparently in the absence of a comprehension of the colon relation between “yes” or “no” and what follows, even careful punctuators seem to prefer the semicolon after these words; and, it may be said, convention thus overrides reason, making the semicolon far more common than the colon for this punctuation.
The conventional punctuation of the sentence is as follows:
56-1. Do you think he will meet the expectations of his friends? Yes; he has never failed to meet reasonable expectations.
As marks are used mainly to assist the reader in so grouping words that their relations may be readily seen, it is apparent that a mark is not needed when the grouping is unmistakable in its absence. There is a large class of groups so formed and so connected that a mark of punctuation between them is superfluous, although used quite in accordance with our general principle, as exemplified in Sentences 1 and 1-1. The following sentence exhibits such grouping:
57. The author was identified with Maine in blood and spirit and in the ideals of life.
In this sentence the first “and” clearly connects “blood” and “spirit,” forming a group governed by the preposition “in.” Because of the absence of a mark before the second “and,” the reader, in view of what has been said in our discussion, might expect the word following the second “and” to have the same sense relation to “spirit” that “spirit” bears to “blood.” If such relation does not exist, then why should not a comma be used to notify the reader of the fact, as one was used in Sentence 1-1? The reason is, that marks are used to prevent wrong groupings which are easily made because of apparent, but wrong, relations. When the eye does not need a mark, the mark should be omitted, even though consistency in punctuation seems to call for it.
It is to be noted that “in blood and spirit” makes in itself a complete group and a complete picture (the material and the immaterial), thus practically inhibiting the use of a third coördinate word connected by “and”; moreover, the word “in” following the second “and” at once notifies the reader that another in group is to follow the conjunction. For these reasons there is no liability even to momentary wrong grouping, and therefore no mark is needed before the second “and.” This principle may be applied to somewhat long groups, if similarly formed, even though the words beginning the groups are not the same. This applies especially to groups formed by the correlative conjunctions, such as either—or, neither—nor, etc., the first conjunction giving notice that its correlative is to introduce a group bound to the preceding group by the expected complementary conjunction.
If we closely followed the principle exemplified in Sentence 1-1, a comma would be required before the second “and” in No. 57. Such use of marks would be very “close” punctuation, which means subservience to rules based upon an apparent principle. Close punctuation often becomes confusing by making so many groups of the words in a sentence that such groups are not readily grasped and properly joined together by the reader. The same effect is produced by the use of too many short sentences in a paragraph, for the relations existing between such sentences is not easily apprehended. Striving after short sentences is a common fault of many modern writers.
EXAMPLES
1. I shall go unless my orders forbid.
2. We fail to praise the ceaseless ministry of the inanimate world around us only because its kindness is unobtrusive.
3. We never praise the ceaseless ministry of the great inanimate world around us, except when we are compelled to invoke its kindness.
4. They are alike in one respect, that each is susceptible of omission.
5. His emotions are divided between contemptuous hatred of those who are beneath him because they are black, and envious hatred of those who are above him because they are what he calls “aristocrats”; and we are not alarmed if he rallies the “crackers” of a state, or even of a group of states in which the same conditions exist, to his support.
6. No one knew where the boundary line was, because, as we pointed out long ago, there never was a boundary line.
7. Holmes illustrated, perhaps better than any of that remarkable circle of poets of whom he was the surviving member, the brightness and beauty of life in itself.
8. There is no sorrow I have thought more about than this: that one who aspires to live a higher life than the common should fall from that serene height into the soul-wasting struggle with worldly annoyances.
The use of the colon in No. 8 follows conventional punctuation; and, therefore, as many good writers prefer this mode of punctuation, it is well to know the usage.
9. This, however excellent in its way, is neither scientific nor rational.
10. This, however, excellent though it be, is neither scientific nor rational.
11. He lacks all the essentials of a big man.... No, he is not the man for the place.
12. It is possible, yes, probable, that the work can be done in the time set for it.
In examples 11 and 12, “no” and “yes” are not used as sentence words requiring the punctuation of Sentence 56; but they are mere expletives, introducing something more emphatic than what precedes. Each takes the punctuation of an expletive, namely, a comma or commas.
13. The man gave many proofs of complete indifference to death, while he was doing his duty.
14. On the battle-field the man gave many proofs of complete indifference to death, while at home he seemed almost a coward.
No. 13 is an Atlantic Monthly sentence. As “while” is here equivalent to during the time, the use of the comma, which gives “while” the adversative meaning exhibited by “while” in No. 14, is wrong. In No. 14 “while” is almost equivalent to “but,” and here loses the sense of time.
