COMMA, SEMICOLON, COLON, AND PERIOD
THEIR DIFFERENTIATION
As has already been seen, we determine what mark of punctuation is
helpful at any point in written or printed language by the sense
relation between two groups of words and by the degree of separation
between such groups. The degrees of separation cannot be so accurately
classified that there will not be much apparent and some real
inconsistency in the punctuation of the most careful writer, and much
more in the uses of marks by different writers.
We shall consider these points in this chapter, in order to show (1)
the cause of this inconsistency; (2) how, in some measure, it may be
avoided; and (3) that much of it is wholly immaterial, being not in the
least misleading.
A diagrammatic grouping indicated by the coordinate conjunction _and_,
with or without one of the four principal marks, may help to illustrate
the above points and to differentiate, to some extent, the uses of the
marks:
1. ... and ...
2. ... , and ...
3. ... ; and ...
4. ... : and ...
5. ... . And ...
What does the absence of a mark before “and” in Diagram 1, and what
does each of the marks in the other diagrams, say to the reader, even
before he has seen enough of what follows the conjunction to enable him
to apprehend the probable grouping?
We, of course, know that “and” connects words and groups of words which
are coördinate in sense, and that such groups are often similar in
form. Similarity in form with similarity of relationship in groups of
words makes reading easy; and much attention is given to it by good
writers.
In Diagram 1 “and” stands between two words or groups of words whose
apparent relation is quite unmistakable for their real relation, which
was not the case in Sentence 1, which therefore required a mark of
punctuation. In other words, no mistake can be made, and therefore no
mark is needed. However this diagram may be filled out, “and” joins
words or groups of words into a single group, such new group being
related to some other word or group in the sentence.
Diagram 2 gives notice of a grouping different from that in Diagram 1;
and Diagrams 3, 4, and 5 exhibit still other groupings.
We saw, particularly in Sentences 7, 7-1, and 7-2, a simple grouping
which plainly required another and a larger mark than the comma. We saw
another kind of grouping in other sentences which also unmistakably
required a mark other than the semicolon.
We now come to discuss the basis of differentiating our principal
marks, sometimes at points where the choice of a mark is not always
unmistakable. In some cases the choice is based upon well-defined sense
relations; in other cases it is based upon shades of meaning or upon
degrees of separation not sufficiently sharp to make the choice easy,
especially under _rules_ for punctuation.
Sentence 1-1 is a good illustration of Diagram 2; and yet the apparent
relation between “children” and their “mothers” might so strongly
impress itself upon the mind of an inexperienced reader, especially
if reading the sentence at sight and aloud, that the comma would not
prevent a momentary wrong combination of these words. A semicolon
before the conjunction would prevent the liability to such error, and
probably do so even with the most inexperienced reader. Thus we have
a choice between the comma and the semicolon in Sentence 1; and this
choice rests upon the degree of liability to error, which cannot be
the same with different classes of readers. Liability to error in
grouping is increased by a closeness of _apparent_ relations that
are _wrong_ relations, and also by a reader’s lack of expertness in
grouping language at sight. In view of these facts, we think the use of
a semicolon in Sentence 1 better punctuation than the use of a comma;
but the use of the semicolon in this particular sentence should not be
made to justify a rule requiring a semicolon between every two clauses
connected by a conjunction, or between two clauses so connected, one of
which contains one or more commas.
Our next sentence is taken from an essay, in a high-class magazine, by
the professor of English in a leading eastern university; and this
essay has for its title “Writing English”:
58. The boy must be able to say what he knows, or write what he
knows, or he does not know it.
As written and punctuated, this sentence contains three apparently
coördinate groups of words, the groups being connected by “or,” and the
grouping indicated by commas. It is, however, composed of only two main
groups, the first of the two groups being regrouped into other groups.
Such grouping should always be shown by the punctuation; for, when it
is not so shown, the sentence cannot be read without some distractive
effect upon the reader and, if read aloud, also upon the hearer.
The failure of this sentence to read smoothly, or without distractive
effect, arises from the usual cause: the form of the language leads
the reader to look forward to a mode of development of the sentence
which does not follow,—that is, the _apparent_ mode of development, as
exhibited in the grouping, is not the _real_ mode of development. As
each of the second and third groups is introduced by “or” and preceded
by a comma, the reader is led to look for the same relation between the
second and third groups that exists between the first and second. He is
thus led to expect a group in a series, which does not follow.
