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

by William Livingston Klein

In each of Nos. 24-1 and 24-2 the colon makes another grouping, dividing each sentence into two still larger groups. Here each mark would give a definite answer to a challenge; but both answers could not be correct. The sentence is unmistakably divided into two parts, the first part ending with “Onesiphorus.” Mercy is sought for him because of what he did; and what he did is specified in the language that follows “for.” The extent of the for relation, therefore, must be shown by the mark. A colon will clearly show that it goes to the end of the sentence, as a like relation was shown by the colon in No. 6-2.

We now have to deal with the proper grouping of all that follows “for”; but we cannot use a colon for this purpose because, having been used once, a second colon in the same sentence would confuse the whole grouping. We thus come to a serious difficulty, which arises out of the number of groups to be made with the marks (comma and semicolon) left at our disposal. This difficulty would be even greater in No. 24-2 had we quoted the sentence in full, the complete verse containing another clause. In the second of the two larger groups we have an and and a but relation exactly like the and and but relations in No. 23, which we could not indicate by marks. As we may not change the language of the sentence under consideration, we must punctuate it with as little violence to the meanings of marks as possible. Probably the clearest punctuation of the sentence would be as follows:

24-3. The Lord grant mercy unto the house of Onesiphorus; for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain, but, when he was in Rome, he sought me very diligently, and found me.

As the sentence is thus divided into two main parts, with only commas in one part, the semicolon is sufficient to mark the larger groups. As the comma before “but” does not suggest to the reader how far back the but relation extends, he is left to ascertain it without the aid of a mark definitely pointing it out.

We do not claim this to be good punctuation, but we think it the best the sentence will permit. The sentence seems to show the fault of bad grouping.

If we are ever in doubt as to how far back a relation, indicated or to be indicated by a mark before the conjunction, extends, we can easily determine this by forming the relation between the words apparently thus connected. Take, for instance, Sentence 24. The for relation between “give mercy” and “was not ashamed” is just as evident as the for relation between “give mercy” and “he oft refreshed me.” We can say “give mercy, for he oft refreshed me” and “give mercy, for he was not ashamed.”

Let us attempt to make a like grouping to determine how far back the but relation extends. It appears to extend to the two preceding groups, which, being connected by “and” and put between two semicolons, constitute one group. This would give us “was not ashamed, but sought me” and[6] “refreshed me, but sought me.” The sense, of course, shows that the second group is not a proper group.

A writer, as we shall see later, should always guard against using a conjunction between words or groups of words not bearing to each other the relation indicated by such conjunction. Much confusion in punctuation arises from an effort to indicate by the use of marks relations that are not sense relations, as in the sentences just considered.

A somewhat different, but even more effective, grouping is shown by another use of the colon; but, very singularly, practically all writers on punctuation seem to ignore this use. Before considering it, we shall take up the colon’s conventional use, which is that of the “formal” introduction of any matter, such as particulars, a speech, or a quotation: