MODIFIED PARENTHESIS, EXPLANATORY AND RESTRICTIVE TERMS, AFTER-THOUGHT,
AND APPOSITIVES
EXPLANATORY AND RESTRICTIVE MODIFIERS
The Greek grammarians gave the name _parenthesis_ to a group of words
“thrust into” language, either spoken or written, when such words have
no _grammatical_ connection with the language. We retain the word
“parenthesis” to describe such a group, and also as the name of the
curved lines with which the group is enclosed and thus identified.
These lines are called _parenthesis_, _marks of parenthesis_, or
_parentheses_.
Such matter is inserted for explanation or qualification; but it is not
essential to the meaning of the language into which it is thrust, for
matter essential to the meaning would not be so named or so marked.
The parenthesis did the ancient writers a larger service in the
involved style of their composition than it does modern writers;
however, in a modified form, it does the modern writer a very useful
and, at times, an indispensable service.
What we may call a _modified parenthesis_ (modified parenthetical
matter) is found, one or more times, in almost every paragraph.
In order to clarify or explain our adopted term, “modified
parenthesis,” a parenthesis, enclosed in parentheses, was used in the
sentence preceding this one; and, in the same sentence, in order to
qualify, in a somewhat peculiar manner, the expression “is found in
every paragraph,” the modified parenthetical group of words “one or
more times” was inserted. We characterize this parenthesis as _somewhat
peculiar_. In its literal meaning, “one or more times” adds nothing to
the statement in which it appears, for whatever occurs must occur “one
or more times.” It does, however, add a new and perhaps subtle thought
as to the frequency of the occurrence of the parenthesis.
The meanings of these terms, together with the reasons for their
punctuation, will appear as we discuss illustrative examples:
11. The author says (page 5) that he did not go to London.
The words “page 5” were inserted in the above sentence by the writer
himself simply as a matter of direction to the place in the book where
the assertion was made. It has no grammatical connection with any part
of the sentence: it is simply “thrust in”—it is “parenthetical.” We may
modify its strictly parenthetical nature by putting it in another form:
11-1. The author says, on page 5, that he did not go to London.
Here the expression “on page 5” has still the parenthetical nature; but
it is given grammatical connection, by means of the preposition “on,”
to what precedes it. Thus we call it a “modified parenthesis”; or we
may call it “slightly parenthetical” matter. It is obvious that the
expression can be omitted in either No. 11 or No. 11-1 without the
slightest effect upon the meaning of the sentence.
If we omit the commas in No. 11-1, we give the sentence practically a
new meaning; and to complete the meaning a new clause must be added:
11-2. The author says on page 5 that he did not go to London; but he
says on page 6 that he did go to London.
In No. 11-2 the language is used in its natural order; and no mark is
required in either clause, for each group of words has its natural
or logical relation to the group or groups standing next to it. The
meaning is unmistakable. But why was the comma used in No. 11-1 and
not in No. 11-2? Let us note carefully that we are still dealing
with the proper grouping of words and with the relations of group to
group, such relations giving rise to _real_ and _apparent_ meanings.
With the real meaning of such groups as we are now considering fully
understood, we know that a mark is used to change that meaning. Thus,
in the consideration of these sentences, we come back to the principle
exemplified in Sentences 1 and 2. We use the commas in No. 11-1 because
the real meaning of the sentence is not the same as the meaning of the
same language in No. 11-2.
One or two illustrative sentences will lead us, gradually and
logically, to the punctuation of a large class of sentences in which
the groups of words considered have somewhat more definite names than
we have given the same groups in the above sentences.
A thorough comprehension of this punctuation is often indispensable,
that the writer may convey to the reader his exact meaning, which may
depend entirely upon the punctuation,—that is, upon the _absence_ or
the _presence_ of marks:
12. Everywhere in America and England, as well as in Germany, the cry
for peace is heard.
