CHAPTER VI

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.