GROUPING DONE BY THE SEMICOLON AND THE COLON
Thus far in our discussion we have considered grouping done by commas
only, except incidentally in Sentences 6, 6-2, 7, 7-1, and 7-2. We
shall now consider the application of our fundamental principle to
grouping that requires the semicolon and the colon.
Our first illustrative sentence (No. 20) is from a distinguished
writer, noted for the “infinite care he gives to his diction.” We think
the sentence decidedly distracting:
20. I have an arrangement to do a serial for Harper’s, and a series
of wayside pieces for Scribner’s, Smith illustrating, is on the tapis.
Probably very few persons, in reading the above sentence at sight,
would take notice from the first comma that the sentence is here
divided into two shorter sentences (the grammarians call these
sentence-parts _clauses_). In the absence of such notice, the reader
goes on to “is” before discovering the real relation of the group of
words following “and.” The comma before “and” does not clearly show
that “and” connects the two larger groups of the sentence, and so gives
notice to the reader that the first group, which is one of the clauses,
is complete; nor, in the absence of such notice, is the reader told
that the words immediately following “and” look forward, instead of
backward, for their completion as a group.
The confusion or uncertainty of grouping is here further increased by
the character of the two groups between which “and” appears to stand.
Each begins with the same word (a), thus making them appear to be
coördinate groups; and each group appears to be the object of “do.”
Perhaps the author would contend that the comma before “and” is
sufficient to give notice of the proper grouping, just as we used a
comma for a somewhat similar grouping in Sentence 1-1. Such contention
would not be without merit; but Sentence 1-1 is much shorter, and
the consequent liability to make the wrong grouping is much less.
Our discussion might thus end in a difference of opinion without
determining the degree of separation requiring a mark of higher rank
than the comma. The discussion could be opened by an admission on our
part that a semicolon in No. 1-1 would be better than the comma; for
its warning of the change of grouping would be unmistakable by any
reader.
Two reasons may be given for the use of the comma in No. 1-1, instead
of the semicolon; and we give them in order to emphasize the fact that
we cannot always have in language one degree of separation that calls
unmistakably for the comma, and another degree that calls unmistakably
for the semicolon. The reasons for the use of the comma in No. 1-1 are
as follows:
1. As the sentence is very short, the eye readily catches the relation
requiring the grouping that carries “their mothers” forward for its
connection, instead of backward to “children.”
2. The use of a semicolon in this sentence might seem to justify a rule
requiring a semicolon in every sentence composed of two clauses, while
convention hardly justifies such punctuation. On the other hand, if we
prefer the use of the semicolon in No. 1-1, under what conditions would
the comma be preferred? If what immediately follows the conjunction
between any two clauses, especially short ones, does not suggest
connection with what precedes, a comma before the conjunction gives
sufficient notice of the grouping of the language into two clauses.
Thus we have forced upon us, at least apparently, the necessity of
making choice in many sentences between the comma and the semicolon.
The problem is further complicated by the need of the different classes
of readers for whom the marks in language are used, and still further
by convention.
The proper punctuation of No. 20 is as follows:
20-1. I have an arrangement to do a serial for Harper’s; and a series
of wayside pieces for Scribner’s, Smith illustrating, is on the tapis.
Our next sentence is particularly interesting because of its character
and its source. It is from a book by a distinguished literary man, who
is the professor of English in one of our leading universities and the
author of a text-book on English composition. The book from which the
sentence is taken was printed at The Riverside Press, which has long
been considered by many to be the best printing-office in the world:
21. The deliberate good sense with which Franklin treated matters
of religion and morality, he displayed equally in his scientific
writings; and, a little later, in his public documents and
correspondence,[4] which made him as eminent in diplomacy and
statecraft as he had earlier been in science and in local affairs.
In No. 20-1 we use a semicolon expressly to show that what immediately
follows the mark looks forward for its connection; and, it seems to
us, the semicolon in No. 21 cannot fail to give to any reader, with
or without much knowledge of marks, notice that a complete new group,
and not an additional part of the preceding group, is to follow the
semicolon. If the reader is looking forward for a new group (a clause),
the ending of the sentence gives him a surprise, and compels him to
read over the entire sentence to make the proper grouping.