The distractive effect of the sentence can be removed in some degree
by writing it in the following form, the added “to” giving the second
group a form similar to that of the first:
58-1. The boy must be able to say or _to_ write what he knows, or he
does not know it.
In this condensed form the sentence lacks, at the point of
condensation, the emphasis of the original; and therefore the sentence
is not so effective in its statement of a truth. If, then, the original
form is preferred, its distractive effect can be removed by the use of
punctuation that properly groups its parts:
58-2. The boy must be able to say what he knows, or write what he
knows; or he does not know it.
The semicolon here _disconnects_ the second group from the third,
giving the third group connection with a larger group, the first and
second combined.
The need of the semicolon in No. 58-2 is not determined by the presence
of the preceding comma, but mainly by the apparent relations of the
groups, such apparent relations being emphasized by the presence of the
second “or,” which makes the three groups appear to be in a series. If
these groups were in a series, the second “or” would connect the second
and third groups. The semicolon at once throws the grouping into two
parts, thus making the second “or” connect all that precedes with all
that follows.
Although the writer of Sentence 58 appears to have placed no value upon
the _like_ formation of the first two groups of this sentence, nor to
have recognized the differentiation of the comma from the semicolon, he
uses both of these devices in a sentence, quite like the above, in the
next paragraph of his essay. It is as follows:
59. It is here that composition is of service to the imagination,
and incidentally to culture; and I should speak more largely of this
service if there were space in this essay to bring forward all the
aspects of college composition.
The need of the semicolon in both Nos. 58 and 59 is, we think,
unmistakable.
The comma in No. 59 has no value for the reader. There is no _apparent_
and _wrong_ meaning here requiring this comma; and it is difficult to
see how any wrong grouping, in the absence of the comma, is likely to
be made by the reader. If this comma were challenged for its meaning we
do not know what answer it could give.
The absence of a comma after “imagination” would give notice to the
reader that what has been said about “imagination” is to be said about
something else in the _and_ relation to “imagination.” The writer,
wishing to qualify the added statement, does so before the statement
is made, thus throwing matter (one word in this case) between what
has preceded and what is to be grouped with “imagination,” as shown
by the absence of a mark before “and.” This makes the qualifying word
a modified parenthesis. Such treatment of the word, indicated by
marks, gives a shade of meaning difficult to express in language. The
difference is, perhaps, in the emphasis gained by the punctuation.
We should write the sentence in the following way:
59-1. It is here that composition is of service to the imagination
and, incidentally, to culture; and I should speak more largely....
Our next sentence, which is taken from a well-known literary paper, is
punctuated so badly that we wonder how it could pass an experienced
proof-reader:
60. Providence made him a waif on London streets and later, a waif on
the ocean, she taught him the feeling of a rope’s end on a naked back.
When the reader reaches “and” in this sentence he needs to be informed
by a mark of punctuation that what immediately follows the conjunction
looks forward, not backward, for its connection. Such notice is always
imperative when the words immediately following the conjunction may
readily be attached by the reader to what precedes, but belong to what
follows. In this sentence “a waif on the ocean” readily becomes the
object of “made”; and even a very careful reader might so connect it,
not discovering his mistake until he reached “she taught him.” “Later”
apparently looks backward to “made”; but its connection is forward.
Properly punctuated the sentence reads as follows:
60-1. Providence made him a waif on London streets; and, later, a
waif on the ocean, she taught him the feeling of a rope’s end on a
naked back.
“Later” takes a comma before it because it is out of its natural order
and also because it is placed in a position where it obstructs the
smoothness of the language. The position of both “later” and “a waif on
the ocean” gives force and beauty to the language; but they entangle,
to a certain extent, the principal words of the sentence, thus
requiring marks of punctuation to point out the proper relation between
such words, as in Sentence 4-2.
Diagram 4 covers the punctuation exemplified in Sentence 6,—that is,
punctuation based upon the rank of the colon.
