WHY WE PUNCTUATE
OR
REASON VERSUS RULE
IN THE USE OF MARKS
BY
WILLIAM LIVINGSTON KLEIN
“Punctuation seems to be an art based upon rules without
congruity, and derived from practice without uniformity.”
SECOND EDITION—ENTIRELY REWRITTEN
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA
THE LANCET PUBLISHING COMPANY
1916
COPYRIGHT, 1916, BY
WILLIAM LIVINGSTON KLEIN
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
TO MY WIFE
who during the many years the subject of punctuation has occupied my
attention has ever been ready, with great intelligence and helpfulness,
to discuss with me the intricate and often dull problems which
punctuation presents
THIS BOOK IS DEDICATED IN
LOVING APPRECIATION
PREFACE
The first edition of this work was published in 1896, and the treatment
of the subject was so highly commended by many leading men and
periodicals of the country that the entire edition, though a large one,
was soon exhausted. In spite of this favorable commendation, which may
have been due to my effort to set forth reasons, instead of rules,
for the use of marks, I had a keen sense of certain shortcomings in
the work, and have long been unwilling to permit its reprinting or
to undertake its rewriting. At least one of the reasons—and I hope
the principal one—why the work fell short of my ideal of the book
needed, was the inevitable failure inherent in the mode of treating the
subject. As a sentence may contain the four principal marks (comma,
semicolon, colon, and period) and, in addition, one or more of the
other marks, a writer courts failure if, in treating the difficult
art of punctuation, he deals with the marks separately, beginning, as
all writers, myself included, have hitherto done, with the comma, the
most difficult mark to understand, and proceeding, one at a time, with
the other marks. Failure follows this mode of treatment because it
disregards the interrelation of marks and the relations between groups
of words to be interpreted by marks.
In this edition, which has been entirely rewritten, I have endeavored
to avoid the fault of such mode of treatment, and have dealt, from
the outset, with groups of interrelated marks, exhibiting, for
instance, in a single illustrative sentence (No. 6) the four principal
marks in their interrelation as affected by the sense relations of
the language of the sentence. I believe that this treatment of the
subject of punctuation is the only logical one; and because of the
lack of a logical treatment of the subject it is no exaggeration to
say that almost utter chaos as regards punctuation which is helpful
to both reader and writer, exists everywhere, inside and outside of
printing-offices.
In the preface of the first edition I said it was a remarkable fact
that the subject of punctuation had been very inadequately treated,
as evidenced by the existence at that time of only a single treatise
on punctuation in the English language, and by the total absence of
any consideration of it in periodical literature. This assertion,
with slight modification, is true today. An admirable essay by Mr.
Phillips Garrison, sometime editor of _The Nation_, appeared in the
_Atlantic Monthly_ for August, 1906. This essay, which deals with
the interchangeability of marks, only confounds the confusion of
punctuation. Mr. Garrison admits that the more the difficulties of the
art of punctuation are faced and considered, the fuller becomes our
understanding of the principles which do underlie the convention that
makes punctuation correct or faulty. One of his illustrative examples
exhibiting the interchangeability of three marks, is discussed herein;
and an effort is made to discover the “principles” that determine the
correct punctuation of the example, and to show that the marks used by
him are not interchangeable. No other article on punctuation is found
in the world’s great mass of periodical literature listed in American
library Indexes.
The one treatise referred to above is the work of Mr. John Wilson,
which, it may safely be asserted, is the only _treatise_ on the subject
in English. It is a masterful work, exhibiting an amount of research
and a degree of acumen probably unexcelled in the preparation of a
text-book on any subject. In spite of this fact, I think the work is
so minute, so voluminous, and so lacking in scientific generalization,
as to make mastery of its great number of rules, with “remarks” and
exceptions equivalent to rules, an exceedingly difficult and, to many,
an impossible task. Mr. Wilson’s work was first published in 1826.
The excellent handbook of Mr. Marshall T. Bigelow, published in 1881,
is merely a summary of the principal rules of Mr. Wilson’s work. Its
briefness greatly limits its value.