It is difficult to say just what notice a comma before “and” in
Sentence 21 would give most readers. Let us so punctuate it, and
challenge the comma. What will its answer be? This, of course, is a
question that the reader puts to himself, testing his own knowledge
of the marks. In the light of our discussion of Sentence 1, the comma
might seem to say that “and” does not connect “writings” with some
noun to follow. We shall see, later in our discussion, that a comma
may be necessary in a grouping almost like this; but in this sentence
the reader has another aid, in fact two others, thus making the comma
unnecessary, if not objectionable. The word “equally,” which comes
before “in his scientific writings,” raises the expectation of a
similar group to follow and to be introduced by a suitable connecting
word. As “and” is such a word, the absence of a mark of punctuation
before it at once suggests that a like group is to follow. The second
aid to the reader in the process of grouping is the word “in,” which
introduces each of the groups connected by “and,” and identifies the
second group as the coördinate of the first.
We punctuate to aid the reader quickly to grasp _through the eye_ the
groupings of printed language, and to enable him to determine the
relations between the groups thus formed. When a mark is not needed for
this purpose, it may be omitted.
If we say _the man is in a bad state of mind and in an equally bad
state of body_, the eye catches the words “and” and “in,” at the end
of the line, practically at the same instant. The “in” tells of the
grouping so distinctly that a comma is not needed to inform the reader
that no word follows “and” to be connected by it to “mind.” Therefore
we say, when groups are so similarly formed that the word following the
conjunction gives ample notice of the grouping, a comma is not needed.
We shall consider this point more fully in another place.
By a slight change in the wording of No. 21, we get a counterpart of
the illustrative grouping just given:
21-1. He displayed good judgment in his scientific writings and in
his public documents.
The grouping here is so unmistakable as to make a comma before “and”
quite objectionable. It is unmistakable because of the like formation
of the groups, and also because of the absence of any word after “and”
that suggests a wrong relation to what precedes.
Now, if we do introduce a word or two between “and” and “in,” and such
words do not suggest relation to what precedes, we may still omit the
comma before “and.” This reasoning, with that above, suggests the best
punctuation of No. 21, which is as follows:
21-2. The deliberate good sense with which Franklin treated
matters of religion and morality, he displayed equally in his
scientific writings and, a little later, in his public documents and
correspondence, which made him as eminent in diplomacy and statecraft
as he had earlier been in science and local affairs.
Thus we find no need of any mark before “and” in this sentence, where a
painstaking writer uses a semicolon.
As “and,” even in No. 21-1, does not connect “writings” with
“documents,” but connects the two groups of words beginning with “in,”
the adjective clause in No. 21-2 beginning with “which” can hardly go
over into the first group, and there find a noun which it may seem to
modify.
To illustrate how puzzling a rule may be, and how wrong, we quote the
following rule from Mr. Wilson’s work (page 113):
_When a sentence consists of three or more clauses, united by a
conjunction, none of which are susceptible of division, a semicolon
should be put between those_ _which are least connected in sense, and
a comma only between the others._
To illustrate this rule, the following sentence is given in Mr.
Wilson’s book (the italics are ours):
22. The woods may disappear, _but_ the spirit of them never will now;
_for_ it has been felt by a poet, _and_ we can feel for ever[5] what
he felt.
Does the punctuation indicate the real sense relations in this
sentence? We think not. The semicolon before “for” divides the sentence
into two parts; but what follows the semicolon is clearly not in the
_for_ relation with all that precedes it, as it should be if the
sentence is divided into two parts at this point. The sense relation
expressed by “for” is unmistakably between all that follows it and what
precedes it back to “but.”
The real division of the sentence into two parts is made at “but,” as
shown in the following:
22-1. The woods may disappear, but the spirit of them never will now.
Expanding the above, to emphasize the relations, but still maintaining
the sense of No. 22, we get the following:
22-2. The woods may disappear, for they are material and will decay;
but the spirit of them never will now, for it has been felt by a poet
and we can feel forever what he felt.
In No. 22-2 we added a commonplace modifier to the first statement in
the sentence, in order to exhibit more clearly the similar relation
between two like groups in the second part of the sentence, which take
a semicolon in the quoted sentence (No. 22).