The use of the colon that is properly differentiated from the uses of
the semicolon and the period, respectively, is the use determined by
its rank. This particular use is exemplified in Sentences 6 and 6-2
and, to some extent, in Sentences 26-3 and 27-1. Writers who ignore the
latter use of the colon—and they are many in number—apparently ignore
the real relations between the parts of a sentence or of a composition;
or, if they themselves see and appreciate such relations, they are
willing to leave them obscurely expressed. It is quite probable that
many writers do not know that marks of punctuation have inherent
meanings which clearly express these relations. The lack of such
knowledge is explained by the almost total absence of any discussion of
the matter in the text-books on punctuation.
Our statement that Sentences 26-3 and 27-1 illustrate only “to some
extent” the rank of the colon among the principal marks, may need
explanation. In Sentences 6 and 6-2 the colon is used because a mark
larger than the semicolon is required to group the parts of each
sentence, one part being subdivided by semicolons. This use is wholly
one of rank, and clearly differentiates the use of the mark. It is
another sense relation of the parts of each of the other sentences
(Nos. 26-3 and 27-1) that requires the colon, and not the presence of a
semicolon in one of the parts. The colon would still be the only mark
with an inherent meaning expressive of the relation between the parts
even if there were no other mark in either sentence. The colon would
still be the proper mark in No. 26-3 if it ended with “old,” and in No.
27-1 if it ended with “evasions.” The relation between the two groups
following the colon in No. 26-3 is the _and_ relation, each group being
an expansion of a picture in the main group,—that is, the first group
(it never grows old) explains “perpetual charm,” and the second group
(it never loses its novelty) explains “singular charm.” In No. 27-1 a
conjunction (but) is present to show the sense relation at that point.
Our next sentence, which is from Balzac, will illustrate the points we
are considering, and also show the difficulties the punctuator meets in
the punctuation of language which he may not change:
61. He was all that a hero should be; he suffered long, and came into
his own, and he has been, in a measure, the world’s ideal of a heroic
man of arms.
According to most rules of punctuation based upon grammatical
relations, this punctuation is correct; according to the principles of
punctuation based upon sense relations, this punctuation is very bad.
The obscurity in the meaning of the language cannot be wholly removed
by punctuation. Two simple statements are made in the sentence, and
are coördinated by the second conjunction (and); but the language is
so grouped by the punctuation as to conceal this fact. We can show the
meaning by a different mode of punctuation, which, however, is not
good punctuation. Such punctuation will show the relation because the
meaning of the marks used is familiar to most readers:
61-1. He was all that a hero should be (he suffered long, and came
into his own); and he has been, in a measure, the world’s idea of a
heroic man of arms.
The parentheses show the relation of the matter so enclosed to what
has preceded; but the matter so set off is not a parenthesis, and
therefore the use of the marks of parenthesis is not good punctuation.
It is true that the matter so set off is explanatory matter; but it is
an expansion of the idea preceding it, and therefore should be preceded
by a colon.
Having determined that a colon is the proper mark after this first
group of words, we must then determine where the second group ends. It
is quite evident that “came into his own” is joined to “suffered long,”
even though _coming into one’s own_ is no part of what constitutes a
hero. We simply accept the words at Balzac’s estimate.
The meaning of the next group, introduced by the second “and,” is
unmistakable; and the group is coordinate in sense, and is connected
by the conjunction, with all that precedes. If the group preceding
the conjunction is subdivided by a colon, even though the colon here
is not used solely because of its rank, it is well to ignore this
technicality, and use a period, thus unmistakably and properly grouping
the language.
This reasoning would give us the following punctuation:
61-2. He was all that a hero should be: he suffered long, and came
into his own. And he has been, in a measure, the world’s ideal of a
heroic man of arms.
The period here connects the second sentence with _all_ of the
preceding sentence, at once disconnecting the second sentence from
the second clause of the first sentence, of which it is made an
unmistakable part in the original sentence (No. 61).
This sentence illustrates the loose grouping common to many of our best
writers; and it also shows that marks of punctuation, if possessing
clearly understood meanings, cannot be adjusted to loose groupings.
If the colon in No. 61-2 were considered like the colon in No. 25, and
thus held subordinate to the semicolon, a semicolon would be preferable
to the period that follows; yet very few readers would grasp such fine
use of a mark in a sentence like No. 61-2.
Our next sentence illustrates a fault that is practically the opposite
of the above; and its punctuation is much more common and even more
distracting. It is the fault of splitting up a sentence, making two
sentences out of one, or of carrying a part of one sentence over into
another sentence, making two incomplete sentences. This fault grows out
of an effort to use short sentences, which some writers think essential
to clearness. It is quite safe to say few sentences are too long if
the relations between their parts can clearly be shown by marks of
punctuation.