What does the language of No. 12 mean? Clearly, that in every part
(everywhere) of America and in every part of England, as well as
in every part of Germany, the cry for peace is heard. That is the
_apparent_, and it is also the _real_, meaning of the language; but the
writer may have had a different meaning in mind. If he did not wish to
limit the “cry for peace” to America, England, and Germany, he would
have disconnected from “everywhere” these limiting words, writing the
sentence thus:
12-1. Everywhere, in America and England, as well as in Germany, the
cry for peace is heard.
The use of the first comma in this grouping notifies the reader that
a grouping different from the apparent grouping must be made. It also
notifies him that a meaning different from that of No. 12 is to be
conveyed by the new grouping. The second comma readily falls into its
place; and by the same reasoning the third comma is called for.
The two groups are slightly parenthetical; and, treated as one group,
they could be set off by parentheses.
12-2. Everywhere (in America and England, as well as in Germany) the
cry for peace is heard.
They are not _properly_ included in marks of parenthesis, because they
do not constitute a pure parenthesis. They are inserted, not to explain
the word “everywhere,” but for emphasis, being equivalent in meaning
to _even in America_, etc. It will be observed that “everywhere,” as
here used, means in all parts of the world. Nothing can be added to it;
and therefore what the group of words under consideration explains is,
that the word is used in its inclusive and exact meaning. The marks
give a shade of meaning somewhat similar to that given by commas in
setting off “one or more times,” discussed above.
It may be noted, in passing, that the middle (the second) comma in No.
12-1 acts with the first comma to form one group and with the third
comma to form another group, thus making the three commas equivalent to
two pairs of commas.
Our next sentence is an exceedingly interesting one. It has been
submitted for interpretation to a number of persons, including
editorial writers, authors, teachers, lawyers, and printers. Not a
single one of them saw the real meaning; and, when the meaning was
pointed out, not one of them could explain why the commas are used.
Moreover, not one of the score or more of text-books on punctuation at
hand gives a satisfactory explanation. The rules of all the books, it
is true, cover the point; but the application of the rules is often so
difficult as to render them valueless.
When understood, the sentence is simplicity itself, and the punctuation
becomes equally simple and very informing.
The sentence (No. 13) is a part of a larger sentence taken from an
essay on “Literature and Education” by Dr. Henry van Dyke, the larger
sentence being one of several directions how to determine the value of
a story:
13. Ask whether the people in the story develop, for better or for
worse.
Let us suggest that the reader study the sentence before proceeding
with our discussion of it. Let him put the sentence in the form of a
question, and apply it to any story he has recently read. What two
answers could be given to the question if applied to two stories
requiring different answers?
Now let us ask why the comma is used. The answer is simple, for
in our study of marks we have had only _one_ reason for using the
comma,—namely, to show that an _apparent_ meaning is not the _real_
meaning. If this is the reason for the use of the comma, the reason
will be exemplified by a study of the sentence without the comma:
13-1. Ask whether the people in the story develop for better or for
worse.
If the meaning of each sentence is not yet clear, let us consider the
group of words following the comma in No. 13 as slightly parenthetical
(a modified parenthesis). We may go a step further, and treat them as
purely parenthetical, putting them in marks of parenthesis and putting
the sentence in the interrogative form:
13-2. Do the people in the story develop (for better or for worse)?
Manifestly, the only answer is _yes_ or _no_.
Why did Dr. van Dyke add these slightly parenthetical and apparently
superfluous words (for better or for worse) to his sentence? He added
them, primarily, because he knew some, perhaps many, readers might
think “develop” means only growth upward (for better), while it is
just as essential for the novelist to depict characters that “develop”
_downward_ (for worse) as _upward_.
But what does No. 13-1 mean? If put in the form of a question, what
answer can be given? Only “for better” or “for worse.” This changes
the meaning of the language. The first sentence (No. 13) asks whether
the people in the story are static or dynamic; the second (No. 13-1)
assumes that they are dynamic (they develop), and asks in what
direction they develop.
Dr. van Dyke’s entire sentence clearly shows the meaning of the part of
it we have been considering. The sentence is as follows:
13-3. Ask whether the people in the story develop, for better or for
worse, and how far the change is credible and significant.
