"Thank him who puts me loath to this revenge
On you who wrong me not for him who wrong'd."—Milton.
OBS. 3.—The system of punctuation now used in English, is, in its main features, common to very many languages. It is used in Latin, French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, Dutch, German, and perhaps most of the tongues in which books are now written or printed. The Germans, however, make less frequent use of the comma than we; and the Spaniards usually mark a question or an exclamation doubly, inverting the point at the beginning of the sentence. In Greek, the difference is greater: the colon, expressed by the upper dot alone, is the only point between the comma and the period; the ecphoneme, or note of exclamation, is hardly recognized, though some printers of the classics have occasionally introduced it; and the eroteme, or note of interrogation, retains in that language its pristine form, which is that of our semicolon. In Hebrew, a full stop is denoted by a heavy colon, or something like it; and this is the only pointing adopted, when the vowel points and the accents are not used.
OBS. 4.—Though the points in use, and the principles on which they ought to be applied, are in general well fixed, and common to almost all sorts of books; yet, through the negligence of editors, the imperfections of copy, the carelessness of printers, or some other means, it happens, that different editions and different versions of the same work are often found pointed very variously. This circumstance, provided the sense is still preserved, is commonly thought to be of little moment. But all writers will do well to remember, that they owe it to their readers, to show them at once how they mean to be read; and since the punctuation of the early printers was unquestionably very defective, the republishers of ancient books should not be over scrupulous about an exact imitation of it; they may, with proper caution, correct obvious faults.
OBS. 5.—The precise origin of the points, it is not easy to trace in the depth of antiquity. It appears probable, from ancient manuscripts and inscriptions, that the period is the oldest of them; and it is said by some, that the first system of punctuation consisted in the different positions of this dot alone. But after the adoption of the small letters, which improvement is referred to the ninth century, both the comma and the colon came into use, and also the Greek note of interrogation. In old books, however, the comma is often found, not in its present form, but in that of a straight stroke, drawn up and down obliquely between the words. Though the colon is of Greek origin, the practice of writing it with two dots we owe to the Latin authors, or perhaps to the early printers of Latin books. The semicolon was first used in Italy, and was not adopted in England till about the year 1600. Our marks for questions and exclamations were also derived from the same source, probably at a date somewhat earlier. The curves of the parenthesis have likewise been in use for several centuries. But the clash is a more recent invention: Lowth, Ash, and Ward,—Buchanan, Bicknell, and Burn,—though they name all the rest, make no mention of this mark; but it appears by their books, that they all occasionally used it.
OBS. 6—Of the colon it may be observed, that it is now much less frequently used than it was formerly; its place being usurped, sometimes by the semicolon, and sometimes by the period. For this ill reason, some late grammarians have discarded it altogether. Thus Felton: "The COLON is now so seldom used by good writers, that rules for its use are unnecessary."—Concise Manual of English Gram., p. 140. So Nutting: "It will be noticed, that the colon is omitted in this system; because it is omitted by the majority of the writers of the present age; three points, with the dash, being considered sufficient to mark the different lengths of the pauses."—Practical Grammar, p. 120. These critics, whenever they have occasion to copy such authors as Milton and Pope, do not scruple to mutilate their punctuation by putting semicolons or periods for all the colons they find. But who cannot perceive, that without the colon, the semicolon becomes an absurdity? It can no longer be a semicolon, unless the half can remain when the whole is taken away! The colon, being the older point of the two, and once very fashionable, is doubtless on record in more instances than the semicolon; and, if now, after both have been in common use for some hundreds of years, it be found out that only one is needed, perhaps it would be more reasonable to prefer the former. Should public opinion ever be found to coincide with the suggestions of the two authors last quoted, there will be reason to regret that Caxton, the old English typographer of the fifteenth century, who for a while successfully withstood, in his own country, the introduction of the semicolon, had not the power to prevent it forever. In short, to leave no literary extravagance unbroached, the latter point also has not lacked a modern impugner. "One of the greatest improvements in punctuation," says Justin Brenan, "is the rejection of the eternal semicolons of our ancestors. In latter times, the semicolon has been gradually disappearing, not only from the newspapers, but from books."—Brenan's "Composition and Punctuation familiarly Explained", p. 100; London, 1830. The colon and the semicolon are both useful, and, not unfrequently, necessary; and all correct writers will, I doubt not, continue to use both.