15. The Lord has blessed thee, since my coming.
No. 15 is a clause from Gen. xxx, 30, punctuated as it appears in Webster’s New International. As “since” is a preposition, equivalent in meaning to during the time subsequent to, the use of the comma before it is clearly a typographical error.
CHAPTER VII
COMMA, SEMICOLON, COLON, AND PERIOD—THEIR DIFFERENTIATION
As has already been seen, we determine what mark of punctuation is helpful at any point in written or printed language by the sense relation between two groups of words and by the degree of separation between such groups. The degrees of separation cannot be so accurately classified that there will not be much apparent and some real inconsistency in the punctuation of the most careful writer, and much more in the uses of marks by different writers.
We shall consider these points in this chapter, in order to show (1) the cause of this inconsistency; (2) how, in some measure, it may be avoided; and (3) that much of it is wholly immaterial, being not in the least misleading.
A diagrammatic grouping indicated by the coordinate conjunction and, with or without one of the four principal marks, may help to illustrate the above points and to differentiate, to some extent, the uses of the marks:
| 1. ... | and | ... |
| 2. ... | , and | ... |
| 3. ... | ; and | ... |
| 4. ... | : and | ... |
| 5. ... | . And | ... |
What does the absence of a mark before “and” in Diagram 1, and what does each of the marks in the other diagrams, say to the reader, even before he has seen enough of what follows the conjunction to enable him to apprehend the probable grouping?
We, of course, know that “and” connects words and groups of words which are coördinate in sense, and that such groups are often similar in form. Similarity in form with similarity of relationship in groups of words makes reading easy; and much attention is given to it by good writers.
In Diagram 1 “and” stands between two words or groups of words whose apparent relation is quite unmistakable for their real relation, which was not the case in Sentence 1, which therefore required a mark of punctuation. In other words, no mistake can be made, and therefore no mark is needed. However this diagram may be filled out, “and” joins words or groups of words into a single group, such new group being related to some other word or group in the sentence.
Diagram 2 gives notice of a grouping different from that in Diagram 1; and Diagrams 3, 4, and 5 exhibit still other groupings.
We saw, particularly in Sentences 7, 7-1, and 7-2, a simple grouping which plainly required another and a larger mark than the comma. We saw another kind of grouping in other sentences which also unmistakably required a mark other than the semicolon.
We now come to discuss the basis of differentiating our principal marks, sometimes at points where the choice of a mark is not always unmistakable. In some cases the choice is based upon well-defined sense relations; in other cases it is based upon shades of meaning or upon degrees of separation not sufficiently sharp to make the choice easy, especially under rules for punctuation.
Sentence 1-1 is a good illustration of Diagram 2; and yet the apparent relation between “children” and their “mothers” might so strongly impress itself upon the mind of an inexperienced reader, especially if reading the sentence at sight and aloud, that the comma would not prevent a momentary wrong combination of these words. A semicolon before the conjunction would prevent the liability to such error, and probably do so even with the most inexperienced reader. Thus we have a choice between the comma and the semicolon in Sentence 1; and this choice rests upon the degree of liability to error, which cannot be the same with different classes of readers. Liability to error in grouping is increased by a closeness of apparent relations that are wrong relations, and also by a reader’s lack of expertness in grouping language at sight. In view of these facts, we think the use of a semicolon in Sentence 1 better punctuation than the use of a comma; but the use of the semicolon in this particular sentence should not be made to justify a rule requiring a semicolon between every two clauses connected by a conjunction, or between two clauses so connected, one of which contains one or more commas.
Our next sentence is taken from an essay, in a high-class magazine, by the professor of English in a leading eastern university; and this essay has for its title “Writing English”:
58. The boy must be able to say what he knows, or write what he knows, or he does not know it.
As written and punctuated, this sentence contains three apparently coördinate groups of words, the groups being connected by “or,” and the grouping indicated by commas. It is, however, composed of only two main groups, the first of the two groups being regrouped into other groups. Such grouping should always be shown by the punctuation; for, when it is not so shown, the sentence cannot be read without some distractive effect upon the reader and, if read aloud, also upon the hearer.
The failure of this sentence to read smoothly, or without distractive effect, arises from the usual cause: the form of the language leads the reader to look forward to a mode of development of the sentence which does not follow,—that is, the apparent mode of development, as exhibited in the grouping, is not the real mode of development. As each of the second and third groups is introduced by “or” and preceded by a comma, the reader is led to look for the same relation between the second and third groups that exists between the first and second. He is thus led to expect a group in a series, which does not follow.