The groups of words we have been considering in Sentences 11 to 13-3
are either _restrictive_ or _explanatory_ groups, with the functions of
nouns, adjectives, or adverbs, and with the relations that these parts
of speech take in the construction of language.
The meanings of the terms “restrictive” and “explanatory” will appear
as we consider other sentences; and the differentiation in the
punctuation of restrictive and explanatory groups will be plain.
Our next sentence will serve a twofold purpose: first, to show how
difficult it is to punctuate a sentence out of its context; and,
secondly, to show that a sentence may be given two meanings by
punctuation:
14. The boy who is at home is my best pupil.
14-1. The boy, who is at home, is my best pupil.
The person who is thoroughly familiar with the _reasons_ for the use
of marks can interpret these sentences; and he can also construct a
context requiring the commas or their omission. On the other hand, one
not familiar with such reasons could probably do neither.
The value of this knowledge is quite inestimable. Because of ignorance
of it on the part of legislators, our courts have been required to
determine the meanings of municipal, state, and national laws involving
vital social relations and vast financial interests.
Applying the general principles already discussed, we say that the
first comma in No. 14-1 is to show that the relation between “boy” and
“who is my best pupil” is not the same relation that exists between the
same groups in No. 14. But why is this? Let us construct contexts for
the sentences, and then study them in the light of the information thus
obtained.
Suppose a visitor to a school asks the teacher about a certain class,
and the teacher replies as follows:
14-2. The class is composed of six boys. The boy who is at home is my
best pupil.
The group of words “who is at home” is an adjective; and the meaning
of the noun with the qualification made by the adjective may be thus
expressed: _the at-home boy_. In this form the group specifies _what_
boy, and so _restricts_ the boy named as to mean a certain, definite
boy.
We here take the language in its natural order, and obtain a definite
and clearly understood meaning.
Another context will show a different relation. The teacher replies as
follows:
14-3. The class is composed of one boy and five girls. The boy, who
is at home, is my best pupil.
Because of the context, “the boy” needs no identification, no
restrictive words to explain who is meant. The sentence could be
written thus:
14-4. The class is composed of one boy and five girls. The boy (he is
at home) is my best pupil.
In the above sentence the group of words in parentheses _explains_; but
it is not _restrictive_. It tells something about the boy; but it does
not tell _what_ boy, for this information is given in what precedes,
which says there is only one boy. In No. 14-3 this group of words is
slightly changed, and is given grammatical connection by its form, and
thus it becomes only _slightly_ parenthetical.
In Nos. 14 and 14-2 the meaning is not complete without the
_restrictive_ words. In Nos. 14-1, 14-3, and 14-4 these words are
not essential to identify the boy, being added simply by way of
explanation, hence they are called _explanatory_.
In the consideration of the terms _explanatory_ and _restrictive_,
much confusion arises from the fact that a restrictive group may
also be an explanatory group. A purely _explanatory_ group, which
requires commas to set it off, is never a _restrictive_ group. This
confusion can be entirely avoided by calling the groups _restrictive_
and _non-restrictive_. The latter group is set off by commas because
it conveys a different meaning from that of a restrictive group, and
also because it is “slightly parenthetical,” that is, parenthetical in
nature, but with grammatical connection.
Not a few writers use the marks of parenthesis or dashes, instead of
commas, to set off a non-restrictive (explanatory) group; but, as their
writings reveal no differentiation in the uses of these three marks,
their system of punctuation is a wholly hit-or-miss one.
Because of the extent and importance of restrictive and non-restrictive
groups of words, another like illustrative sentence, with its
variations, seems worth while:
15. The committee is composed of women who are not voters.
15-1. The committee is composed of women, who are not voters.
15-2. The committee is composed of men who are not voters.
15-3. The committee is composed of men, who are not voters.
What do these sentences really assert and what meanings do they convey?
Let us consider the answers to this question quite fully, and make them
a test of all restrictive and non-restrictive groups.
No. 15 says the members of the committee are not voters, implying that
other women are voters. The members of the committee might not be
voters because of age, non-residence, etc.
No. 15-1 says all women are not voters,—that is, no women are voters.
The group “who are not voters” is explanatory of women.