OBS. 7—Since Dr. Blair published his emphatic caution against too frequent a use of parentheses, there has been, if not an abatement of the kind of error which he intended to censure, at least a diminution in the use of the curves, the sign of a parenthesis. These, too, some inconsiderate grammarians now pronounce to be out of vogue. "The parenthesis is now generally exploded as a deformity."—Churchill's Gram., p. 362. "The Parenthesis, () has become nearly obsolete, except in mere references, and the like; its place, by modern writers, being usually supplied by the use of the comma, and the dash."—Nutting's Practical Gram., p. 126; Frazee's Improved Grammar, p. 187. More use may have been made of the curves than was necessary, and more of the parenthesis itself than was agreeable to good taste; but, the sign being well adapted to the construction, and the construction being sometimes sprightly and elegant, there are no good reasons for wishing to discard either of them; nor is it true, that the former "has become nearly obsolete."
OBS. 8—The name parenthesis is, which literally means a putting-in-between, is usually applied both to the curves, and to the incidental clause which they enclose. This twofold application of the term involves some inconvenience, if not impropriety. According to Dr. Johnson, the enclosed "sentence" alone is the parenthesis; but Worcester, agreeably to common usage, defines the word as meaning also "the mark thus ()." But, as this sign consists of two distinct parts, two corresponding curves, it seems more natural to use a plural name: hence L. Murray, when he would designate the sign only, adopted a plural expression; as, "the parenthetical characters,"—"the parenthetical marks." So, in another case, which is similar: "the hooks in which words are included," are commonly called crotchets or brackets; though Bucke, in his Classical Grammar, I know not why, calls the two "[ ] a Crotchet;" (p. 23;) and Webster, in his octavo Dictionary, defines a "Bracket, in printing," as Johnson does a "Crotchet" by a plural noun: "hooks; thus, [ ]." Again, in his grammars, Dr. Webster rather confusedly says: "The parenthesis () and hooks [] include a remark or clause, not essential to the sentence in construction."—Philosophical Gram., p. 219; Improved Gram., p. 154. But, in his Dictionary, he forgets both the hooks and the parenthesis that are here spoken of; and, with still worse confusion or inaccuracy, says: "The parenthesis is usually included in hooks or curved lines, thus, ()." Here he either improperly calls these regular little curves "hooks," or erroneously suggests that both the hooks and the curves are usual and appropriate signs of "the parenthesis." In Garner's quarto Dictionary, the French word Crochet, as used by printers, is translated, "A brace, a crotchet, a parenthesis;" and the English word Crotchet is defined, "The mark of a parenthesis, in printing, thus [ ]." But Webster defines Crotchet, "In printing, a hook including words, a sentence or a passage distinguished from the rest, thus []." This again is both ambiguous and otherwise inaccurate. It conveys no clear idea of what a crotchet is. One hook includes nothing. Therefore Johnson said: "Hooks in which words are included [thus]." But if each of the hooks is a crotchet, as Webster suggests, and almost every body supposes, then both lexicographers are wrong in not making the whole expression plural: thus, "Crotchets, in printing, are angular hooks usually including some explanatory words." But is this all that Webster meant? I cannot tell. He may be understood as saying also, that a Crotchet is "a sentence or a passage distinguished from the rest, thus [];" and doubtless it would be much better to call a hint thus marked, a crotchet, than to call it a parenthesis, as some have done. In Parker and Fox's Grammar, and also in Parker's Aids to English Composition, the term Brackets only is applied to these angular hooks; and, contrary to all usage of other authors, so far as I know, the name of Crotchets is there given to the Curves. And then, as if this application of the word were general, and its propriety indisputable, the pupil is simply told: "The curved lines between which a parenthesis is enclosed are called Crotchets."—Gram., Part III, p. 30; Aids, p. 40. "Called Crotchets" by whom? That not even Mr. Parker himself knows them by that name, the following most inaccurate passage is a proof: "The note of admiration and interrogation, as also the parenthesis, the bracket, and the reference marks, [are noted in the margin] in the same manner as the apostrophe."—Aids, p. 314. In some late grammars, (for example, Hazen's and Day's,) the parenthetic curves are called "the Parentheses" From this the student must understand that it always takes two parentheses to make one parenthesis! If then it is objectionable, to call the two marks "a parenthesis," it is much more so, to call each of them by that name, or both "the parentheses." And since Murray's phrases are both entirely too long for common use, what better name can be given them than this very simple one, the Curves?