Punctuated so as to show the real sense relations, the sentence reads
as follows:
22-3. The woods may disappear: but the spirit of them never will now;
for it has been felt by a poet, and we can feel forever what he felt.
A thorough comprehension of the groupings in these sentences, which
is based upon sense relations, will illuminate the punctuation
already discussed. It will also explain some apparent, if not real,
inconsistencies that are inevitable in dealing with marks to express
indefinite degrees of relation.
Sentence 1 is composed of two clauses connected by a conjunction, as
is also Sentence 22-1. The liability to error in grouping Sentence 1
may be sufficient to require a semicolon; but the grouping in Sentence
22-1 is so unmistakable that a comma is sufficient to give notice of a
change in the direction of the thought. In Sentence 21 the semicolon
gives notice of a grouping which does not follow. In Sentence 22 the
grouping by punctuation does not follow the meaning of the language,
and is therefore wrong.
Wrong grouping is perhaps most common in sentences containing groups
requiring coördinate conjunctions, such as “and” and “but.” Quite often
such sentences cannot be so punctuated as to show the correct grouping
by the marks. The following sentence is an example:
23. The Society has expelled two of its members for unprofessional
conduct, and has investigated complaints against two other members,
but it has been unable to obtain enough evidence to convict them.
This is not bad punctuation, for it conveys the meaning, which,
however, is not difficult to obtain; but it is not good punctuation,
for the marks do not group the words in accordance with the sense
relations that exist between the groups.
If the sentence were divided into two parts by “but,” the _but_
relation would exist between what follows and _each_ of the groups
of words coördinated by the conjunction “and.” Thus we would say,
“The Society has expelled four of its members for unprofessional
conduct, but _has been unable to obtain enough evidence to convict
them_.” As this relation does not make sense, we know that the “but”
relation exists between what follows it and what precedes it back to
“and.” As the _but_ relation does not extend beyond “and,” this fact
should be shown by the mark, thus requiring a larger mark (semicolon)
before “and.” But a semicolon before “and” would separate two closely
connected groups (predicates),—“has expelled” and “has investigated.”
It would also connect the second group with the third, making one
larger group in the _and_ relation with the first.
As the sense relations here require a grouping inconsistent with the
grammatical relations, a change in the language becomes necessary
before it can be properly punctuated:
23-1. The Society has expelled two of its members for unprofessional
conduct; and _it_ has investigated complaints against two other
members, but has been unable to obtain enough evidence to convict
them.
The insertion of “it” (a new subject) after “and,” and its omission
after “but,” with the proper use of the semicolon, make clear the two
things done by the Society, and make this clear by the proper grouping
of words to show the unmistakable thought-grouping.
If we are required to punctuate language which we are not permitted to
change, our punctuation may have to depart from our system, whether
established by rule or by reason. A study of such punctuation will
lead to a nice discrimination in both marks and relations. Our next
sentence, with its different modes of punctuation, will illustrate the
point. The sentence is given in three forms: (1) as it appeared in a
literary journal; (2) as it is printed in the Common Version of the New
Testament (2 Timothy i, 16); and (3) as it is printed in the Revised
Version. We shall, however, not follow its division into two verses, as
it appears in the Common Version of the Bible:
24. The Lord give mercy unto the house of Onesiphorus; for he oft
refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain; but, when he was in
Rome, he sought me out diligently, and found me.
24-1. The Lord give mercy unto the house of Onesiphorus; for he oft
refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain: but, when he was in
Rome, he sought me out very diligently, and found me.
24-2. The Lord grant mercy unto the house of Onesiphorus: for he oft
refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain; but, when he was in
Rome, he sought me out diligently, and found me.
In each of these three sentences the punctuation divides the language
into three larger groups of words, two of which are subdivided by
commas. In the second and third a colon indicates a second grouping
of each sentence into two main parts, but not at the same point. If
the semicolons and the colons were challenged for their meanings, the
answers would show an interesting variety of grouping of words, as
well as a variety of sense relations. Such a variety of punctuation is
common only because the actual significance of marks, in their grouping
and relational effects, has not been considered.
These sentences present the same problem, though somewhat further
complicated, that was presented by Nos. 22 and 23. We have only to
ask ourselves how far the _but_, _for_, and _and_ relations extend.