No. 15-2 is the same as No. 15.
No. 15-3 is the same as No. 15-1; but, as men enjoy universal political
suffrage, the statement in No. 15-3 is somewhat more striking than that
made in No. 15-1, and therefore we must seek conditions giving sanction
to such an assertion. For instance, a woman’s society might admit men
to honorary membership in the society without the privilege of voting.
If a committee was composed of such men, the statement made in No. 15-3
would be applicable.
Our next three sentences are perhaps more typical of the sentences met
in general reading:
16. In 1826, an edition of this work, designed solely for printers,
was first published.
Mr. Teall quotes the above sentence, among others from books on
punctuation, and says that the commas setting off “designed solely for
printers” should be omitted.
The sentence is from a late edition of Mr. Wilson’s work; and it shows
that author’s discriminating use of marks. The omission of the commas
would entirely change the meaning of the language. The meaning of the
language may be more clearly expressed as follows:
16-1. In 1826, the first edition of this work was published, and was
designed solely for printers.
With the commas omitted the meaning of the sentence would be as follows:
16-2. In 1826, the first edition of this work designed solely for
printers, was published.
Sentences 16 and 16-1 say that the first edition of the work was
published in 1826. Sentence 16, with the commas omitted, as Mr. Teall
says they should be, and Sentence 16-2 say the first _printers’_
edition was published in 1826; and they imply that other editions
not designed solely for printers were previously published. As no
such edition was published, Mr. Teall is in error, and Mr. Wilson’s
punctuation (No. 16) is correct.
Many writers set off such _explanatory_ or _slightly parenthetical_
modifiers by parentheses, as illustrated in Sentence 12-2; other
writers use dashes for this purpose. As we shall show later, neither
mark finds sanction in punctuation by reason.
17. In medicine the anesthetic of choice is chloroform or ether; in
dentistry it is laughing-gas, or nitrous oxide.
The conjunction “or” appears twice in the above sentence. In the first
clause it stands between two words, one of which is excluded when the
other is selected, just as if written “either chloroform or ether.” In
the second clause a new relation between the words is set up. Here the
apparent meaning is not the real meaning.
In this second group the words following “or” are explanatory of the
word preceding “or.” One anesthetic with two names is spoken of. The
comma notifies the reader that the relation in the second group is not
the relation existing in the first,—that is, the apparent relation in
the second group is not the _real_ relation.
Many writers would put “or nitrous oxide” in parentheses. The meaning
would be unmistakable; but the punctuation is not commendable, as we
have already seen. “Nitrous oxide,” without the “or,” could properly be
enclosed in parentheses.
AFTERTHOUGHT
There is a very common use of the comma before “or” which reveals a
nice meaning of language. The punctuation grows out of a writer’s
desire to modify a meaning which he has expressed, frequently, in a
word that is too strong. He follows this word with another in the _or_
relation to the too-strong word. In order to show that the real _or_
relation, as discussed under No. 17, does not exist between the two
words, and that the relation of explanation (slightly parenthetical),
as discussed under No. 11, is the _real_ relation, he applies the
principle of disjunction, exhibited in another form in the discussion
of Sentence 1, and uses the comma.
In our first illustrative sentence (No. 17A) the fact that a word of
milder, not coördinate, meaning is to follow “or,” is indicated both by
the group of words (I should say) and by the modifier (even) preceding
the word in the _or_ relation to “independent.” The comma before “or”
would be required in the absence of either or both of these modifiers,
as shown in Nos. 17A-1 and 17A-2. It is especially needed in No. 17A-2
to distinguish the _real_ from the _apparent_ meaning:
17A. This capital does not make him independent, or, I should say,
even aspiring.
17A-1. This capital does not make him independent, or even aspiring.
17A-2. This capital does not make him independent, or aspiring.
The word or words used in modification of an idea expressed either too
strongly or too weakly, are aptly called an “afterthought”; and such
word or words themselves suggest the parenthetical nature of the added
language.
