CHAPTER IV

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.