The work, entitled “Punctuation,” of Mr. F. Horace Teall, published
in 1897, is also an admirable handbook, but it gives more space to
spelling than to punctuation. It gives only four pages, very small
ones, to the consideration of the colon; and two of the colon’s
principal uses, discussed at length herein, are not mentioned.
Mr. Theodore L. De Vinne, the founder of the well-known De Vinne Press,
published his “Correct Composition” in 1901. This work is indeed a
treatise, but a treatise on printing, not on punctuation. Its treatment
of punctuation is somewhat iconoclastic, radically so at points. Some
of its rules are excellent, but others are well-nigh incomprehensible.
The University of Chicago Press issued its “Manual of Style” in 1906,
and its “Manual for Writers” in 1913. The latter work is edited by
Professor John Matthews Manly, head of the Department of English in the
University of Chicago, and Mr. John Arthur Powell, of the University of
Chicago Press. These Manuals, in their treatment of punctuation, are
practically identical, and each devotes less than thirty pages to the
subject. Their rules are brief, clear, and comprehensive; but their
inconsistencies in the use of marks are so great as to be exceedingly
puzzling.
The Riverside Press, which for many years maintained the reputation of
being one of the three or four most painstaking printing establishments
in the world, recently issued a small “Handbook of Style,” setting
forth the style in use by that Press; but it also contains many errors
and inconsistencies in punctuation, which lessen its value.
I have assumed, for several reasons, the seeming impropriety of
criticising the above books: (1) they are recognized as the best
authorities on the conventional use of marks, I acknowledge my
indebtedness to them, and I show my appreciation of them by quoting no
others in my discussion of the subject; (2) criticism of usage by any
other class of writers is worthless; (3) my own work, if it will not
stand comparison with the above-named works, has no value, and I invite
such comparison by my specific criticism of some of their examples
which exhibit the fundamental principles of punctuation.
In no work known to me has an attempt been made to show the sense
relations between parts of language with such relations indicated by
marks, themselves differentiated by these sense relations. A single
illustration will serve to show the truth of this broad assertion
concerning the sense relations between groups of words determined by
marks, yet not recognized by writers on punctuation. Practically all
such writers use a comma after _etc._, the comma of course following
the period. The two Manuals of the University of Chicago Press and the
Handbook of The Riverside Press specifically name this as the proper
punctuation. That such punctuation disregards the sense relations
determined by the meaning of language, is proved, I think, beyond
question by illustrative Sentence 7-1 herein.
If my own work is of any value, or possesses any degree of originality,
it is to be found in my efforts to show that the sense relations
between groups of words are a large factor in determining the meaning
of language, and that a mark of punctuation, or even its absence,
sometimes determines a sense relation, and at other times only serves
readily to point it out. Neither the comma in illustrative Sentence
1-1 nor the semicolons in Sentence 7 determine meanings: they simply
suggest them. The absence of commas in Sentence 3, and their presence
in Sentence 3-1, determine meanings.
As the difficulties in punctuation arise largely from the subtle
relations between groups of words into which all language, often the
simplest, is divided, the study of punctuation becomes in reality
the study of language. Upon the importance attached to the clear
understanding and correct use of language, depends the value of
punctuation.
I desire to express my high appreciation of the helpful suggestions
and criticisms made by three friends, each of whom has read the proof
of this work one or more times, bringing to the arduous task large
knowledge of the subtle principles of punctuation and of language. Of
these friends, Mr. W. F. Webster, Principal of the East High School,
Minneapolis, is well known in educational circles as a teacher of
English, as a lecturer, and as the author of a widely used text-book
on composition and literature. Mr. S. R. Winchell, of Chicago, is
likewise well known in educational circles as a high-school and college
teacher, and as the author of several text-books on English and Latin.
Dr. William Davis, of St. Paul, is an unusually critical scholar and a
lover of good English, with an extensive editorial experience.
Minneapolis, Minnesota,
February 1, 1916.
CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
PREFACE v
INTRODUCTION xiii
I THE FUNCTIONS OF MARKS AND HOW PERFORMED 1
REAL AND APPARENT MEANINGS 6
II THE FUNDAMENTAL PURPOSES OF PUNCTUATION—GROUPING 14
THE NAMES OF MARKS 15
THE RELATIVE VALUES OF MARKS 16
PUNCTUATION OF SERIES 21
III MODIFIED PARENTHESIS, EXPLANATORY AND RESTRICTIVE
TERMS, AFTERTHOUGHT, AND APPOSITIVES 30
IV GROUPING DONE BY THE SEMICOLON AND
THE COLON 50
V SOME USES OF THE DASH 74
VI PUNCTUATION BY REASON AND CONVENTION 91
FIRST, SECOND, WHEN, NOW, BECAUSE,
ETC. 94
YES, NO, AGAIN, ETC. 102
VII COMMA, SEMICOLON, COLON, AND PERIOD—THEIR
DIFFERENTIATION 107
COMMA AND SEMICOLON 121
VIII COMMA, DASH, AND PARENTHESES—THEIR
DIFFERENTIATION 131
COMMAS AND PARENTHESES 136
DASHES AND PARENTHESES 137
IX MISCELLANEOUS USES OF MARKS 147
ADJECTIVES BEFORE A NOUN 147
DOUBLE OBJECT 147
A “LONG” SUBJECT 148
DOUBTFUL MODIFIERS 150
INTERMEDIATE RESTRICTIVE GROUPS 152
NOT—BUT 157
O AND OH 159
X CONVENTIONAL USES OF MARKS 163
THE PERIOD 164
THE COLON 169
THE SEMICOLON 171
THE INTERROGATION-POINT 174
THE EXCLAMATION-POINT 174
ELLIPSIS 175
XI QUOTATION-MARKS 177
XII BRACKETS AND PARENTHESES 185
XIII ABBREVIATION AND MISCELLANY 194
FORMS OF ADDRESS 194
FIRM OR CORPORATION NAMES 195
FIGURES 196
TIME OF DAY 196
TEMPERATURE, ETC. 196
BIBLE REFERENCES 199
FOOT-NOTES 199
STAR, DAGGER, ETC. 201
PER CENT, ETC., &C., 4TO, I.E., E.G., etc. 201
THE APOSTROPHE 201
WHEREAS—RESOLVED 202
XIV COMPOUND WORDS 203
XV CLOSE AND OPEN PUNCTUATION 208
PRESS NOTICES OF THE FIRST EDITION 221
INTRODUCTION
I hope my appreciation of the difficulties which beset the student and
teacher of punctuation may justify a suggestion from me as to a good
method in the study of the subject with this book as a guide.
Until one has gained almost complete mastery of the meanings of
marks and of the subtle sense relations between the groups of words
constituting language, he cannot interpret such relations when
indicated by marks or by their omission. The first step, then, for
the student is not to give extended consideration to points discussed
herein which are not readily comprehended by him, but to gain mastery
of the reasons for the use of marks which indicate language relations
that are thoroughly familiar to him. The principles of punctuation,
unlike the principles of mathematics, are not regularly progressive
from the simple to the complex; therefore the student should not
attempt to master consecutively such principles. Let him, rather, read
the entire work carefully, marking with his pencil the illustrative
sentences whose punctuation presents principles which, though new to
him, are still obvious. This course, repeated with special attention to
the marked sentences, will, I am sure, give him a comprehension of the
nice relations in language which may be clearly pointed out by marks of
punctuation based upon reason.
Having in this way gained a fairly complete knowledge of the fine use
of marks, that is, of _close_ punctuation, he will naturally begin
so to frame his own written language that many marks may safely be
omitted, thus gaining mastery of an _open_ punctuation that will not
destroy clearness of expression.