We take the sentence from _The Outlook_. It appears in Dr. Abbott’s
“Reminiscences”; and, as Dr. Abbott is noted as an unusually clear and
forceful writer, the sentence, with its context, is of special interest:
62. There were lawyers [in 1853-59] who promoted quarrels to get
fees. But they were the pariahs of the profession. The best lawyers
were peacemakers, and though, of necessity, professional partisans
when engaged in litigation, they were generally honorable partisans.
That the third of the above sentences grows out of the first is clearly
shown by the contrast between the kinds of lawyers mentioned: the
former promoted _quarrels_; the latter were _peacemakers_. Note also
that each class is qualified: the first is qualified by “but they were
the pariahs”; the second by “and were generally honorable partisans.”
The “and,” which introduces a really qualifying clause, might
properly have been “but,” to show that as “peacemakers” these lawyers
surrendered no rights of their clients, _but_ contended for such rights
when necessary to become “professional partisans.”
As the sentences are written, the third sentence does not grow out of
the sentence (the second) preceding it, but out of the first sentence;
and such remoteness of parts standing in the close relation required in
a contrast, is distracting.
We used a period in No. 61-2 because “and” there connects two complete
sentences standing in the _and_ relation to each other. We object to
the use of a period in No. 62 where the conjunction (but) connects two
sentences which are properly only one, and should be so written.
The points we wish to make may be seen by a slight change in the
sentence:
62-1. There were lawyers who promoted quarrels to get fees; but
they were the pariahs of the profession. The best lawyers were
peacemakers; but, when engaged in litigation and it became necessary,
they were professional partisans, though they were generally
honorable partisans.
In order to see more clearly the differentiation between relations that
require the semicolon and those that require the colon, let us study
these relations in two sentences properly punctuated with each of the
two marks:
63. The only true equalizers in the world are books; the only
treasure-house open to all comers is a library; the only wealth which
will not decay is knowledge.
64. Here was a superintendent worth having: when he did not find good
tools, he made them.
Why not use commas or periods in No. 63? Why not use a semicolon in No.
64?
Perhaps we have not made, and cannot make, the differentiation between
the comma and the semicolon sufficiently definite to answer the first
question, especially as the formation of each of the three clauses is
such that the liability to error in reading them is very slight. It
would be rather dogmatic to assert that the use of commas here would
be poor punctuation; yet the degree of separation between the groups
is so marked as to make the relations more like the relations between
groups that we have seen to require a semicolon than like relations
between groups separated by a comma. The degree of separation here
almost approaches the degree that takes the period; and therefore the
semicolon seems much better than the comma.
But why not periods? Two positive answers may be given. The three
clauses constitute one complete idea, and therefore make a sentence.
If set off by periods, thus making three sentences, no fourth sentence
could be formed to follow the third and maintain sentence unity; for
the fourth sentence would necessarily grow out of the third, while its
logical relation would be to the three clauses. Such a fault would be
that seen in Sentence 62.
Why not a semicolon in No. 64? Because, under our classifications and
definitions, the colon, when its use is not determined by its rank, as
it is in Sentence 6, is used to show a relation that is practically
that of apposition, exhibited, in different forms, in Sentences 25
and 26-3. “A good superintendent” is explained by the expanded clause
following the colon, just as “articles” in No. 25 is explained by the
details that follow the colon.
In most sentences like No. 64 the second clause can be tied to the
first by a conjunction (for, as, etc.); but the exact idea is not thus
expressed. While this would sometimes show the sense relation between
the clauses, it would distinctly weaken the force and beauty of the
language, tending to make the second clause a specific, rather than a
general, statement.
The differentiation between the semicolon and the colon in Nos. 63 and
64 is very clear if we recognize the colon as the mark of apposition
or explanation. In No. 63 other clauses are added to the first to add
other thoughts; in No. 64 the added clause repeats the thought of the
first by way of amplification of such thought.
The greatest value of a mark of punctuation lies in its ability to
indicate a meaning that depends upon the relation of one group of words
to another; and so long as language has a literary value, just so
long will the colon be useful as an aid in the expression of thought.