Do the marks so group the words as to indicate the sense relations by
the grouping? Of course they do not, as is shown by the difference in
the groupings. In No. 24 neither semicolon shows how far the _for_ or
the _but_ relation extends; and therefore neither mark is an efficient
sign-board. If challenged for a meaning, neither could give the reader
an intelligent answer.
In each of Nos. 24-1 and 24-2 the colon makes another grouping,
dividing each sentence into two still larger groups. Here each mark
would give a definite answer to a challenge; but both answers could not
be correct. The sentence is unmistakably divided into two parts, the
first part ending with “Onesiphorus.” Mercy is sought for him because
of what he did; and what he did is specified in the language that
follows “for.” The extent of the _for_ relation, therefore, must be
shown by the mark. A colon will clearly show that it goes to the end of
the sentence, as a like relation was shown by the colon in No. 6-2.
We now have to deal with the proper grouping of all that follows “for”;
but we cannot use a colon for this purpose because, having been used
once, a second colon in the same sentence would confuse the whole
grouping. We thus come to a serious difficulty, which arises out of the
number of groups to be made with the marks (comma and semicolon) left
at our disposal. This difficulty would be even greater in No. 24-2 had
we quoted the sentence in full, the complete verse containing another
clause. In the second of the two larger groups we have an _and_ and
a _but_ relation exactly like the _and_ and _but_ relations in No.
23, which we could not indicate by marks. As we may not change the
language of the sentence under consideration, we must punctuate it with
as little violence to the meanings of marks as possible. Probably the
clearest punctuation of the sentence would be as follows:
24-3. The Lord grant mercy unto the house of Onesiphorus; for he oft
refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain, but, when he was in
Rome, he sought me very diligently, and found me.
As the sentence is thus divided into two main parts, with only commas
in one part, the semicolon is sufficient to mark the larger groups. As
the comma before “but” does not suggest to the reader how far back the
_but_ relation extends, he is left to ascertain it without the aid of a
mark definitely pointing it out.
We do not claim this to be good punctuation, but we think it the best
the sentence will permit. The sentence seems to show the fault of bad
grouping.
If we are ever in doubt as to how far back a relation, indicated or to
be indicated by a mark before the conjunction, extends, we can easily
determine this by forming the relation between the words _apparently_
thus connected. Take, for instance, Sentence 24. The _for_ relation
between “give mercy” and “was not ashamed” is just as evident as the
_for_ relation between “give mercy” and “he oft refreshed me.” We can
say “give mercy, for he oft refreshed me” and “give mercy, for he was
not ashamed.”
Let us attempt to make a like grouping to determine how far back the
_but_ relation extends. It appears to extend to the two preceding
groups, which, being connected by “and” and put between two semicolons,
constitute one group. This would give us “was not ashamed, but sought
me” and[6] “refreshed me, but sought me.” The sense, of course, shows
that the second group is not a proper group.
A writer, as we shall see later, should always guard against using
a conjunction between words or groups of words not bearing to each
other the relation indicated by such conjunction. Much confusion in
punctuation arises from an effort to indicate by the use of marks
relations that are not sense relations, as in the sentences just
considered.
A somewhat different, but even more effective, grouping is shown
by another use of the colon; but, very singularly, practically all
writers on punctuation seem to ignore this use. Before considering it,
we shall take up the colon’s conventional use, which is that of the
“formal” introduction of any matter, such as particulars, a speech, or
a quotation:
25. I purchased the following articles: one dozen pens, one ream of
paper, and one box of envelopes.
25-1. The speaker arose, and addressed the audience as follows:
“The occasion which brings us together,” etc.
25-2. The speaker said: “The occasion which brings us together,” etc.
It is difficult to find a reason for this use of the colon, inasmuch
as what follows the colon in any of the above sentences, is not a
“limb” of the sentence. The relation in No. 25 is clearly that of
apposition; and it is the same in Nos. 25-1 and 25-2. In the latter the
apposition is between some word not expressed, but understood, and what
follows,—for example, “addressed the audience _in language_ such as
follows,” “the speaker said _these things_.”
We have called this the “conventional” use because it has become the
accepted punctuation. We introduce it here in order to show that this
same relation (apposition) governs in a frequent use of this mark which
is not explained by the writers on punctuation.
