THE FUNDAMENTAL PURPOSE OF PUNCTUATION—GROUPING
We endeavored to show in Chapter I that the fundamental purpose of
punctuation is to group by means of marks words whose relations in
the absence of marks would be either easily mistaken or not quickly
apprehended.
When to use a mark, and what mark to use, are determined by _reason_ or
by _convention_.
Some of the _conventions_ that determine a punctuation familiar to most
people, together with some of the problems that confront us in our
study, are exhibited in the punctuation of the following sentence:
5A. Mr. Smith came to the city in 1872, and located at 1872 Wabash
Avenue. He brought with him 1,872 horses, valued at $187,200.00.
How does punctuation enable the reader to obtain the meaning at one
point in the above sentence, and so to group the language (figures) at
another point that he can apprehend the meaning at a glance? Because of
well-nigh universal usage, the above _date_ and _street_ numbers are
read _eighteen hundred seventy-two_; but the same number in the next
sentence is read _one thousand eight hundred seventy-two_. As we all
know, in arithmetical notation three figures form a group, the groups
so formed being named _units_, _thousands_, _millions_, etc. It is
therefore evident that, in reading a number containing two or more such
groups, the eye will be aided if the groups are indicated by some mark.
(We here use the comma and the period for this purpose.) Although the
left-hand group of a number may not be full, a figure in that group
takes the name of the group, and so we mark it off. Thus we use commas
in two of the numbers in our example, one of which (1,872) has only
one figure in the second (thousand) group. This we call punctuation by
reason, for we thus point off natural groups.
We do not use the comma to group the figures in the same number (1872)
used in two other places in the above example. Because date and street
numbers of four figures are read in groups of two figures each the eye
readily does the grouping, and a mark is not needed as an aid in the
grouping. This is also punctuation by reason.
In the fourth number in our example we use a comma to do one grouping,
and a period to make another (the cents) group. We call the use of the
period in this number _conventional_ punctuation.
Many printing-offices do not punctuate a number containing less
than five figures. Such a rule would call for 9999 and 10,000. This
is purely arbitrary punctuation. Our problem is to find, as far as
possible, a reason for the use of every mark, and to point out what
seems to us good conventional usage in punctuation for which we can
find no reason.
THE NAMES OF MARKS
The names of the principal marks were given to them by the Greek
grammarians, the name of each mark being the name of the group of
words with which the mark was used. The group of words which we call a
_sentence_, they called a _period_. They arbitrarily marked its end by
a dot, and called the dot also a “period.” We retain the name of the
mark. They called one of the largest divisions of a sentence a _limb_,
and set it off with a mark called the “kolon,” which means a limb. We
retain the name of the mark in our word colon. The same is true of the
mark we still call a _comma_. The _semicolon_ is a mark of later date;
and, as its name implies, it falls between the comma and the colon in
its character and use.
THE RELATIVE VALUES OF MARKS
We still recognize, at least in large measure, the values given the
marks by the Greek grammarians; and the principle is important in our
study. Thus we say, of the four principal marks the comma indicates
the slightest degree of separation between groups of words within a
sentence; the semicolon indicates the next larger division; and the
colon indicates the largest division. The period separates a full
sentence from the sentence standing next to it; and it is also used
when a sentence stands alone.
We have seen the need of marks in the above illustrative sentences,
and have also seen _where_ the marks were needed; but we had to
_assume_ that the comma was the proper mark to use. We now know the
relative values given the marks by the Greek grammarians. If our
knowledge of language, even though it is not based upon technical
grammar, teaches us that the degree of separation between the groups
of words where we found the need of a mark, was the least degree
requiring a mark, then the comma was the proper mark to use. With this
relative degree of separation in language and the relative value of
the comma intelligently settled, we can assert that we punctuated our
illustrative sentences in Chapter I by _reason_, and not by _rule_. An
apparent exception to the exact truth of this statement is presented
in the punctuation of Sentence 1-1, because the degree of separation
between its parts cannot be exactly fixed. We discuss this point in
Chapters IV and VII.
A sentence exhibiting the relations calling for the use of the four
principal marks will serve to show their relative values, and the
relative degrees of separation between groups of words which the marks
indicate:
6. Athens’ freedom and her power have, for more than twenty
centuries, been annihilated; her people have degenerated into timid
slaves; her language, into a barbarous jargon; her temples have
been given up to the successive depredations of Romans, Turks, and
Scotchmen: but her intellectual empire is imperishable.
Reading this sentence with the knowledge of the comma already gained,
we reach the end of the first fairly complete group of words, where we
meet a semicolon. Let us challenge this mark, or sign-board, for its
meaning. In answer, it says that what is to follow is not to be tied in
the _comma_ relation to what has preceded, as would be the case if the
sentence continued in the following way:
6-1. Athens’ freedom and her power have, for more than twenty
centuries, been annihilated, her people having degenerated through
luxury.
