This sentence illustrates the loose grouping common to many of our best writers; and it also shows that marks of punctuation, if possessing clearly understood meanings, cannot be adjusted to loose groupings.
If the colon in No. 61-2 were considered like the colon in No. 25, and thus held subordinate to the semicolon, a semicolon would be preferable to the period that follows; yet very few readers would grasp such fine use of a mark in a sentence like No. 61-2.
Our next sentence illustrates a fault that is practically the opposite of the above; and its punctuation is much more common and even more distracting. It is the fault of splitting up a sentence, making two sentences out of one, or of carrying a part of one sentence over into another sentence, making two incomplete sentences. This fault grows out of an effort to use short sentences, which some writers think essential to clearness. It is quite safe to say few sentences are too long if the relations between their parts can clearly be shown by marks of punctuation.
We take the sentence from The Outlook. It appears in Dr. Abbott’s “Reminiscences”; and, as Dr. Abbott is noted as an unusually clear and forceful writer, the sentence, with its context, is of special interest:
62. There were lawyers [in 1853-59] who promoted quarrels to get fees. But they were the pariahs of the profession. The best lawyers were peacemakers, and though, of necessity, professional partisans when engaged in litigation, they were generally honorable partisans.
That the third of the above sentences grows out of the first is clearly shown by the contrast between the kinds of lawyers mentioned: the former promoted quarrels; the latter were peacemakers. Note also that each class is qualified: the first is qualified by “but they were the pariahs”; the second by “and were generally honorable partisans.” The “and,” which introduces a really qualifying clause, might properly have been “but,” to show that as “peacemakers” these lawyers surrendered no rights of their clients, but contended for such rights when necessary to become “professional partisans.”
As the sentences are written, the third sentence does not grow out of the sentence (the second) preceding it, but out of the first sentence; and such remoteness of parts standing in the close relation required in a contrast, is distracting.
We used a period in No. 61-2 because “and” there connects two complete sentences standing in the and relation to each other. We object to the use of a period in No. 62 where the conjunction (but) connects two sentences which are properly only one, and should be so written.
The points we wish to make may be seen by a slight change in the sentence:
62-1. There were lawyers who promoted quarrels to get fees; but they were the pariahs of the profession. The best lawyers were peacemakers; but, when engaged in litigation and it became necessary, they were professional partisans, though they were generally honorable partisans.