Before passing to this use of the colon, let us make sure that the
meaning of “formal introduction” is quite clear to us. It means that
the matter following the colon is announced or suggested in a manner
somewhat similar to the announcement made in the words _viz._, _as
follows_, etc. It thus implies that the matter is introduced according
to a _form_. “He said,” followed by a colon, is one of the usual
conventional forms; but _he said that_ is not so considered, and no
mark at all follows “said.”
We use a colon throughout this work at the end of the line preceding an
example if the example illustrates what precedes. This use of the colon
ties the example to what _precedes_. See the colon preceding Sentence
25, above.
It is also to be noted that the colon loses, in this formal and
conventional use, its _relative_ value, that is, its rank above the
comma and the semicolon. Thus it often appears in only one or in both
of the semicolon-divided groups of a sentence:
25-3. In a bill of exchange there are three original parties: drawer,
drawee, and payee; in a promissory note, only two parties: the maker
and the payee.
Here we see that the colons are used to group each one of the two parts
into which the sentence is divided by a _semicolon_. We shall show
later (Sentence 33) what we consider a much better mode of punctuating
such sentences, and thus avoiding the appearance of making the colon
subordinate to the semicolon.
We are here seeking to exhibit the relation of apposition. When words
or groups of words stand in this relation, the second word or group
expresses in another form what is expressed in the first word or group
of words. In No. 25 what follows the colon is the same as “articles,”
which precedes it. If the word “articles” were omitted, the colon would
still be used, “articles” or a like word being understood, as some word
is understood in Nos. 25-1 and 25-2. The same relation is shown in
Sentence 32-2 by means of parentheses.
With this understanding of the relation between groups separated by the
colon, our next illustrative sentence is particularly interesting,
not only because of its character, but because of its source. As
punctuated, it fails to show a nice meaning in language which is quite
easily overlooked in the absence of the proper distinguishing mark;
and it is from a letter by Thomas Bailey Aldrich in reply to one, from
a friend, which he could not decipher. It appears in the foremost
printers’ magazine in the country, a magazine that often discusses the
subject of punctuation:
26. There is a singular and a perpetual charm in a letter of yours;
it never grows old; it never loses its novelty.
The use of two semicolons, dividing this sentence into three clauses,
signifies that these clauses are in like relation to each other,—that
is, that they are coördinate in sense. If the _and_ or the _or_
relation exists between the first and second clauses, it must exist
between the second and third, just as it exists between the three items
named in the second part of No. 25.
A very slight examination of the meaning of the language of this
sentence shows that the clauses are not coördinate in sense, although
such coordination is indicated by the use of the same mark between them.
The relation between the second and third clauses is exhibited in the
following:
26-1. It never grows old; and it never loses its novelty.
We cannot unite the first and second clauses in this way, and retain
the real meaning of the language; nor have we, thus far in our study,
found a meaning of the semicolon that would give the reader notice of
the relation between the first clause of No. 26 and what follows. The
second and third clauses of this sentence are as plainly explanatory
of the first clause as are the items that follow the colon in No. 25
explanatory of “articles.” A change in the wording of the sentence will
show that it is exactly similar in its relation to No. 25:
26-2. Your letter possesses the following singular and perpetual
charms: youthfulness and novelty.
If this relation exists between the principal thought and the detailed
items, then we may indicate it by the colon, thus dividing the sentence
into two groups with the relation of apposition between them:
26-3. There is a singular and a perpetual charm in a letter of yours:
it never grows old; it never loses its novelty.
Let us note how carefully language is used in this sentence: the
letter possesses a _singular_ charm (it never loses its novelty) and a
_perpetual_ charm (it never grows old).
The colon both groups the language and shows the relation (apposition)
between the two main groups. On the other hand, the semicolon in this
sentence stands where the sense relation is the _and_ relation.
It is not quite proper to say that the second and third clauses are
explanatory simply of “charm”: they are explanatory of the entire first
clause, repeating and expanding the thought expressed in that clause,
just as what follows the colon in the sentence we are writing explains
what precedes.