This is illustrated in our next sentence (No. 65), where a semicolon,
instead of the colon, would suggest the _and_ relation, and thus make
havoc of the sense:
65. Ethics has no summons to righteousness: it knows nothing of truth
spiritually discerned.
If a period were used here, instead of the colon, the relation between
the two sentences (clauses formed into sentences by the use of the
period) might easily be taken for the _and_ relation. With such
relation between the clauses, the first clause would make a vague
assertion, which, without an explanation, would convey no definite
meaning.
In our discussion of Sentence 6 we saw that the colon, preceding “but,”
made the _but_ relation extend back over several clauses separated by
semicolons. “But” may begin a sentence, a paragraph, a part of a book,
or even a volume. When beginning any one of such groups, the _but_
relation should be a well-defined sense relation between the groups
so connected. If “but” begins a paragraph, the sense relation must be
between the two paragraphs connected by the conjunction. Such relation
is rarely sustained between long paragraphs; and it does not exist
between sentences nearly so often as it is indicated by the use of the
conjunction and the period.
_But_, _and_, and _for_ are the principal conjunctions thus used,
although others are not infrequently so used.
COMMA AND SEMICOLON
The differentiation of the semicolon from the colon, and the colon
from the period, seems to be so well marked that a choice between
them is rarely difficult to make in the punctuation of language with
proper sense relations between its parts; but the differentiation
between the comma and the semicolon is not so well defined, yet it
is generally very clear in well-written English. Here the choice of a
mark is determined, very largely, by the degree of separation between
the groups. In order further to illustrate this point, let us compare
No. 63 with a sentence which is quite like it, and yet requires only a
comma between its clauses:
66. Experience is fallacious, and judgment difficult.
The first three words of the above form a clause which so completely
expresses a thought that the addition, by means of the “and,” of
another adjective to follow “fallacious,” is hardly suggested. On the
other hand, this degree of completeness might suggest that what is
to follow will be a complete clause so changing the direction of the
thought as to require a semicolon to show the fact of the change. Let
us look at the sentence diagrammatically:
66-1. Experience is fallacious and....
How will this sentence probably continue? This question confronts every
intelligent reader, whether he realizes it or not, when reading the
complete sentence. If the mark before “and,” or the absence of a mark,
conveys to him no information upon this point, he learns only through
a tiresome mental process of ascertaining the correct relation of the
words that follow “and” to the words that precede it. This process
is one of holding in suspense two or more possible combinations. It
is always distractive, and very often ends in a wrong combination.
A semicolon before “and” would suggest that the preceding group of
words is complete in itself, and is to be followed by a complete and
coördinate thought (“and” indicates the coordination) in the proper
sense relation with the group that has preceded. It would at once
preclude the expectation of an adjective coördinate with “fallacious.”
We may complete the sentence thus:
66-2. Experience is fallacious; and therefore it is difficult for us
to form correct judgments based upon experience.
To exhibit at once the sense relation between the two groups of words
in the above (the relation of correct judgment to experience), we
inserted the word “therefore”; to show that “and” is to be followed by
a group grammatically coördinate with what precedes it, and of like
form, we used a semicolon.
If the relation between the groups were closer than the relation
suggested by the semicolon, but not so close as indicated by the
absence of a mark, the comma would logically be the proper mark. It
would suggest neither a word to be grouped with “fallacious” nor a
clause to be grouped with all that precedes “and.” It would suggest
a different development of the sentence. Such development would tie
what follows to a _part_, not to the _whole_, of what precedes; and,
as there are but three words in this sentence preceding the mark, what
follows must be tied to one of them, and not to the whole, as in No.
66-2. Two sentences will serve to illustrate the point:
66-3. Experience is fallacious, and may not safely be depended upon
in the formation of correct judgment.
66-4. Experience is fallacious, and unreliable as a basis of correct
judgment.
In No. 66-3 the comma notifies the reader that another adjective in the
_and_ relation to “fallacious,” is not to follow.
In No. 66-4 the comma is used to confine “as a basis of correct
judgment” to “unreliable,” thus disconnecting it from “fallacious.”
This makes the language say that experience is fallacious _in all
things_, and unreliable _only_ as a basis of correct judgment.
If the reasoning in our discussion on the differentiation of the comma
from the semicolon, be correct, it seems to establish a rule that the
semicolon is the mark of choice between two clauses, whether joined by
a conjunction or not. It is not entirely the length or the character of
the groups of words that determines the choice. The liability to make
wrong combinations, especially such combinations as are suggested by
the apparent meaning of the language, is to be lessened by the mark.
