Our next sentence, which is taken from a well-known literary paper, is punctuated so badly that we wonder how it could pass an experienced proof-reader:
60. Providence made him a waif on London streets and later, a waif on the ocean, she taught him the feeling of a rope’s end on a naked back.
When the reader reaches “and” in this sentence he needs to be informed by a mark of punctuation that what immediately follows the conjunction looks forward, not backward, for its connection. Such notice is always imperative when the words immediately following the conjunction may readily be attached by the reader to what precedes, but belong to what follows. In this sentence “a waif on the ocean” readily becomes the object of “made”; and even a very careful reader might so connect it, not discovering his mistake until he reached “she taught him.” “Later” apparently looks backward to “made”; but its connection is forward.
Properly punctuated the sentence reads as follows:
60-1. Providence made him a waif on London streets; and, later, a waif on the ocean, she taught him the feeling of a rope’s end on a naked back.
“Later” takes a comma before it because it is out of its natural order and also because it is placed in a position where it obstructs the smoothness of the language. The position of both “later” and “a waif on the ocean” gives force and beauty to the language; but they entangle, to a certain extent, the principal words of the sentence, thus requiring marks of punctuation to point out the proper relation between such words, as in Sentence 4-2.
Diagram 4 covers the punctuation exemplified in Sentence 6,—that is, punctuation based upon the rank of the colon.
The use of the colon that is properly differentiated from the uses of the semicolon and the period, respectively, is the use determined by its rank. This particular use is exemplified in Sentences 6 and 6-2 and, to some extent, in Sentences 26-3 and 27-1. Writers who ignore the latter use of the colon—and they are many in number—apparently ignore the real relations between the parts of a sentence or of a composition; or, if they themselves see and appreciate such relations, they are willing to leave them obscurely expressed. It is quite probable that many writers do not know that marks of punctuation have inherent meanings which clearly express these relations. The lack of such knowledge is explained by the almost total absence of any discussion of the matter in the text-books on punctuation.
Our statement that Sentences 26-3 and 27-1 illustrate only “to some extent” the rank of the colon among the principal marks, may need explanation. In Sentences 6 and 6-2 the colon is used because a mark larger than the semicolon is required to group the parts of each sentence, one part being subdivided by semicolons. This use is wholly one of rank, and clearly differentiates the use of the mark. It is another sense relation of the parts of each of the other sentences (Nos. 26-3 and 27-1) that requires the colon, and not the presence of a semicolon in one of the parts. The colon would still be the only mark with an inherent meaning expressive of the relation between the parts even if there were no other mark in either sentence. The colon would still be the proper mark in No. 26-3 if it ended with “old,” and in No. 27-1 if it ended with “evasions.” The relation between the two groups following the colon in No. 26-3 is the and relation, each group being an expansion of a picture in the main group,—that is, the first group (it never grows old) explains “perpetual charm,” and the second group (it never loses its novelty) explains “singular charm.” In No. 27-1 a conjunction (but) is present to show the sense relation at that point.