Our next illustrative sentence is from one of Howell’s novels, which
was printed at The Riverside Press. It has the fault of No. 26, and
the added fault of an indefinite _but_ relation:
27. He was not candid; he did not shun concealments and evasions; but
positive lies he had kept from.
The second clause is clearly explanatory of the first; and the
third clause simply modifies the second by showing the degree of
untruthfulness of the man.
With the new meaning of the colon we are now considering, a colon after
“candid” informs the reader of the relation between the main groups of
the sentence:
27-1. He was not candid: he did not shun concealments and evasions;
but positive lies he had kept from.
So far as the mere grouping is concerned, this could be done in Nos. 26
and 27 by a semicolon and a comma in each; but the semicolon would not
inform the reader of the true relation between the two larger groups.
The colon would still be required if the next two groups took a comma,
or even no mark, between them.
We called this relation that of apposition. We might say, somewhat more
specifically, that the second group is an amplification in language to
express an extension of the idea, or to fortify the image, of the first
group. This purpose may also be accomplished by a contrast between the
ideas expressed in the two groups.
The writer on punctuation who says, as do many such writers, that the
colon is an obsolete mark, except in its formal use for enumeration,
does so, we believe, in ignorance of the useful and beautiful purpose
it performs in a very large class of sentences.
EXAMPLES
1. There is purpose in pain; otherwise it were devilish.
2. But not thieves; nor robbers; nor mobs; nor rioters, insurgents, or
rebels.
3. The people’s voice is odd; it is, and it is not, the voice of God.
4. He cared little for poetry; fact, and not fancy, satisfied him.
5. The second Folio, reprinted from the first, was published in 1632;
the third Folio, in 1664; and the fourth, in 1685.
6. Wealth has greatly accumulated; machinery has come to do a large
part of our work; and all sorts of people have more or less leisure on
their hands.
7. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due;
custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.
8. The evils are very real, grave, and widespread; whether a trifle
more or less so than these rough estimates make out, is of small
account.
9. His condition was not toxic; for he had never been a worker in
paints, minerals, or other poisonous substances, and he did not use
alcohol or tobacco.
10. There is no roughness in his manners, although he has certainly not
been brought up to the ways of what is generally known as good society;
and his smile is winning and sweet.
11. His fidelity was unconditional, unobtrusive, uncomplaining; he
was willing to give much and receive little; he consented even to be
forgotten, while he never forgot.
12. “I lived with words,” Mr. Stevenson says; and the result is that
formal excellence to which we have now grown accustomed, but which
dazzled our judgment at the outset.
13. The order leaves only a few hundred places, below those filled by
Presidential appointment and Senatorial confirmation and above the
grade of laborers and scullions, for the politicians to quarrel over.
14. Sin and misery appealed most strongly to Holmes, but he invariably
saw hope; and despair, that stalks through life making a tragedy of the
common event to break the universal heart, had no claim upon his pen.
15. Turner’s studies of Carthage represent the death that attends the
vain pursuit of wealth; his studies of Rome, the death that attends the
vain pursuit of power; his studies of Venice, the death that attends
the vain pursuit of beauty.
16. The Scotchman of the world, the gay puritan, insists upon the few
articles of his belief when he is openly preaching, as in “A Christmas
Sermon”; or covertly preaching, as in “Old Mortality”; or sketching and
traveling, as with a donkey.
17. Ruskin says that in a kindly and well-bred society, if anybody
tries to please them, they try to be pleased; if anybody tries to
astonish them, they have the courtesy to be astonished; if people
become tiresome, they ask somebody to sing or play: but they do not
criticise.
18. Such a household as that of Zacharias and Elizabeth would have all
that was beautiful in the religion of the time: devotion towards God;
a home of affection and purity; reverence towards all that was sacred
in things divine and human; ungrudging, self-denying, loving charity to
the poor; the tenderest regard for the feelings of others, so as not to
raise a blush, nor to wound their hearts; above all, intense faith and
hope in the higher and better future of Israel.
19. I laid me down and slept; I awaked; for the Lord sustained me.
As the _for_ relation is here unmistakable, it should be made so at a
glance in the punctuation by the use of a comma before “for” or by a
colon after “slept.”
20. The cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down
together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
The above is the punctuation of the Common Version of Isaiah xi, 7.
