PUNCTUATION BY REASON AND CONVENTION
We shall discuss in this chapter some uses of marks determined partly
by reason and partly by convention. In a subsequent chapter we shall
take up the purely conventional uses of marks.
Among the commonest uses of marks is that of a comma before the
conjunction _that_ introducing a group of words. Our next two examples
illustrate two classes of sentences in which “that” connects the
parts of each sentence somewhat differently, permitting a difference
in punctuation. As such modes of punctuation are not well settled by
practice, and cannot be determined by reason, the use or omission of
the comma in the second sentence (No. 40) becomes a matter of taste. We
prefer the comma:
39. The court holds that the evidence is material.
40. The truth is, that we very much exaggerate the power of riches.
If it be said that punctuation which is a matter of taste necessarily
becomes inconsistent punctuation, we may reply that some inconsistency
in such punctuation does not in the least affect the value of the
proper use of marks where they have real worth. A discussion of these
seemingly minor points bears this value, that it may show niceties in
grouping overlooked in our discussion of sharply defined groups.
No comma is required after “holds” in No. 39 because there is no
grouping of words in the sentence that requires to be made in order to
show a relation different from the relation that exists in the simplest
form of expression, such, for instance, as the relation of adjective to
noun, noun to verb, verb to object, etc.
In Sentence 40 “that” does not grow out of or coalesce with “is” as
“that” grows out of and coalesces with “holds” in No. 39. The reader
almost invariably pauses after “is” in such relations, as if to group
into a whole what follows, such whole constituting the predicate of the
sentence. The comma serves to show a grouping that is at once natural
and helpful in reading, whether aloud or silently. This relation,
with the need of the grouping, may be shown somewhat more clearly in
a sentence where the use of the comma is quite unquestioned by good
writers:
41. The benefit of a right good book depends upon this, that
its virtues just soak into the mind, and there become a living,
generative force.
Let us note that the relation here marked by a comma is quite
suggestive of two similar relations which we indicated, respectively,
by a colon (Sentence 26-3) and by a comma and dash (Sentence 34). It is
plain that the relation in each of the three sentences (Nos. 26-3, 34,
41) is that of apposition; but it takes a different form in each, and
so we punctuate the three sentences differently, each sentence falling
into a different class.
While the above sentences present no difficulty in their punctuation,
the punctuation of other sentences quite like them seems to be somewhat
puzzling, yet it is based upon reason.
In court decisions the finding or findings generally appear in a
separate paragraph or paragraphs, following a review of the case.
The punctuation here is not entirely uniform; but, although it seems
inconsistent with that of No. 39, it is easily explained:
42. Held, that the evidence is material.
If the decision covers two or more points, it may take this form:
42-1. Held—
1. That the evidence is material.
2. That the lower court did not err in its instructions to the jury.
If there is a reason for the use of a comma after “held” in No. 42, the
same reason seems to require a comma after “held” in No. 42-1, the dash
being used for another purpose, to be considered later. A comma is not
used in No. 42-1, because its omission is the _conventional_ usage.
The punctuation of No. 42 probably follows the mode of reading the
sentence, a decided pause being made after “held,” which would not be
the case in reading No. 39.
It could not be said that a colon after “this” in No. 41 would not be
good punctuation.
As we have said elsewhere, Mr. Wilson’s work is very masterful and
exhaustive, even though exceedingly puzzling; and therefore we feel
justified in drawing frequent lessons from it. We take from it our
next two illustrative sentences, which are so much alike that we
wonder how there can be a difference in their punctuation after the
verb followed by “that”:
43. The writer just quoted says, that “the grammatical pauses, which
are addressed to the eye of the reader, are insufficient for the
speaker, who addresses himself to the understanding ‘through the
porches of the ear.’”
44. Mr. Maglathlin says that “the comma occurs sometimes where there
should be no pause in reading or speaking; nor can the length of
any required stop be inferred with much certainty from the common
stop-mark used.”