AN ANNOUNCEMENT
I am now engaged in the preparation of a briefer book than this one,
omitting most of the discussion, but retaining the reasons, briefly
stated, for the use of marks. I hope to be able to make the treatment
of the subject, even in a small handbook, so clear that all the
ordinary uses of marks may be readily mastered by one who has not had a
thorough high-school or college training in language.
Always read the preface [and the introduction] to a book. It places
you on vantage-ground, and enables you to survey more completely the
book itself. You frequently also discover the character of the author
from the preface. You see his aims, perhaps his prejudices. You see
the point of view from which he takes his pictures, the rocks and
impediments which he himself beholds, and you steer accordingly.—_Bryan
Waller Procter._
CHAPTER I
THE FUNCTIONS OF MARKS, AND HOW PERFORMED
A mark of punctuation is used because it has a meaning, and serves a
useful, if not an indispensable, purpose in printed language.[1] In
order to serve such purpose, the meaning of the mark must be thoroughly
understood by both the writer and the reader.
The function of marks is twofold:
1. To reveal the _real_ meaning of printed language.
2. To reveal such meaning _at a glance_.
Marks perform this function in three ways:
1. By breaking up apparent groups of words, which readily form
themselves into new groups.
2. By showing the relations between groups.
3. By characterizing a group of words.
Language, both printed and spoken, conveys meaning, not only by the
meanings of the words constituting such language, but by the meanings
of the relations between the words, used singly or in groups. In spoken
language these relations are indicated, at least to a considerable
extent, by pauses and by inflections of the voice; in printed language,
however, we are compelled to use punctuation to indicate them. As
spoken language is generally quite different from written language,
marks of punctuation do not always indicate voice-inflections; but, as
both marks and inflections express the sense relations between groups
of words, they are not infrequently suggestive of each other. For
instance, each of the three end-marks groups words into a sentence, and
tells what kind of a sentence it follows. Let us illustrate this in a
dialogue between a teacher and a pupil:
_Pupil._ John has gone home.
_Teacher._ John has gone home? [or]
_Teacher._ John has gone home!
We call the first sentence a _declarative_ sentence because it
makes a declaration. We call the second, regardless of its form, an
_interrogative_ sentence because it asks a question (interrogates). We
call the third an _exclamatory_ sentence because it expresses surprise
(exclamation).
In the oral conversation between the teacher and the pupil the voice
would readily indicate the meaning of each sentence; but on the printed
page marks of punctuation are necessary to convey the meaning. Thus
each mark in these sentences _characterizes_ the kind of sentence it
follows, and thus reveals the _real_ meaning of the language.
The meanings of these three marks are so plain that they give little
trouble to any reader, even the youngest. Most of the marks that fall
within the sentence should convey meanings quite as plainly and quite
as readily as do these three end-marks. It is the purpose of our
study that they be made to do so, for they are quite as useful as the
end-marks.
Marks are used intelligently only when each mark can give an
intelligent answer to the reader who, meeting it on the printed page,
challenges it with “What do you say to me?” This challenge may be made
the supreme test of the value of any mark of punctuation.
The function of marks can best be shown by a study of their uses in
illustrative examples:[2]
1. Respect the rights of children and their mothers will respect you.
No mark is required in this sentence to reveal its real meaning, for
that is unmistakable; but almost any reader will momentarily mistake
the meaning at the point where it seems to read as if written “the
rights of children and _of_ their mothers.” When the reader discovers
that “the rights of their mothers” are not referred to, he is like a
traveler who has taken the wrong road, and, discovering his mistake,
must retrace his steps.
If a mistake has been made in reading this sentence, the reader must go
back to the point where the mistake was made, and regroup the words.
The process of regrouping the parts of a sentence is both distracting
and tiresome when reading silently, and is very awkward when reading
aloud.
The mistake is a mistake in grouping, that is in making one group of
the words “children and their mothers” when these words are not so
grouped by the meaning of the language.