The semicolon, on the contrary, says that the group of words to follow
is of equal rank with the whole group which has preceded the mark; and
it thus shows how the sentence is to develop. The next semicolon in No.
6 says to the reader that a series of semicolon-divided groups is under
way. This makes easy reading up to the colon, which, being followed by
“but,” is to mark the _extent_ of the _but_ relation between what is
to follow and what has preceded. The meaning of the colon, as learned
from its original use, tells the reader that the sentence is divided
into members, or “limbs”; and therefore the _but_ relation here is
between all that precedes and all that is to follow, for these groups
constitute the limbs of the sentence. If what follows the colon was to
be tied to less than all that precedes, the _but_ relation could extend
only to the last semicolon, thus completing this particular group. It
is very evident that the _but_ relation could not terminate in the
midst of language tied together as are the groups preceding “but” in
this sentence; and yet many good writers use the semicolon, instead
of the colon, in sentences like this, probably, however, without
considering what grouping is thus made.
The entire sentence is divided into two groups by the colon, as the
sense relation manifestly requires. If we change the order of the two
larger groups in No. 6, the colon will be the first mark reached by the
reader; and it will give him notice of what is to follow:
6-2. Athens’ intellectual empire is imperishable: but her freedom
and her powers have, for more than twenty centuries, been annihilated
...
Here the colon, if challenged for its meaning, would say that all that
follows it in the sentence is to form one group in the _but_ relation
to all that precedes, with the further information that what follows
is to be divided into groups by semicolons, thus requiring the colon
to divide the sentence into two main parts. A semicolon at this point
would have given another reply, and would not have been followed by
other semicolons.
Probably the beginner in the study of punctuation will not fully
comprehend this discussion of Sentence 6 and its modifications; but the
discussion may throw some additional light on the _disjunctive_ and
_grouping_ office of the four marks, including the period at the end of
the sentence.
We will now consider a sentence in which the grouping, with its
consequent punctuation, is at once very simple and very subtle. It is
subtle because it is based upon the subtle meanings of the language;
and yet it becomes very simple when the language is understood:
7. The following are the names of the Deity and of Jesus Christ:
1. Jehovah, Lord, God Almighty; Creator, Father, Preserver, Governor;
the Supreme Being; the Holy Spirit.
2. The Messiah, the Anointed; the Son, the Savior, the Redeemer; the
Holy One; Prophet, Teacher, Master; Judge of the World.
Commas would be sufficient here to indicate what word or group of words
constitutes a name; but there is additional information in the grouping
of names which the writer desires to convey, and which, perhaps, would
not appear to many readers if attention were not directed to it by
proper grouping, which is done here by semicolons. It will be seen that
the number of names in a group in the above example varies from one to
four.
What information does this grouping convey, and upon what is the
grouping based? The words in the first group are the primary terms for
the Deity (Exodus vi, 2, 3); in the second group, the names of the
Deity which express His relation to man; etc.
The next sentence shows a similar grouping, but a grouping based upon
more familiar and more marked characteristics of the things grouped:
7-1. Among the chief products of Minnesota are the following: wheat,
corn, and oats; potatoes, beets, beans, etc.; butter and cheese;
lumber; iron; etc.
The semicolon grouping here needs no explanation, although the use
of a mark at one point in the sentence may seem at variance with the
punctuation at another point. In the second group a comma is used
before “etc.”; and at the end of the sentence a semicolon precedes
“etc.” The punctuation is consistent with the uses of the two marks in
other parts of the sentence. In the second group the comma says the
_group_ is not complete; and therefore “etc.” stands for unexpressed
items of the group, such, for instance, as _peas_. The last semicolon
indicates to the reader that there are other groups; for instance,
_cattle, sheep, and hogs_ might constitute a group.
Many readers pass over punctuation of this kind; and they do not
understand, or seek to understand, the meaning of such grouping as that
in No. 7, while, because of its simplicity, that in No. 7-1 scarcely
attracts their attention.
In the next sentence the grouping is informing and somewhat striking.
The sentence, with a slight modification, is taken from a U. S. Census
Report:
7-2. I have the honor to transmit herewith statistical tables of
mortality; the insane, feeble-minded, deaf and dumb, and blind;
crime, pauperism, and benevolence; education; churches; foreign-born
population; and manufactures.
The third group in this sentence is particularly striking, for it
suggests the relationship between crime and pauperism, and the
consequent private effort, in the form of benevolence, to deal with a
social condition with which every government must deal.
Thus in Sentence 7-2 the grouping by semicolons imparts information
which might be readily overlooked.
PUNCTUATION OF A SERIES
Sentence 7-2 suggests two uses of the comma to be found in the simplest
sentences, one of which uses we almost take for granted, and the
other is a mooted use. Why do we use the comma between nouns standing
together? and why do we omit it before the first “and,” and use it
before the next “and,” in the second group (the insane, feeble-minded,
deaf and dumb, and blind)?
We answer that each use is based upon the fundamental principle of
punctuation, the principle of _disjunction_, which distinguishes
between the _apparent_ and the _real_ meaning of words or groups of
words standing together.
It may be said, with apparent good reason, that no comma is absolutely
necessary to separate the second and third nouns in such a group as
“wheat, corn, and oats”; and it is quite common practice not to use
a comma before the final “and” in such a group. While this practice
may be correct, it is to be remembered that we are seeking helpful
punctuation, not the absolutely necessary in each instance; and the
most helpful punctuation is that which is most nearly uniform in its
treatment of cases falling into well-defined classes.
As we are now considering what is technically called a _series_, it
is well to consider the value of consistency in the punctuation of a
series. A few examples will illustrate this point:
8. William Henry and James are at school.
The words in the above stand in the natural order and relations to
express thought in almost the simplest form of language. “William” is a
noun sustaining to “Henry” the adjective relation, just as it would do
in the name _William Smith_, even though our grammars give it another
relation. If we do not wish it to stand in this relation and to convey
this meaning, we disconnect the two words by a comma:
8-1. William, Henry and James are at school.
This sentence names three boys; and its meaning is unmistakable at a
glance.
We saw in Sentence 1 the tendency of the reader to combine in one group
words connected by “and,” which is the natural manner of reading.
Because of this fact, notice is to be given by punctuation when “and”
does not connect the words between which it stands, unless notice is
given in another way, as it often is. As Sentence 8-1 is written,
“Henry and James” appears to constitute a group to be followed by other
words in a series, just as is the case in the second group of No. 7-2.
This tendency to wrong grouping will be seen in reading the following
sentence:
8-2. Among the earliest colleges established in America were Yale,
Trinity, William and Mary, and Harvard.
In this sentence one college (William and Mary) is named by a group of
words connected by “and,” this group being followed by another name
also connected by “and” to what precedes. All punctuators admit that
such grouping imperatively demands a comma before the final “and,” for
without the comma the reader could not possibly ascertain from the
language the names of the colleges.
As such grouping is very common, and as the tendency to group together
words connected by “and” is quite natural, the use of the comma
before the final “and” in every series is _helpful_ punctuation. This
punctuation makes the absence of the comma before “and” give notice
that a group of words within, and not at the end of, the series, is
reached. For this reason it is well to make the punctuation of every
series uniform.
This punctuation requires a comma before “and” in No. 8-1:
8-3. William, Henry, and James are at school.
Unless one, in reading aloud, exhibits the grouping by
voice-inflection, his hearers may not comprehend the meaning conveyed
by the grouping. Failure thus to show the grouping in No. 8-2 would
utterly confuse the hearer as to the names of the two colleges
designated by a group of words in which two “ands” appear. This
relation between voice-inflection and punctuation is considered in our
discussion of Sentence 28 and its variations.
A possible and apparent exception to the punctuation exhibited in No.
8-3 may be demanded in the punctuation of a very familiar group of
words, the address line of a speech:
8-4. Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen.
The voice-inflection of almost every speaker who uses these words,
as well as of almost every person who reads them aloud, exhibits a
grouping that inhibits the use of a comma before “and.” In other words,
the people addressed by the speaker are divided into two groups,—the
“president” constituting one group, and “ladies and gentlemen” another.
This grouping is exhibited by the voice-inflection of the speaker or
reader and by the omission of a comma before “and” by the printer.
If, on the other hand, three groups are to be made of the persons
addressed, the voice-inflection and the punctuation (a comma before
“and”) should show the grouping.
In the absence of a comma before “and” in this group, the language of
the group does not constitute what we technically call a “series”; and
therefore the omission of the comma is only an _apparent_ exception to
the punctuation of a series.
We call attention to the punctuation of this group of words because
we find it in the two Manuals issued by the University of Chicago
Press. It is there printed without an explanation of the omission of
the comma, although such omission is contrary to the rule given in
each Manual for the punctuation of a series, while the words appear
in another place in one of the Manuals with a comma before “and.” The
words appear in the Manuals as illustrations of the use of capitals and
italics, and not in connection with punctuation.
It may be well to recall that the relation between any two words
or groups of words in a series is the relation shown by the final
conjunction. If expressed, this conjunction is either “and” or “or”; if
not expressed, it is practically always “and.”
It is a quite common practice to use a comma before the final “and”
in a series requiring semicolons between the preceding groups. This
punctuation often leaves the reader in doubt as to whether the “and”
completes a group or ends the series; therefore the better punctuation
is to use a semicolon before the final “and” in such a series.
The value of grouping is further shown in the following sentence:
9. There are no better cosmetics than temperance and purity, modesty
and humility, a gracious temper and calmness of spirit.