In the absence of a mark in Sentence 1, a momentary wrong combination
is quite unavoidable, because perfectly good sense is made by the wrong
grouping. As a comma before “and” may not give to every reader notice
of the development of the sentence, and as a semicolon could hardly
fail to do so, it would seem to be the better mark.
In neither No. 66-3 nor No. 66-4 can the reader definitely interpret
the meaning of the comma until one or two words following the
conjunction are reached. As the process of determining a relation from
a mark often requires the reader to consider the mark and one or two
words following it, which process becomes almost instantaneous, a comma
may thus convey its purpose as readily as the semicolon in No. 66-2
tells its purpose.
A slight change in the language of Sentence 1 will not change either
the names of the two groups (clauses) or their relation (coordination);
but it will remove the liability, even the possibility, of such wrong
combination as is suggested in Sentence 1:
66-5. Respect the rights of children and you will gain their respect.
In this sentence, a mark before “and” is not really needed as a warning
to the reader not to connect “you” with “children,” thus making “you”
an object of the preposition “of.”
The similarity in form between Nos. 1 and 66-5, with a mark of
punctuation imperative in the first, suggests the use of a mark in
the second. As the comma is here quite sufficient to prevent a wrong
combination by the reader, the comma naturally becomes the mark of
choice; and good convention confirms this choice, while convention not
so good seems to ignore the need of the semicolon in similarly formed
sentences in which the _apparent_ and _wrong_ grouping is much more
marked than in Sentence 1.
Sentences 66 and 66-5 stand at one extreme of the class of sentences in
the punctuation of which we seek to differentiate between the comma and
the semicolon. The relation is made quite unmistakable by the shortness
and completeness of the first group of words, and also by the fact that
the word in each sentence following the conjunction does not suggest,
even in the slightest degree, a connection for itself with anything
that precedes.
Let us consider a sentence at the other extreme, where a wrong
combination is wholly unavoidable without a semicolon, and quite
suggestive with one:
66-6. I do not mean that the people are conscious of this fact; but
that the leaders of the people are conscious of it, I think, there is
no doubt.
In this sentence a semicolon is quite indispensable in order to
disconnect the second group beginning with “that” from “mean,” to which
the preceding similarly formed group, beginning with “that,” belongs.
Between these extremes are many sentences which may take either the
comma or the semicolon without distractive effect. The close punctuator
will generally prefer the semicolon; the open punctuator, the comma.
(For a discussion of close and open punctuation, see Chapter XV.)
The degrees of variation in the relationship between parts of language
are so great that a differentiation between the comma and the semicolon
is at times almost impossible. Fortunately, a quite indiscriminate use
of these two marks in the class of sentences under consideration is not
always misleading or distractive to the reader; but the indiscriminate
use of marks tends to lessen the importance attached by a reader to
punctuation.
EXAMPLES
1. He suffered much, and he also suffered long.
2. Virtue is intolerant of vice, and virtue is just as contagious as
vice ever was.
3. Be the first to say what is self-evident, and you are immortal.
4. In some states the legislatures meet annually, and in others
biennially.
4-1. In some states the legislatures meet annually; in others,
biennially.
5. Want of intellect makes a village an Eden, a college a sty.
In each of the first four examples above the relation between its
groups is indicated by a conjunction; and the grouping is so readily
apparent that the comma serves to show it.
In No. 4-1, in the absence of a conjunction, the semicolon at once
shows that another clause is to follow as in No. 7, below. Such
clause, however, is contracted by the omission of a group of words
common to the two clauses. This omission is indicated by a comma in
the second clause, which also shows that the two words in the group
are not in any grammatical relation to each other.
In the first group of No. 5 we have a double object of the verb
(explained later as requiring no comma), and the object is repeated,
in form, in what follows the comma. The comma may be said to be used
to indicate the omitted verb, or, as in Sentence 1-1, to indicate the
relation.
6. The sentences of Seneca are stimulating to the intellect; the
sentences of Epictetus are fortifying to the character; the sentences
of Marcus Aurelius find their way to the soul.
