This sentence may be so formed as to bring the first “however” into the usual position of the conjunction:
48-1. He was reluctant to discuss the subject; however, he replied to all questions put to him, however pointed such questions were.
In this form, another word, but, yet, although, or the like, would be preferred to the first “however.”
The relation indicated by the word because is easily misunderstood, and therefore often wrongly indicated in the punctuation by the presence or absence of a mark. The meaning of a sentence may thus be entirely changed by the punctuation:
49. John did not go to town because his father was absent.
49-1. John did not go to town, because his father was absent.
No. 49 asserts that John went to town, and states that his reason for going was not his father’s absence. No. 49-1 asserts that John did not go to town, and that the reason for not going was his father’s absence. In No. 49 the language is used in its natural order and without any turn in the thought, which is not complete until the end of the sentence is reached. In No. 49-1 the same language is made to give an entirely different meaning by changing the relation between the two groups of words constituting the sentence. A like change of real meaning is seen in Sentences 13 and 13-1; and a like change of apparent meaning is seen in Sentences 1 and 1-1. This principle is clearly exemplified in Sentences 11-1 and 11-2.
A very important principle of language is involved in this punctuation; and we should thoroughly comprehend it. In No. 49 the relation expressed by “not” goes on to the group of words beginning with “because,” although apparently confined to “go.” In No. 49-1 the relation is confined entirely to “go.” We find a counterpart of this form of expression in the use of “only” and similar modifiers. “Only” is used out of place so generally, often by excellent writers, that we hesitate to criticize such usage. In the expression, I only assisted the boys to work the example, we are not sure whether the writer means to say that he only assisted,—that is, did not do all the work; or that he assisted only the boys,—that is, not the girls; or that he assisted them only to work the example, and not to explain it.
A careful writer will always avoid such ambiguous expressions, for it is not easy for the reader to differentiate the meanings in such sentences as Nos. 49 and 49-1.
Our next two sentences (Nos. 50 and 51) are especially interesting because of their sources. No. 50 is a part of Mr. Teall’s general rule (page 1) for the use of the comma; and No. 51 is a sentence from the text of Mr. Wilson’s work (page 3), quoted by Mr. Teall in the discussion of his own rule.