The distractive effect of the sentence can be removed in some degree by writing it in the following form, the added “to” giving the second group a form similar to that of the first:
58-1. The boy must be able to say or to write what he knows, or he does not know it.
In this condensed form the sentence lacks, at the point of condensation, the emphasis of the original; and therefore the sentence is not so effective in its statement of a truth. If, then, the original form is preferred, its distractive effect can be removed by the use of punctuation that properly groups its parts:
58-2. The boy must be able to say what he knows, or write what he knows; or he does not know it.
The semicolon here disconnects the second group from the third, giving the third group connection with a larger group, the first and second combined.
The need of the semicolon in No. 58-2 is not determined by the presence of the preceding comma, but mainly by the apparent relations of the groups, such apparent relations being emphasized by the presence of the second “or,” which makes the three groups appear to be in a series. If these groups were in a series, the second “or” would connect the second and third groups. The semicolon at once throws the grouping into two parts, thus making the second “or” connect all that precedes with all that follows.
Although the writer of Sentence 58 appears to have placed no value upon the like formation of the first two groups of this sentence, nor to have recognized the differentiation of the comma from the semicolon, he uses both of these devices in a sentence, quite like the above, in the next paragraph of his essay. It is as follows:
59. It is here that composition is of service to the imagination, and incidentally to culture; and I should speak more largely of this service if there were space in this essay to bring forward all the aspects of college composition.
The need of the semicolon in both Nos. 58 and 59 is, we think, unmistakable.
The comma in No. 59 has no value for the reader. There is no apparent and wrong meaning here requiring this comma; and it is difficult to see how any wrong grouping, in the absence of the comma, is likely to be made by the reader. If this comma were challenged for its meaning we do not know what answer it could give.
The absence of a comma after “imagination” would give notice to the reader that what has been said about “imagination” is to be said about something else in the and relation to “imagination.” The writer, wishing to qualify the added statement, does so before the statement is made, thus throwing matter (one word in this case) between what has preceded and what is to be grouped with “imagination,” as shown by the absence of a mark before “and.” This makes the qualifying word a modified parenthesis. Such treatment of the word, indicated by marks, gives a shade of meaning difficult to express in language. The difference is, perhaps, in the emphasis gained by the punctuation.
We should write the sentence in the following way:
59-1. It is here that composition is of service to the imagination and, incidentally, to culture; and I should speak more largely....
Our next sentence, which is taken from a well-known literary paper, is punctuated so badly that we wonder how it could pass an experienced proof-reader:
60. Providence made him a waif on London streets and later, a waif on the ocean, she taught him the feeling of a rope’s end on a naked back.
When the reader reaches “and” in this sentence he needs to be informed by a mark of punctuation that what immediately follows the conjunction looks forward, not backward, for its connection. Such notice is always imperative when the words immediately following the conjunction may readily be attached by the reader to what precedes, but belong to what follows. In this sentence “a waif on the ocean” readily becomes the object of “made”; and even a very careful reader might so connect it, not discovering his mistake until he reached “she taught him.” “Later” apparently looks backward to “made”; but its connection is forward.
Properly punctuated the sentence reads as follows:
60-1. Providence made him a waif on London streets; and, later, a waif on the ocean, she taught him the feeling of a rope’s end on a naked back.
“Later” takes a comma before it because it is out of its natural order and also because it is placed in a position where it obstructs the smoothness of the language. The position of both “later” and “a waif on the ocean” gives force and beauty to the language; but they entangle, to a certain extent, the principal words of the sentence, thus requiring marks of punctuation to point out the proper relation between such words, as in Sentence 4-2.
Diagram 4 covers the punctuation exemplified in Sentence 6,—that is, punctuation based upon the rank of the colon.
The use of the colon that is properly differentiated from the uses of the semicolon and the period, respectively, is the use determined by its rank. This particular use is exemplified in Sentences 6 and 6-2 and, to some extent, in Sentences 26-3 and 27-1. Writers who ignore the latter use of the colon—and they are many in number—apparently ignore the real relations between the parts of a sentence or of a composition; or, if they themselves see and appreciate such relations, they are willing to leave them obscurely expressed. It is quite probable that many writers do not know that marks of punctuation have inherent meanings which clearly express these relations. The lack of such knowledge is explained by the almost total absence of any discussion of the matter in the text-books on punctuation.