The American Revised Version uses a semicolon instead of the colon,
thus making a series of the three groups of words. We think the
latter poor punctuation, because the first and second groups form
one picture, and the third group forms another. The two pictures are
revealed by the use of the semicolon and the colon; and intelligently
to read the verse aloud requires a shorter pause at the semicolon
than at the colon. The two pictures are clearly indicated by
“feeding” in one group, and “eating” in the other.
21. Virtue and wisdom are an up-hill road, where people do not advance
without some effort; folly and vice, a down-hill path, where it
requires some effort not to advance.
22. The custom of exchanging presents on a certain day in the year is
a fine thing or a foolish thing, as the case may be; an encouragement
to friendliness, or a tribute to fashion; an expression of good nature,
or a bid for favor; an outgoing of generosity, or a guise of greed; a
cheerful old custom, or a futile old farce, according to the spirit and
the form which it takes.
This sentence, from a well-known writer, is poorly punctuated, and
has another fault, which will be revealed by an effort to punctuate
the group of words following “farce” so as to show to what it belongs.
The omission of a comma before the first “or” is proper; the use of
one before each following “or” is unnecessary.
“A fine thing” and “a foolish thing” are general terms, and are
followed by four illustrations in alternative groups,—for instance,
“an encouragement to friendliness” is “a fine thing,” and “a tribute
to fashion” is “a foolish thing.” This sense relation requires a
colon after “be.”
“According to the spirit and the form which it takes” belongs to
each semicolon group following the colon; and, moreover, it is a
mere duplication in sense of “as the case may be.” It is difficult,
by punctuation, unmistakably to separate this group from exclusive
modification of the group it follows, and thus tie it to the four
groups, where it seems to belong.
The substitution of “according to the spirit and the form it takes”
for “as the case may be,” would convey, it seems to us, the author’s
full meaning. With the omission of commas as suggested, this would
give the following:
22-1. The custom of exchanging presents on a certain day in the year
is a fine thing or a foolish thing, according to the spirit and the
form which it takes: an encouragement to friendliness or a tribute to
fashion; an expression of good nature or a bid for favor; an outgoing
of generosity or a guise of greed; a cheerful old custom or a futile
old farce.
23. The philosophical elements of his work are not especially profound
or novel; its descriptive merits are considerable; but its deficiencies
as an orderly and inclusive narrative are, to say the least, perplexing.
The sense relations between the three clauses of the above sentence
are not properly expressed by its conjunctions, “and” (understood)
and “but.” The incongruity of the _and_ relation becomes apparent
upon reading the first and second clauses with “and” between them.
The use of two semicolons in the sentence renders the “but” relation
indeterminate.
The sentence needs to be recast, which may be done as follows:
23-1. The philosophical elements of his work are not especially
profound or novel; and, although its descriptive merits are
considerable, its deficiencies as an orderly and inclusive narrative
are, to say the least, perplexing.
24. Amateurs in literary composition soon acquire the bad habit of
writing carelessly; they spell strange names in two or more different
ways; they form capital letters, and even the small lower-case letters,
so obscurely that one word may be mistaken for another; they have
no clearly defined system, or at least observe none, for the proper
placing of capitals, italic, and the marks of punctuation.
The above sentence is from the preface of what is probably the most
complete work on composition written in recent years. A preceding
sentence contains the statement that our high schools do not
“thoroughly teach the correct expression of thought in writing.”
In view of this charge against our high schools, and because
the sentence under consideration is itself a type of careless
construction, very common among even good writers, the sentence
becomes interesting. It is divided by semicolons into four clauses,
apparently in a series; but an analysis of the meaning of the
language will show that the four clauses do not constitute a series.
Four charges against amateurs are made in the sentence, in brief, as
follows:
1. Writing carelessly.
2. Spelling names differently.
3. Forming letters obscurely.
4. Possessing, or observing, no system in the use of capitals,
italics, and marks of punctuation.
If these four faults form a series, what does “writing carelessly”
mean? To spell a word in different ways, to form letters obscurely,
or to observe no system in the use of capitals, etc., is “writing
carelessly.” In short, the first term of the four is a general
statement, of which the three terms that follow are details. This
fact should be shown by the punctuation.
A colon after the first clause will show its relation to what follows.