We fail to find a rule in Mr. Wilson’s work explaining the use of the
comma before “that” in No. 43. The sentences, however, are taken, not
from Mr. Wilson’s illustrative examples, but from the text of his work;
and therefore the punctuation is more likely a typographical error.
FIRST, SECOND, WHEN, NOW, BECAUSE, ETC.
Writers on punctuation seem to find the use of marks required by such
words as _first_, _second_, _when_, _now_, _because_, etc., very
puzzling; and their rules to determine the punctuation are exceedingly
puzzling to the reader.
This punctuation falls quite readily under the principles of grouping
and relationship exemplified in practically all of our illustrative
sentences considered up to this point. It will be seen that the
difficulty is to determine the actual relation of the word to what
precedes or follows, or to both. Illustrative examples will serve to
solve this difficulty:
45. You ask me, perhaps, even you, who are all charity, why parts of
this book are what they are.
46. You ask me, perhaps even you, who are all charity, why parts of
this book are what they are.
In No. 45 the speaker makes in the first three words a statement
which may be merely an assumption; and, perceiving this fact as the
statement is finished, he wishes to soften the possible severity of his
language. This he does by the insertion of a _slightly_ parenthetical
word (perhaps). Besides having this parenthetical character, “perhaps”
has here also a squinting character (looking both ways),—that is, it
may be intended to qualify what precedes it or what follows it. As it
is entirely cut off by a comma from what follows it, the reader must
determine what it does qualify; and this he readily determines from
his knowledge of language. Of course, it here qualifies the statement
that precedes it. If “perhaps” were placed before “ask,” the meaning
would be unmistakable; but, as the effect of the language would not
be exactly the same, the former mode of expression is necessary, and
demands proper punctuation.
In No. 46 “perhaps” stands in the regular position of a word that
qualifies what immediately follows it, and therefore needs no mark.
The commas in this sentence are used to _suspend_ a group of words,
as diagrammatically illustrated in Sentence 4-3, coming between
words closely connected in sense. The more natural position of this
appositive group of words is immediately after the first “you”; but
even here it would require the commas, because it is an appositive.
They are placed where they are for the same reason that “perhaps” is
placed out of its natural order in No. 45.
47. The word _therefore_ sometimes stands, as an adverb, in the
natural position of an adverb, and therefore requires no mark, at
least after it; it likewise stands, as a conjunction, in the natural
position of a conjunction, and therefore no mark is required after
it; it also sometimes stands, as either part of speech, out of the
regular order of such part of speech, breaking the continuous flow
of the thought, and thus becoming _slightly_ parenthetical and
requiring the marks (commas) used to show this office of the word.
If, therefore, this distinction between the word’s uses be carefully
noted, the punctuation required will not be difficult to learn.
The above sentence will serve to illustrate the punctuation required
by “therefore” and also by its synonyms, which are _accordingly_,
_because_, _hence_, _since_, _thence_, _wherefore_, etc. These
words belong to a large group of words whose punctuation is readily
determined by the sense relations. The word _however_, in its relation
to other parts of the sentence, will serve to emphasize the distinction
between the two uses of many of these words:
48. He was reluctant to discuss the subject. He replied, however, to
all questions put to him, however pointed such questions were.
This sentence may be so formed as to bring the first “however” into the
usual position of the conjunction:
48-1. He was reluctant to discuss the subject; however, he replied to
all questions put to him, however pointed such questions were.
In this form, another word, _but_, _yet_, _although_, or the like,
would be preferred to the first “however.”
The relation indicated by the word _because_ is easily misunderstood,
and therefore often wrongly indicated in the punctuation by the
presence or absence of a mark. The meaning of a sentence may thus be
entirely changed by the punctuation:
49. John did not go to town because his father was absent.
49-1. John did not go to town, because his father was absent.