Our statement that Sentences 26-3 and 27-1 illustrate only “to some extent” the rank of the colon among the principal marks, may need explanation. In Sentences 6 and 6-2 the colon is used because a mark larger than the semicolon is required to group the parts of each sentence, one part being subdivided by semicolons. This use is wholly one of rank, and clearly differentiates the use of the mark. It is another sense relation of the parts of each of the other sentences (Nos. 26-3 and 27-1) that requires the colon, and not the presence of a semicolon in one of the parts. The colon would still be the only mark with an inherent meaning expressive of the relation between the parts even if there were no other mark in either sentence. The colon would still be the proper mark in No. 26-3 if it ended with “old,” and in No. 27-1 if it ended with “evasions.” The relation between the two groups following the colon in No. 26-3 is the and relation, each group being an expansion of a picture in the main group,—that is, the first group (it never grows old) explains “perpetual charm,” and the second group (it never loses its novelty) explains “singular charm.” In No. 27-1 a conjunction (but) is present to show the sense relation at that point.
Our next sentence, which is from Balzac, will illustrate the points we are considering, and also show the difficulties the punctuator meets in the punctuation of language which he may not change:
61. He was all that a hero should be; he suffered long, and came into his own, and he has been, in a measure, the world’s ideal of a heroic man of arms.
According to most rules of punctuation based upon grammatical relations, this punctuation is correct; according to the principles of punctuation based upon sense relations, this punctuation is very bad. The obscurity in the meaning of the language cannot be wholly removed by punctuation. Two simple statements are made in the sentence, and are coördinated by the second conjunction (and); but the language is so grouped by the punctuation as to conceal this fact. We can show the meaning by a different mode of punctuation, which, however, is not good punctuation. Such punctuation will show the relation because the meaning of the marks used is familiar to most readers:
61-1. He was all that a hero should be (he suffered long, and came into his own); and he has been, in a measure, the world’s idea of a heroic man of arms.
The parentheses show the relation of the matter so enclosed to what has preceded; but the matter so set off is not a parenthesis, and therefore the use of the marks of parenthesis is not good punctuation. It is true that the matter so set off is explanatory matter; but it is an expansion of the idea preceding it, and therefore should be preceded by a colon.
Having determined that a colon is the proper mark after this first group of words, we must then determine where the second group ends. It is quite evident that “came into his own” is joined to “suffered long,” even though coming into one’s own is no part of what constitutes a hero. We simply accept the words at Balzac’s estimate.
The meaning of the next group, introduced by the second “and,” is unmistakable; and the group is coordinate in sense, and is connected by the conjunction, with all that precedes. If the group preceding the conjunction is subdivided by a colon, even though the colon here is not used solely because of its rank, it is well to ignore this technicality, and use a period, thus unmistakably and properly grouping the language.
This reasoning would give us the following punctuation:
61-2. He was all that a hero should be: he suffered long, and came into his own. And he has been, in a measure, the world’s ideal of a heroic man of arms.
The period here connects the second sentence with all of the preceding sentence, at once disconnecting the second sentence from the second clause of the first sentence, of which it is made an unmistakable part in the original sentence (No. 61).
This sentence illustrates the loose grouping common to many of our best writers; and it also shows that marks of punctuation, if possessing clearly understood meanings, cannot be adjusted to loose groupings.
If the colon in No. 61-2 were considered like the colon in No. 25, and thus held subordinate to the semicolon, a semicolon would be preferable to the period that follows; yet very few readers would grasp such fine use of a mark in a sentence like No. 61-2.
Our next sentence illustrates a fault that is practically the opposite of the above; and its punctuation is much more common and even more distracting. It is the fault of splitting up a sentence, making two sentences out of one, or of carrying a part of one sentence over into another sentence, making two incomplete sentences. This fault grows out of an effort to use short sentences, which some writers think essential to clearness. It is quite safe to say few sentences are too long if the relations between their parts can clearly be shown by marks of punctuation.
We take the sentence from The Outlook. It appears in Dr. Abbott’s “Reminiscences”; and, as Dr. Abbott is noted as an unusually clear and forceful writer, the sentence, with its context, is of special interest:
62. There were lawyers [in 1853-59] who promoted quarrels to get fees. But they were the pariahs of the profession. The best lawyers were peacemakers, and though, of necessity, professional partisans when engaged in litigation, they were generally honorable partisans.