OBS. 9.—The words eroteme and ecphoneme, which, like aposteme and philosopheme, are orderly derivatives from Greek roots[460], I have ventured to suggest as fitter names for the two marks to which they are applied as above, than are any of the long catalogue which other grammarians, each choosing for himself have presented. These marks have not unfrequently been called "the interrogation and the exclamation;" which names are not very suitable, because they have other uses in grammar. According to Dr. Blair, as well as L. Murray and others, interrogation and exclamation are "passionate figures" of rhetoric, and oftentimes also plain "unfigured" expressions. The former however are frequently and more fitly called by their Greek names erotesis and ecphonesis, terms to which those above have a happy correspondence. By Dr. Webster and some others, all interjections are called "exclamations;" and, as each of these is usually followed by the mark of emotion, it cannot but be inconvenient to call both by the same name.
OBS. 10.—For things so common as the marks of asking and exclaiming, it is desirable to have simple and appropriate names, or at least some settled mode of denomination; but, it is remarkable, that Lindley Murray, in mentioning these characters six times, uses six different modes of expression, and all of them complex: (1.) "Notes of Interrogation and Exclamation." (2.) "The point of Interrogation,?"—"The point of Exclamation,!" (3.) "The Interrogatory Point."—"The Exclamatory Point." (4.) "A note of interrogation,"—"The note of exclamation." (5.) "The interrogation and exclamation points." (6.) "The points of Interrogation and Exclamation."—Murray, Flint, Ingersoll, Alden, Pond. With much better taste, some writers denote them uniformly thus: (7.) "The Note of Interrogation,"—"The Note of Exclamation."—Churchill, Hiley. In addition to these names, all of which are too long, there may be cited many others, though none that are unobjectionable: (8.) "The Interrogative sign,"—"The Exclamatory sign."—Peirce, Hazen. (9.) "The Mark of Interrogation,"—"The Mark of Exclamation."—Ward, Felton, Hendrick. (10.) "The Interrogative point,"—"The Exclamation point."—T. Smith, Alger. (11.) "The interrogation point,"—"The exclamation point."—Webster, St. Quentin, S. Putnam. (12.) "A Note of Interrogation,"—"A Note of Admiration."—Coar, Nutting. (13.) "The Interrogative point,"—"The Note of Admiration, or of vocation."—Bucke. (14.) "Interrogation (?),"—"Admiration (!) or Exclamation."—Lennie, Bullions. (15.) "A Point of Interrogation,"—"A Point of Admiration or Exclamation."—Buchanan. (16.) "The Interrogation Point (?),"—"The Admiration Point (!)."—Perley. (17.) "An interrogation (?),"—"An exclamation (!)."—Cutler. (18.) "The interrogator?"—"The exclaimor!"—Day's Gram., p. 112. [The putting of "exclaimor" for exclaimer, like this author's changing of quoters to "quotors," as a name for the guillemets, is probably a mere sample of ignorance.] (19.) "Question point,"—"Exclamation point."—Sanborn, p. 272.