No. 49 asserts that John went to town, and states that his reason for
going was not his father’s absence. No. 49-1 asserts that John did
_not_ go to town, and that the reason for not going was his father’s
absence. In No. 49 the language is used in its natural order and
without any turn in the thought, which is not complete until the end
of the sentence is reached. In No. 49-1 the same language is made to
give an entirely different meaning by changing the relation between the
two groups of words constituting the sentence. A like change of real
meaning is seen in Sentences 13 and 13-1; and a like change of apparent
meaning is seen in Sentences 1 and 1-1. This principle is clearly
exemplified in Sentences 11-1 and 11-2.
A very important principle of language is involved in this punctuation;
and we should thoroughly comprehend it. In No. 49 the relation
expressed by “not” goes on to the group of words beginning with
“because,” although apparently confined to “go.” In No. 49-1 the
relation is confined entirely to “go.” We find a counterpart of this
form of expression in the use of “only” and similar modifiers. “Only”
is used out of place so generally, often by excellent writers, that we
hesitate to criticize such usage. In the expression, _I only assisted
the boys to work the example_, we are not sure whether the writer means
to say that he _only_ assisted,—that is, did not do all the work; or
that he assisted _only_ the boys,—that is, not the girls; or that he
assisted them _only_ to work the example, and not to explain it.
A careful writer will always avoid such ambiguous expressions, for
it is not easy for the reader to differentiate the meanings in such
sentences as Nos. 49 and 49-1.
Our next two sentences (Nos. 50 and 51) are especially interesting
because of their sources. No. 50 is a part of Mr. Teall’s general
rule (page 1) for the use of the comma; and No. 51 is a sentence from
the text of Mr. Wilson’s work (page 3), quoted by Mr. Teall in the
discussion of his own rule.
We quote No. 50, not to consider it as a rule, but to consider the use
of the comma in its language. No. 51, as it appears in Mr. Wilson’s
work, has a comma before “unless”; and Mr. Teall quotes the sentence to
illustrate an erroneous use of the comma:
50. When there is no break in sense no comma should be used, unless
necessary for clearness of expression.
51. Scarcely can a sentence be perused with satisfaction or interest,
unless pointed with some degree of accuracy.
No. 50, like No. 49-1, is practically completed at the comma, what
follows in each being added as an additional thought. In No. 51 the
language up to the comma is almost meaningless, or, at least, makes an
untrue statement. What follows the comma _restricts_ the assertion to a
definite and true statement, just as what follows the comma in No. 49
_restricts_ the meaning of the assertion made in the language preceding
it. Because of this relation between the parts no comma is used, and
for the reasons already discussed.
Sentences 50 and 51 are not unlike Sentences 13 and 13-1; and therefore
the same reasoning determines their punctuation.
Mr. Wilson’s use of a comma before “unless” in No. 51 is wrong, and is
contrary to one of his own rules.
Such mistakes can be found, probably, in the text-book of every writer
on punctuation. They are generally mere oversights, and should not be
construed as evidence of the writer’s lack of knowledge. It is the
system of a writer which determines the value or lack of value of his
work.
The punctuation between clauses connected by _when_, _where_, and like
connectives, presents difficulties only when an attempt is made to rob
such connectives of their apparent meanings, respectively, of time and
place, as is done by some writers, and perhaps correctly in rare cases.
In each of our next three illustrative sentences the thought of time is
equally manifest; and therefore there is no more need of a comma in one
than in the other:
52. You may fire _when_ you are ready, Gridley.
52-1. You may fire _now_, Gridley.
52-2. You may go _tomorrow_, Gridley.
It is true that “when” may lose, at least in a measure, its sense
of time, and then indicate a somewhat different relation between
the clauses it connects. Mr. Wilson gives the following sentence to
illustrate this point:
53. Refrain not to speak, when by speaking you may be useful to
others.
Here “when” may not refer to time, but may be equivalent to _if_, thus
introducing a condition under which to speak; or it may be equivalent
to _because_, thus giving a reason. Such meaning would make a sentence
very much like No. 49-1.
