Probably at no other point in punctuation do writers obscure the meaning of language so much as in dealing with restrictive and explanatory groups of words. We dealt with the subject in Chapter III, but passed over one feature of it,—namely, the intermediate restrictive group, or a restrictive group coming between two other groups closely tied together in sense, and seemingly requiring the suspension of the intermediate group by commas.
Before dealing with these groups, let us consider an interesting sentence, from very high authority, which tends to confirm our statement concerning the importance of properly punctuating restrictive and explanatory modifiers. The sentence is from a passage in Dean Alford’s notable book, “A Plea for the Queen’s English,” in which passage the Dean severely scolds compositors for their bad punctuation, particularly for the insertion of commas “without the slightest compunction.”
83. I have some satisfaction in reflecting, that, in the course of editing the Greek text of the New Testament, I believe I have destroyed more than a thousand commas, which prevented the text being properly understood.
Mr. De Vinne quotes the passage in which this sentence appears; and he does so in apparent approval of Dean Alford’s condemnation of the misuse of commas. Mr. De Vinne makes a single comment upon the passage, in which he says “the last comma in this extract is superfluous.” The reference is to the comma before “which.”
The comma before “which” is not simply “superfluous”: it is wrong. It is wrong because it changes the meaning of the language by making the writer say, apparently, that he destroyed all the commas in the text, while he, unquestionably, intended to say he destroyed more than a thousand offending commas, that is, commas that (which) obscured the text.
The superfluous comma in the above sentence is, in our opinion, the one after “reflecting.” This comma is used in accordance with the convention of Dean Alford’s day, and follows a rule of “close” punctuation.
But the punctuation is very bad at another point; and, we venture to say, in spite of the great distinction of its author as an English scholar, the language at this point is not the “Queen’s English.” Omitting the intermediate and final groups of words, and the superfluous comma, the sentence will read as follows:
83-1. I have some satisfaction in reflecting that I believe I have destroyed more than a thousand commas.
“Satisfaction in reflecting that I believe,” is, to say the least, a curious satisfaction. This is not the meaning the writer wished to convey.
The obvious error cannot be mended by setting “I believe” off with commas, for this would simply throw doubt upon the statement which follows (I have destroyed), which is a positive statement, needing no qualification. The only doubtful assertion in the sentence is as to the number of commas destroyed. The evident meaning of the language is, that the number of commas destroyed is probably (I believe) more than a thousand. To be sure, “probably” and “I believe” are not exactly equivalent terms; but the word probably here serves to show how “I believe” is used. We set it off by commas because of its slightly parenthetical character.