Our next illustrative sentence shows the use of a word that is too
weak; and therefore the sense requires a stronger word. The sentence
is particularly interesting because it is a type of sentences that are
almost invariably punctuated wrong, even by our best writers:
18. It is a matter of whim, or, worse, of economy.
The word “worse” is introduced to characterize what follows. It is a
short form of “what is worse.” It requires a comma before it to cut it
off from “or,” and a comma after it to cut it off from what follows.
When cut off, the sense relation between “whim” and “economy” is made
unmistakable. But sentences of this type are, as stated above, almost
invariably punctuated wrong; and the sense relations are thus obscured.
The wrong punctuation is as follows:
18-1. It is a matter of whim, or worse, of economy.
In the next illustrative sentence (No. 18A) the new word is simply one
that more nearly expresses the writer’s meaning. The comma before “or”
is clearly required; but why put a comma after “easier”?
18A. It belongs in the lower, or, as it would be better to call it,
the easier, grades of work.
The comma after “easier” acts with the comma before “or” to suspend
what comes between “lower” and “grades,” just as a similar group of
words is suspended in Sentence 3-1.
OR and AND
The relations expressed by “or” and “and” are so nearly identical that
every rule or principle of punctuation requiring a mark before one
of them requires it before the other in similarly formed sentences.
Only an occasional use of “and” expresses a shade of meaning like that
expressed by “or” in the above sentences. For this reason it may be
well to caution the student against the common error of using a comma
before “and” in a sentence formed like No. 18A, but not like it in
meaning:
18A-1. We are not willing to give our sanction to the broad and, when
applied in a case like that at bar, harsh rule of instruction.
APPOSITIVES
A class of words called “appositives” falls under the classification
and reasoning we have been considering; and an example or two will
suffice to show this:
19. The word, eagle, is derived from the Latin.
19-1. The word _eagle_ is derived from the Latin.
In No. 19 “eagle” is used to explain what word, and might very properly
go into the class of words that we have called purely parenthetical. It
seems to be more closely allied to the class of appositives, and thus
takes a grammatical relation which makes it slightly parenthetical, or
explanatory.
In No. 19 “word” is the subject of the sentence; “eagle” shows with
what “word” we are dealing. In No. 19-1 “word” is adjectival in
meaning, and can no more take a comma than can “good” in “good man.”
“Eagle,” as a word, is the subject of the sentence.
19-2. His son John did all the work on the farm.
19-3. His son, John, did all the work on the farm.
In No. 19-2 we are told that _one_ of his sons, named “John,” did the
work. In No. 19-3 we are told that his son, not his daughter nor _one_
of his sons, did the work. “John” is simply explanatory, as is “who is
at home” in No. 14-3.
In Nos. 19 and 19-3 we have language that expresses a different meaning
from that expressed in Nos. 19-1 and 19-2; and therefore we use the
commas to show that the _apparent_ meaning of the two former sentences
is not the _real_ meaning of the two latter.
VOCATIVES
Likewise the so-called vocatives, or words of address, come, though
somewhat indirectly, under this same classification and reasoning:
19B. Ring out, wild bells.
If expressed in full, the sentence would read as follows:
19B-1. Ring ye, wild bells, out.
Here “wild bells” is merely an appositive of the subject, “ye,” which
is understood in No. 19B.
EXAMPLES
1. I shall be there when the train arrives.
1-1. I shall be there at two o’clock, when the train arrives.
2. You will find the word in the index, at the back of the book.
2-1. You will find the word in the index on page 111.
3. He preached his first sermon, in Brooklyn, July 20, 1895.
3-1. He preached his first sermon in Brooklyn July 20, 1895.
4. His creditors wanted to know what resources, in cash and credits, he
had.
4-1. His creditors wanted to know what resources in cash and credits he
had.
5. Were my statements plain? They were, as usual.
6. You will deduct from the deposit, or deposits, the amount due you.
7. At this time my entire force mustered less than 50,000 men, of all
arms.
8. He has affection for all men, whom he knows to be his brothers,
whether they love or hate him.
9. On the Western frontier there was no place for the unemployed, rich
or poor.
10. The injured vessel was able to proceed, under reduced speed, to her
destination.