We call “and” a _conjunction_, that is, a _grouping_ word. It naturally
groups together the two words between which it stands, especially if
they make sense when so grouped. If these words are not to be thus
grouped, the reader will be helped by having notice to this effect at
the point where a wrong grouping may be made. We place a sign-board to
guide a traveler; and one is equally useful to guide a reader. A mark
of punctuation is the reader’s sign-board; and it is _to be read_ for
its _directions_.
As we cannot well discuss at this point in our study the proper mark
to use in Sentence 1 we may select the comma, leaving the reason for
the selection to be considered later. Thus the sentence written with a
sign-board, is as follows:
1-1.[3] Respect the rights of children, and their mothers will
respect you.
The answer to the challenge, “What do you mean?” put by the reader to
the comma in this sentence, would be somewhat like this: “Reader, ‘and’
is not to be followed by a word with the same relation to ‘of’ that
‘children’ sustains to ‘of.’” In other words, “and” does not form the
very simple group of words that it appears to form without the comma:
it forms a new group.
With this notice, the first group is quite automatically formed by the
reader; for the meaning of the language up to this point has been fully
comprehended, and is not to be supplemented by any word in the _and_
relation to “children.”
In a sentence as simple in its grouping as No. 1, the liability
to error is not very great, especially for one who has read much;
nor is the readjustment of the thought, in case such a reader has
made a mistake, very difficult for him. In more complex sentences,
the confusion of ideas becomes more marked, and more difficult of
readjustment even by the experienced reader:
2.... Far beyond this group of beautiful hills fell gradually to the
plain.
The words in the first line of this sentence, as above printed, group
themselves together in a natural manner, forming a definite picture;
but, when the reader reaches the first word in the second line, he
discovers that a subject must be found for “fell,” for he has made a
wrong grouping. It is probable that most readers would read to the end
of the sentence in search of a clue to the proper grouping, then turn
back to the beginning, and regroup the words after a careful study
of their relations. Although the sense is thus easily obtained, the
process of regrouping is distracting.
The trouble arises from the fact that the words in the first line
naturally fall into a group which makes good sense, but not the sense
intended by the writer. A mark (sign-board) is needed to show the
reader that the _natural_ grouping is not the correct grouping. We mean
by the “natural” grouping that grouping which arises from reading the
words in the usual way, thus making “this group of beautiful hills”
the object of “beyond.” In other words, the _natural_ meaning is the
_apparent_ meaning.
When the _apparent_ meaning is not the _real_ meaning, the reader is
momentarily misled,—that is, he gets off the real line of thought, just
as a traveler gets off the right road.
With a sign-board the sentence will read as follows:
2-1. Far beyond, this group of beautiful hills fell gradually to the
plain.
In this detached sentence we do not know the object of “beyond.” It
would, however, be furnished by what preceded it in the context; and
yet the liability to error in reading the complete, unpunctuated
sentence would still exist. Let us supply the context:
2-2. In the morning we saw in the east a group of hills, the crest
of which we reached at noonday. Far beyond, this group of beautiful
hills fell gradually to the plain.
The context furnishes the object of “beyond,” which is “the crest.”
REAL AND APPARENT MEANINGS
Let us examine somewhat more carefully the meanings of “real” and
“apparent,” terms which we have used, and shall continue to use, in our
study.
The _real_ meaning of any group of words is the meaning it
unquestionably conveys to the intelligent reader after careful
examination, if such an examination be required by its complexity. It
is also the meaning the writer presumably desires to convey.
The _apparent_ meaning of such group of words is the meaning it conveys
when read at sight.
The apparent meaning should always be the real meaning. If it is not,
the language needs either recasting or regrouping. Recasting is done by
changing the positions of words or by the use of new words. Regrouping
is done by the use of marks of punctuation, which thus perform their
functions. Each of the three end-marks also determines the character of
the group it follows, as we have already seen.
In Sentences 1 and 2 we obtained the apparent, and _wrong_, meaning
at the first reading; and we obtained the real (right) meaning at the
second reading. Marks, understood by the writer and the reader, give
the reader the real meaning at the first reading, at least when the
marks are used properly.