That the third of the above sentences grows out of the first is clearly shown by the contrast between the kinds of lawyers mentioned: the former promoted quarrels; the latter were peacemakers. Note also that each class is qualified: the first is qualified by “but they were the pariahs”; the second by “and were generally honorable partisans.” The “and,” which introduces a really qualifying clause, might properly have been “but,” to show that as “peacemakers” these lawyers surrendered no rights of their clients, but contended for such rights when necessary to become “professional partisans.”
As the sentences are written, the third sentence does not grow out of the sentence (the second) preceding it, but out of the first sentence; and such remoteness of parts standing in the close relation required in a contrast, is distracting.
We used a period in No. 61-2 because “and” there connects two complete sentences standing in the and relation to each other. We object to the use of a period in No. 62 where the conjunction (but) connects two sentences which are properly only one, and should be so written.
The points we wish to make may be seen by a slight change in the sentence:
62-1. There were lawyers who promoted quarrels to get fees; but they were the pariahs of the profession. The best lawyers were peacemakers; but, when engaged in litigation and it became necessary, they were professional partisans, though they were generally honorable partisans.
In order to see more clearly the differentiation between relations that require the semicolon and those that require the colon, let us study these relations in two sentences properly punctuated with each of the two marks:
63. The only true equalizers in the world are books; the only treasure-house open to all comers is a library; the only wealth which will not decay is knowledge.
64. Here was a superintendent worth having: when he did not find good tools, he made them.
Why not use commas or periods in No. 63? Why not use a semicolon in No. 64?
Perhaps we have not made, and cannot make, the differentiation between the comma and the semicolon sufficiently definite to answer the first question, especially as the formation of each of the three clauses is such that the liability to error in reading them is very slight. It would be rather dogmatic to assert that the use of commas here would be poor punctuation; yet the degree of separation between the groups is so marked as to make the relations more like the relations between groups that we have seen to require a semicolon than like relations between groups separated by a comma. The degree of separation here almost approaches the degree that takes the period; and therefore the semicolon seems much better than the comma.
But why not periods? Two positive answers may be given. The three clauses constitute one complete idea, and therefore make a sentence. If set off by periods, thus making three sentences, no fourth sentence could be formed to follow the third and maintain sentence unity; for the fourth sentence would necessarily grow out of the third, while its logical relation would be to the three clauses. Such a fault would be that seen in Sentence 62.
Why not a semicolon in No. 64? Because, under our classifications and definitions, the colon, when its use is not determined by its rank, as it is in Sentence 6, is used to show a relation that is practically that of apposition, exhibited, in different forms, in Sentences 25 and 26-3. “A good superintendent” is explained by the expanded clause following the colon, just as “articles” in No. 25 is explained by the details that follow the colon.
In most sentences like No. 64 the second clause can be tied to the first by a conjunction (for, as, etc.); but the exact idea is not thus expressed. While this would sometimes show the sense relation between the clauses, it would distinctly weaken the force and beauty of the language, tending to make the second clause a specific, rather than a general, statement.
The differentiation between the semicolon and the colon in Nos. 63 and 64 is very clear if we recognize the colon as the mark of apposition or explanation. In No. 63 other clauses are added to the first to add other thoughts; in No. 64 the added clause repeats the thought of the first by way of amplification of such thought.
The greatest value of a mark of punctuation lies in its ability to indicate a meaning that depends upon the relation of one group of words to another; and so long as language has a literary value, just so long will the colon be useful as an aid in the expression of thought. This is illustrated in our next sentence (No. 65), where a semicolon, instead of the colon, would suggest the and relation, and thus make havoc of the sense:
65. Ethics has no summons to righteousness: it knows nothing of truth spiritually discerned.
If a period were used here, instead of the colon, the relation between the two sentences (clauses formed into sentences by the use of the period) might easily be taken for the and relation. With such relation between the clauses, the first clause would make a vague assertion, which, without an explanation, would convey no definite meaning.
In our discussion of Sentence 6 we saw that the colon, preceding “but,” made the but relation extend back over several clauses separated by semicolons. “But” may begin a sentence, a paragraph, a part of a book, or even a volume. When beginning any one of such groups, the but relation should be a well-defined sense relation between the groups so connected. If “but” begins a paragraph, the sense relation must be between the two paragraphs connected by the conjunction. Such relation is rarely sustained between long paragraphs; and it does not exist between sentences nearly so often as it is indicated by the use of the conjunction and the period.
But, and, and for are the principal conjunctions thus used, although others are not infrequently so used.