We find an exact counterpart of No. 53, with similar punctuation, in
the following sentence from the New Testament, Common Version:
53-1. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you.
The same sentence in the Revised Version appears without the comma,
thus giving “when” its full sense of time:
53-2. Blessed are ye when men shall reproach you.
In Sentence 47 we saw the various uses of the word “therefore”; and in
Sentences 48 and 48-1 we saw the different meanings of “however” with
a change of position. In our next five or six sentences, we shall see
that the meaning to be conveyed determines the relation, this relation
being indicated by the mark of punctuation:
54. Fortunately for me, the work was easy.
54-1. Fortunately, for me the work was easy.
In No. 54 the good fortune (fortunately) is for me, as if the language
read, “It was fortunate for me.” In 54-1 the comma cuts “fortunately”
off from “for me”; and the meaning is thus changed.
If the meaning of No. 54-1 is not perfectly clear to the reader, it may
be made so by a change in the form of the sentence:
54-2. Fortunately, the work was easy for me.
Sentence 54 is not capable of such transposition; and this shows that
the sentences are different in meaning.
Words and groups of words like this and in like use are very numerous;
yet practically all of them readily fall into their respective classes,
and are easily punctuated. A change in meaning, however, even without a
change in form, will require different punctuation, although the proper
punctuation is rarely seen. That it is so seems strange in view of the
fact that the meaning logically permits of no other than the obviously
correct punctuation:
55. In conclusion, I wish to say that the evidence does not justify
the verdict.
The relation of “in conclusion” will be clearly seen if we transfer the
term:
55-1. I wish to say, in conclusion, that the evidence does not
justify the verdict.
In each of these sentences “in conclusion” is merely an adverb
equivalent to _finally_. If we make it equivalent to a clause, and
thus prevent its performing the office of an adverb, its relation is
changed, and its new relation will determine the punctuation. Such a
change and such new relation are seen in the next sentence:
55-2. In conclusion: the jury seemed unable to comprehend either
the evidence or the charge of the judge; the judge was not entirely
free from prejudice; and the prisoner was unable to obtain important
evidence.
Here “in conclusion” seems to bear no grammatical relation to what
follows. It is, however, the remnant of a clause which bears the
_colon_ relation to what follows; and therefore the colon is used after
it. Such a clause might read thus, “I will state, in conclusion, the
facts in the case.”
YES, NO, AGAIN, ETC.
The words _yes_, _no_, _again_, _to sum up_, _to proceed_, etc., are
often used in this way, and so require the colon:
56. Do you think he will meet the expectations of his friends? Yes:
he has never failed to meet reasonable expectations.
Apparently in the absence of a comprehension of the _colon_ relation
between “yes” or “no” and what follows, even careful punctuators
seem to prefer the semicolon after these words; and, it may be said,
convention thus overrides reason, making the semicolon far more common
than the colon for this punctuation.
The conventional punctuation of the sentence is as follows:
56-1. Do you think he will meet the expectations of his friends? Yes;
he has never failed to meet reasonable expectations.
As marks are used mainly to assist the reader in so grouping words
that their relations may be readily seen, it is apparent that a mark
is not needed when the grouping is unmistakable in its absence. There
is a large class of groups so formed and so connected that a mark
of punctuation between them is superfluous, although used quite in
accordance with our general principle, as exemplified in Sentences 1
and 1-1. The following sentence exhibits such grouping:
57. The author was identified with Maine in blood and spirit and in
the ideals of life.
In this sentence the first “and” clearly connects “blood” and “spirit,”
forming a group governed by the preposition “in.” Because of the
absence of a mark before the second “and,” the reader, in view of what
has been said in our discussion, might expect the word following the
second “and” to have the same sense relation to “spirit” that “spirit”
bears to “blood.” If such relation does not exist, then why should
not a comma be used to notify the reader of the fact, as one was
used in Sentence 1-1? The reason is, that marks are used to prevent
wrong groupings which are easily made because of apparent, but wrong,
relations. When the eye does not need a mark, the mark should be
omitted, even though consistency in punctuation seems to call for it.