We group the words in this sentence for the same reason that the words
are grouped in Nos. 7, 7-1, and 7-2. It is simply natural grouping
based upon the sense of the language.
How much would be lost in the absence of such grouping may be seen by
breaking up the simple groups in No. 9:
9-1. There are no better cosmetics than temperance, purity, modesty,
humility, a gracious temper, and calmness of spirit.
The punctuation of No. 9-1 is just as correct as that of No. 9; but
it is purely mechanical and not “elegant.” Forceful grouping, with or
without grouping words, requires proper punctuation.
Another quite simple form of this grouping, based upon the sense
relation, is sometimes overlooked by distinguished writers, and even by
authors of text-books on language. The following sentence exhibits both
a correct grouping and a correct sense relation:
10. He is in doubt about the best course for him to pursue; but I am
sure about the best course for me to pursue.
Here the _but_ relation is between _his doubt_ and _my certainty_, as
if written, _He is in doubt; but I am sure_.
A similarly formed sentence may convey a meaning that is clearly not
the meaning the writer wishes to convey:
10-1. He is in doubt about the best course for him to pursue; but I
am sure his doubt will soon disappear.
The _but_ relation in No. 10-1 is not between _his doubt_ and _my
certainty_, as in No. 10. The meaning of No. 10-1 may be expressed
thus: _He is in doubt; but his doubt will soon disappear_. But the
assertion made in the latter part of this statement is too strong,
and requires a modifier. “Probably” would nearly express the meaning
intended to be expressed by the modifier in No. 10-1. If “I am sure” is
preferred as the modifier, its relation to the verb (will disappear)
must be made unmistakable. It is not so made in No. 10-1, for it
appears to be connected by “but” with what precedes it, just as it is
connected with what precedes it in No. 10. To disconnect it, a comma
precedes it; and one follows it to disconnect it from what follows.
The new relations are shown by the following punctuation:
10-2. He is in doubt about the best course for him to pursue; but, I
am sure, his doubt will soon disappear.
Suppose the sentence read as follows, how would it be punctuated?
10-3. He is in doubt about the best course for him to pursue; but I
am sure that his doubt will soon disappear.
This sentence cannot be punctuated. The _but_ relation is here between
incongruous thoughts; and therefore the sentence must be mended, which
can be done by making it like No. 10-2, omitting “that.”
No amount of usage, even among good writers, can justify the absence of
commas in No. 10-1, or the construction of No. 10-3.
The discussion of these sentences emphasizes the necessity for
observing the meaning of language as expressed by its grouping and by
the relation of one group to another.
Additional light will be thrown upon some of the relations already
discussed if we consider them from another viewpoint, as we shall do in
the next chapter.
EXAMPLES
NOTE.—As the principles set forth in Chapters I and II will
be discussed more in detail in succeeding chapters, the following
examples are given as general illustrations:
1. They think as I do.
2. They think, as I do, that you are wrong.
3. Far below, the mill was heard singing merrily.
4. Far below the mill the stream dashed over the precipice.
5. As all will recognize, the methods adopted were wise methods.
6. John is, like his father, a great hunter.
7. Genius finds its own road, and carries its own lamp.
8. He who pursues pleasure only, defeats the object of his creation.
9. Father and son, prince and subject, stranger and citizen, are
correlative terms.
10. While principles may abide, the phenomena in which they appear may
change.
11. He has the equipment to play saint or sinner, devil or angel.
12. To the wise and good, old age presents a scene of tranquil
enjoyment.
13. The people of Miletus are not stupid, but they do the sort of
things that stupid people do.
14. In his successes and his failures, in his greatness and his
littleness, Burns is ever clear, simple, true, and glitters with no
luster but his own.
15. The high-school course includes arithmetic, algebra, and geometry;
grammar and composition; ancient and modern history; geography, natural
history, and astronomy.
16. If Bacon could find time to write Shakespeare, Marlow, and Greene,
I see no reason why he should not have written Ben Johnson, Beaumont
and Fletcher, and the whole Elizabethan drama.
17. Aristophanes, Boccacio, Moliére and Cervantes, Dickens and Mark
Twain, and our weekly comic papers make us laugh anew over the same old
story, told in different accents and in different syntax.
18. With one of his two boys or a friend, and a dog, Tennyson would
walk afield for miles.
19. With one of his two boys, or a friend and a dog, Tennyson would
walk afield for miles.
In No. 18 the comma before “and” cuts “dog” off from “friend,” and
makes a group of “dog” and “one of his two boys or a friend.” It
makes this group simply because the sense permits no other grouping.
Thus the meaning of No. 18 is, that Tennyson was accompanied by a dog
and a person (one of his boys or a friend).
In No. 19 another grouping is made, which says Tennyson was
accompanied by one of his boys or by a friend and a dog.