In each of Sentences 1-1 and 2-1 the mark of punctuation was used to
_disconnect_ words apparently connected. In Sentence 1-1 the apparent
connection was made by a conjunction (and); in Sentence 2-1 it was made
by a preposition (beyond). Thus, in each corrected sentence, the comma
performed the office of _disjunction_; and therefore the comma might
be called a _disjunctive_. When the reader thus disconnects words he
regroups them, and learns, quite automatically, the proper relation
between the new groups.
Let us note carefully that we are not dealing with difficult or obscure
processes, but with processes familiar to the ordinary reader, and
equally familiar to the speaker, this grouping being done in speaking,
as already stated, by inflections of the voice and by pauses, which are
understood by very young readers.
The relations between words and groups of words are expressed in terms
of grammar; but we shall avoid in our discussion, as far as possible,
the use of technical terms.
In our next sentence no change in grouping is necessary unless we want
to make a complete change in the meaning of the language:
3. The prisoner said the witness was a convicted thief.
The apparent meaning of this sentence is its real meaning, for its
language is capable of only one construction. If, however, the
writer of the sentence wished to convey another meaning, he could
have done so by recasting the sentence or by regrouping it by means
of marks of punctuation. If we put a comma after “prisoner” we
disconnect “prisoner” from “said”; and the comma gives notice to the
reader that new relations for the words “prisoner” and “said” must
be sought. The only other _sense_ relations for the words are found
quite automatically the moment the eye catches the next two words,
which suggest to the reader a new group. When the new group (said the
witness) is complete, the reader automatically cuts it off from what
follows and what precedes. Thus we have, as shown in the following
sentence, a new grouping and a new meaning:
3-1. The prisoner, said the witness, was a convicted thief.
The meaning of voice-changes is understood by children long before the
meaning of marks of punctuation is understood; while the full value of
marks is rarely understood, even by educated and cultured people.
In spoken language the meaning of No. 3 is expressed by a continuous
reading with neither pause nor voice-inflection within the sentence.
The reading of No. 3-1, in order to convey its meaning to another
person, requires quite a different voice process, which may be
represented diagrammatically:
3-2. The prisoner was a convicted thief.
said the witness
An analysis of one’s process of reading silently, that is, to himself,
will show that, in reading No. 3-1, he takes note of the commas and
their meanings (disconnecting and regrouping), just as he takes note,
when reading aloud, of the group depressed (written in a line below) in
No. 3-2.
To obtain the real meaning of this sentence when reading silently, he
reads it _commatically_; to impart the meaning when reading aloud, he
reads it _inflectionally_.
Our next illustrative sentence and its variations are not much unlike
the sentences just considered; but the relations between some of the
words in them are not quite so familiar to young readers:
4. Boys like Henry never fail in school.
The meaning of this sentence is unmistakable, and at no point within
it is a mark of punctuation even suggested; but in a similarly formed
sentence doubt as to the meaning may arise:
4-1. Boys like men may be courageous for principle’s sake.
“Like Henry” in No. 4 suggests some distinguishing quality that Henry
is known to possess,—for instance, _diligence_. Then, “boys like
Henry” means “diligent boys.” But “like men” suggests no particular
qualities ascribed to boys; and therefore, if the term “like men” is
not applicable to or intended for “boys,” we cut it off by commas. Thus
an _apparent_ relation is shown not to be the _real_ relation; and
therefore we must regroup the words, seeking the new meaning through
our knowledge of the meaning of language thus regrouped. The regrouped
sentence will read as follows:
4-2. Boys, like men, may be courageous for principle’s sake.
Regrouping of this kind cannot be automatically made by a writer, or
automatically apprehended by a reader, until the meanings of both the
unpunctuated and the punctuated language are perfectly familiar to
the writer or the reader. One’s familiarity with language need not
be purely technical to make it accurate and thorough; but we cannot
readily discuss the language of our illustrative sentences without
using some technical (grammatical) terms.