7. In the world of reality suffering is not a thing to be read or
heard or talked about, but a living truth. Being defied, it maketh for
bitterness; or ignored, for selfishness; or accepted, for wisdom.
8. Venice, it has been said, differs from all other cities in the
sentiment which she inspires. The rest may have admirers; she only, a
famous fair one, counts lovers in her train.
9. Fame is what you have taken,
Character’s what you give;
When to this truth you waken,
Then you begin to live.
10. Homer has not Shakespeare’s variations: Homer always composes
as Shakespeare composes at his best; Homer is always simple and
intelligible, as Shakespeare is often; Homer is never quaint and
antiquated, as Shakespeare is sometimes.
11. There are many beautiful letters in Cary’s “Life of Curtis”; there
is no other so beautiful as that written just after the death of
Lincoln, nor is it possible to read it without a great trembling of the
heart.
12. If there is ever a time to be ambitious, it is not when ambition is
easy, but when it is hard. Fight in darkness; fight when you are down;
die hard, and you won’t die at all.
The comma before “and” in No. 12 divides the _semicolon_ group into
two parts, and does not stand between groups coordinate with the
first and second groups.
“Die hard, and you won’t die at all” is really a bull; and the
incongruity of ideas might well be expressed by a dash before “and.”
13. All association [among people] must be a compromise; and, what is
worse, the very flower and aroma of the flower of each of the beautiful
natures disappears as they approach each other.
14. All religions, even the most conservative and traditional, are in
constant flux, they either advance or decay.
The above sentence is thus punctuated in the Enclycopedia Britannica
and the New Standard Dictionary. We know of no meaning of the comma
that indicates the real sense relation between “in constant flux”
and what follows. Nor is this relation that shown by the colon; for
a thing,—for instance, the ocean,—may be _in constant flux_, and yet
not either _advance_ or _decay_.
The meaning of the language requires “and” after “flux,” preferably
with a semicolon before it.
15. Lily Dyer was a favorite with the village folk; she had just the
qualities to arouse admiration. She was good and handsome and smart.
In the above example the _semicolon_ relation does not exist between
the groups of words (clauses) between which it is placed, for the
second group does not add something to the first to make a complete
thought. Moreover, the third group bears an unmistakable relation to
the second group; and such relation is not the _period_ relation. The
language needs regrouping, to show the sense relations:
15-1. Lily Dyer was a favorite with the village folk. She had just the
qualities to arouse admiration: she was good and handsome and smart.
16. It is a party which is as yet without a name. And what is even
stranger, without a nickname.
No. 16 is a somewhat extreme, though common, result of seeking to
make one’s sentences short. No mark at all is needed, or permissible,
before “and” in such a sentence:
16-1. It is a party without a name and, what is even stranger, without
a nickname.
17. Polemic is always dreary. Devotion always interests. This is
because men are nearly always wrong when they want their own way, and
always partly right when they worship.
As the third sentence in the above example does not grow out of the
sentence preceding it, sentence unity is destroyed; and, besides,
the use of “this” clearly shows reference to a thought expressed in
the _two_ preceding sentences. A semicolon is the proper mark after
“dreary,” to make one sentence of the two, out of which the third
grows.
18. Milton does not paint a finished picture, or play for a mere
passive listener. He sketches, and leaves others to fill up the
outline. He strikes the key-note, and expects his hearers to make out
the melody.
In this example sentence unity is wholly disregarded: the first
picture is put into one sentence, instead of two; the second picture
is put into two sentences, instead of one. Moreover, as the second
picture is but an amplification of the first, both pictures may be
put into one sentence, and should be so put, in accordance with the
punctuation we have discussed.
As now punctuated, the second sentence does not grow out of the
first, but out of the first half of the first; and the third
sentence, instead of growing out of the second, grows out of the
second half of the first, ignoring the second sentence entirely.
Uniting the second and third sentences by a semicolon will improve
the grouping and the punctuation; but making one sentence out of the
three is still better:
18-1. Milton does not paint a finished picture, or play for a mere
passive listener: he sketches, and leaves others to fill up the
outline; he strikes the key-note, and expects his hearers to make out
the melody.
The relations between the groups may be shown in another way; but
such mode of expressing thought is not tolerable:
18-2. Milton does not paint a finished picture (he sketches, and leaves
others to fill up the outline), or play for a mere passive listener (he
strikes the key-note, and expects his hearers to make out the melody).