10-1. The new type of engine will enable vessels to run under high
speed, however great the storm may be.
11. One can never read a book, and like it, or dislike it, and keep the
fact to himself.
12. Many persons are out of work because they are unwilling or unable,
or both, to do the work they can get to do.
13. The central quality of manliness, around which all others must be
built up, is that of a sense of honor.
14. That such a sentiment should ever have been believed, or expressed,
is proof of how prone the human mind is to mistake a coincidence for a
cause.
15. Artemus Ward’s happy saying, that on a certain occasion he tried to
do too much, and did it, exactly fits the program of these men.
16. Architecture is the art which so disposes and adorns the edifices
raised by man, for whatever uses, that the sight of them contributes to
his mental health, power, and pleasure.
17. The ancient Greeks, who were intellectual, and the ancient Romans,
who were warlike, agree upon this point.
18. I leave today on the train for home, where I hope to be, thankful
for a safe journey, on Monday.
19. When our deeds and motives come to be balanced at the last day, let
us hope that mercy, and not justice, may prevail.
20. The physician says the case presents a classical picture of
atrophy, or marasmus.
21. The warning of the ship’s danger came from a whistling buoy, or, as
it is technically called, a siren.
22. The expression “It is worth a Jew’s eye” is proverbial, and
probably dates from the middle ages.
23. You gentlemen must solve this problem.
23-1. You, gentlemen, must solve this problem.
24. The trouble grows less, or ceases altogether, during the winter.
25. We should not forget how confidently and how frequently his failure
was predicted.
25-1. We should not forget how confidently, and how mistakenly, his
failure was predicted.
Why do we use commas in No. 25-1, and not in No. 25? In No. 25,
“confidently” and “frequently” are coördinate in sense, and are
bound together to complete a thought. In No. 25-1 “confidently” and
“mistakenly” are not coördinate in sense, and express quite different
thoughts. “Mistakenly” is an afterthought, a slightly parenthetical
word, and here stands in an _apparent_ relation to another word,
which relation the comma shows is not its real relation.
26. Mr. Smith promises this magazine another article which cannot fail
to be interesting.
26-1. Mr. Smith promises this magazine another article, which cannot
fail to be interesting.
In No. 26 the _kind_ of article to be furnished is described; and an
uninteresting article will not fulfill the promise. In No. 26-1 _any_
article furnished will fulfill the promise; if it is an uninteresting
one, the _prediction_ made as to the kind of article in No. 26-1 has
failed.
27. Every foot of ground from London to Land’s End was examined by him.
27-1. Every foot of England, from John o’Groat’s to Land’s End, was
examined by him.
In No. 27 the ground is defined or _restricted_ by the group of
words that follows London. In No. 27-1 the group of words following
“England” is a mere repetition, one point named being at one end of
England, and the other point at the opposite end. This group of words
is added as an afterthought, and to give a certain degree of emphasis
to the assertion by making its language literal, inclusive, and not
general.
28. After we had dined, or supped, royally, the old lady told me a
story of Alice Brand.
28-1. After we had dined, or supped royally, the old lady told me a
story of Alice Brand.
What difference in meaning does the difference in punctuation give in
the above sentences? And which is the better punctuation?
No. 28 says the meal was a _royal_ one. The word _supped_ is added,
as an afterthought, in order to define the meal as an _evening_ meal,
for the word “dined” signifies to many a _midday_ meal. No. 28-1
defines the meal as worthy to be called a _dinner_, the principle
meal of the day, or a _royal_ supper, that is, a meal far above what
one expects in a mere _supper_.
In No. 28 we “dined royally” or “supped royally”; in No. 28-1 “we
dined” or “we supped royally.”
The punctuation is correct in each example; but the mode of
expressing the meaning conveyed by No. 28-1 is rather fantastic.
29. The defendant, Baker, was a party to the contract.
29-1. Defendant Baker was a party to the contract.
30. The difficulty of defining the word _vulgarity_ precisely, arises
from the fact that, like most vehement and expressive words, it covers
a large variety of meanings, and is tinged with different kinds of
contempt.