It is to be noted that “in blood and spirit” makes in itself a complete
group and a complete picture (the material and the immaterial), thus
practically inhibiting the use of a third coördinate word connected
by “and”; moreover, the word “in” following the second “and” at
once notifies the reader that another _in_ group is to follow the
conjunction. For these reasons there is no liability even to momentary
wrong grouping, and therefore no mark is needed before the second
“and.” This principle may be applied to somewhat long groups, if
similarly formed, even though the words beginning the groups are not
the same. This applies especially to groups formed by the correlative
conjunctions, such as _either—or_, _neither—nor_, etc., the first
conjunction giving notice that its correlative is to introduce a group
bound to the preceding group by the expected complementary conjunction.
If we closely followed the principle exemplified in Sentence 1-1, a
comma would be required before the second “and” in No. 57. Such use
of marks would be very “close” punctuation, which means subservience
to rules based upon an apparent principle. Close punctuation often
becomes confusing by making so many groups of the words in a sentence
that such groups are not readily grasped and properly joined together
by the reader. The same effect is produced by the use of too many short
sentences in a paragraph, for the relations existing between such
sentences is not easily apprehended. Striving after short sentences is
a common fault of many modern writers.
EXAMPLES
1. I shall go unless my orders forbid.
2. We fail to praise the ceaseless ministry of the inanimate world
around us only because its kindness is unobtrusive.
3. We never praise the ceaseless ministry of the great inanimate world
around us, except when we are compelled to invoke its kindness.
4. They are alike in one respect, that each is susceptible of omission.
5. His emotions are divided between contemptuous hatred of those who
are beneath him because they are black, and envious hatred of those who
are above him because they are what he calls “aristocrats”; and we are
not alarmed if he rallies the “crackers” of a state, or even of a group
of states in which the same conditions exist, to his support.
6. No one knew where the boundary line was, because, as we pointed out
long ago, there never was a boundary line.
7. Holmes illustrated, perhaps better than any of that remarkable
circle of poets of whom he was the surviving member, the brightness and
beauty of life in itself.
8. There is no sorrow I have thought more about than this: that one who
aspires to live a higher life than the common should fall from that
serene height into the soul-wasting struggle with worldly annoyances.
The use of the colon in No. 8 follows conventional punctuation; and,
therefore, as many good writers prefer this mode of punctuation, it
is well to know the usage.
9. This, however excellent in its way, is neither scientific nor
rational.
10. This, however, excellent though it be, is neither scientific nor
rational.
11. He lacks all the essentials of a big man.... No, he is not the man
for the place.
12. It is possible, yes, probable, that the work can be done in the
time set for it.
In examples 11 and 12, “no” and “yes” are not used as sentence
words requiring the punctuation of Sentence 56; but they are mere
expletives, introducing something more emphatic than what precedes.
Each takes the punctuation of an expletive, namely, a comma or commas.
13. The man gave many proofs of complete indifference to death, while
he was doing his duty.
14. On the battle-field the man gave many proofs of complete
indifference to death, while at home he seemed almost a coward.
No. 13 is an _Atlantic Monthly_ sentence. As “while” is here
equivalent to _during the time_, the use of the comma, which gives
“while” the adversative meaning exhibited by “while” in No. 14, is
wrong. In No. 14 “while” is almost equivalent to “but,” and here
loses the sense of time.
15. The Lord has blessed thee, since my coming.
No. 15 is a clause from Gen. xxx, 30, punctuated as it appears in
Webster’s New International. As “since” is a preposition, equivalent
in meaning to _during the time subsequent to_, the use of the comma
before it is clearly a typographical error.