“Like men” in No. 4-1 is an adjective, and is in the natural position
of an adjective of this kind. “Like men” in No. 4-2 is an adverb, and
is out of its natural position, thus readily giving rise to a wrong
grouping of the words in the sentence. To prevent such wrong grouping,
commas are used; and they will be used by a writer quite automatically
when the purpose and effect of such use are understood.
The use of most of the marks of punctuation should become as automatic
as is the spelling of most words; but some parts of each art become
automatic only after much study. The similarity between some of the
difficulties presented by the arts of spelling and of punctuation
seems worthy of notice at this point in our discussion. To spell the
word pronounced _pâr_, one must know whether he is to spell the name
of a fruit (pear), two things of a kind (pair), or the act of cutting
(pare). Likewise, to punctuate language one must first know what
relations exist between the parts of language. Every group of words, as
well as every word, sustains some relation to another word or group of
words in the sentence or paragraph. Somewhat exact knowledge of this
relation is possessed by everybody, even by the child just beginning
to talk. It is a part of one’s common sense; but, unfortunately,
many text-books on language, used in the grade school, the high
school, and the college, bury the common-sense knowledge of the pupil
under technicalities that are never mastered. In like manner the
technicalities of punctuation have made the art so difficult that it
may be said to be almost a lost art. We are attempting to rediscover it
through our common sense.
Let the reader challenge the first comma, when he reaches it, in
No. 4-2 with “What do you say?” The answer will be, “Reader, if you
think ‘like men’ is an adjective describing ‘boys,’ as ‘like Henry’
describes ‘boys’ in No. 4, you are mistaken, and you must look for
another meaning.” A like challenge of the second comma, if necessary,
will elicit this answer: “Reader, if you think ‘men’ is the subject of
‘may,’ you are mistaken, and you must look for another meaning.”
That the use of the commas in No. 4-2 is practically the same as their
use in No. 3-1, may also be illustrated diagrammatically:
4-3. Boys may be courageous for principle’s sake.
like men
There is another and very important class of words whose sense relation
is determined by the punctuation we have been considering. We shall
merely touch upon this punctuation at this time, leaving it for fuller
discussion later.
As the context is often necessary to show the real meaning of a word,
we will supply it for our first example.
In response to a request to be excused from school, a teacher informs a
pupil that he may go later. At a later hour the teacher says to him:
5. Now you may go.
The word “now” is here expressive purely of time, and suggests no
other meaning than that obtained at the first reading. The sentence is
another form of “You may go now,” which requires no punctuation other
than the period. The word “now,” as here used, is an adverb expressing
time.
In a similarly formed sentence the office of the word may be quite
different; and, in order to show this fact, the comma is used.
5-1. Now we see we that cannot learn to punctuate until we comprehend
the fundamental principles underlying the relations between groups of
words, as well as the fundamental principles underlying the use of
marks. Now, what are we going to do about it?
In No. 5-1 the first “now” conveys a sufficient idea of time to stand
as an adverb, just as “now” does in No. 5; but the second “now” is
a mere expletive. To show that it does not sustain its _apparent_
relation, the relation of time, to the remainder of the clause, it is
cut off by a comma.
RECAPITULATION
Let us now review and recapitulate the points we have tried to
establish in our study thus far:
1. The meaning of language depends very largely upon the groupings
of its words. In very simple language, words are so placed that each
word is related to a word or words immediately or closely following or
preceding it. In such language the reader is hardly conscious that the
words are grouped, except into sentences; and no mark may be required,
except the end-mark.
2. In more complex language the grouping within the sentence becomes
manifest to the reader, and two constructions and two meanings of
the language often become possible. In order to notify the reader
which meaning the language is intended to convey, the writer may put
a sign-board at the point where the meaning may be mistaken. The
reader reads the sign-board, and thus keeps on the right line of
thought-development.
3. In the sentences thus far studied, except No. 3-1, marks were used
simply to aid the reader to catch the meaning quickly by avoiding a
wrong grouping of words. In No. 3-1 the meaning of the language was
entirely changed by the marks.
[Examples will be found at the end of Chapter II]