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.