CHAPTER VIII

COMMA, DASH, AND PARENTHESES

THEIR DIFFERENTIATION

We know of no writer who has attempted to differentiate the above marks; but some writers have dismissed the subject by saying that these marks are interchangeable. Such a statement, we believe, is merely a confession of failure to comprehend the inherent meanings of the marks, and the need of giving marks definite meanings. The confusion resulting from such failure is, at least at this point, chaos in punctuation and, not infrequently, in the meaning of language so punctuated.

Mr. Garrison,[7] in his able _Atlantic_ article, says: “Dash, comma, and parenthesis have equal title to employment in this sentence of Thackeray’s.” The following is the sentence punctuated in the three ways recognized by Mr. Garrison as correct punctuation:

67. If that theory be, and I have no doubt it is, the right and safe one.

67-1. If that theory be (and I have no doubt it is) the right and safe one.

67-2. If that theory be—and I have no doubt it is—the right and safe one.

Let us first ask why any mark is required before “and” in the sentence, and then what the mark, if used, says to the writer. When the reader reaches the conjunction, two questions at once confront him: First, does “and” connect the words between which it immediately stands? second, does “and” carry the _if_ meaning over to the second group of words? As “and” does not connect the words between which it immediately stands, some mark is suggested; and that mark is the comma, but a comma may not clearly exclude _if_ from the second group. If the _if_ meaning is not to be conveyed, a larger grouping is suggested; and this would call for a semicolon, which would _more widely_ separate parts (subject and predicate) of the whole sentence which should be held together.

The _and_ relation is here what we may call a strained one; in fact, the _and_ relation hardly exists in this sentence.

The punctuation of No. 67-1 is all right if we accept a meaning of the term _parenthesis_ that will cover the group of words we are here dealing with; but the punctuation is wholly wrong if we use marks according to fundamental principles. Both the New International and the New Standard dictionaries give definitions of a parenthesis that are incomplete and misleading. Their definitions are almost identical in their wording, and call a parenthesis, in substance, a group of words inserted, for explanation or qualification, “in a sentence which would be grammatically complete without it.” This definition ignores both the root meaning of the word and the common usage of the parenthesis. It is an excellent definition for an _explanatory_ word or group of words, except a complete explanatory sentence, which we set off by commas, as shown in our discussion of Sentence 11 _et seq._ We do not know what would become, under this definition, of a parenthesis in the form of a complete sentence; for the definition confines the parenthesis to a word or words inserted _in a sentence_.

The Century gives a definition that is based upon the Greek roots of the word _parenthesis_, as well as upon its use by good writers. According to this definition, a parenthesis has _no grammatical_ relation with the language into which it is “put.” (The word _thrust_ would perhaps give a clearer idea of the original.) We “parenthesize” in spoken, as well as in written or printed, language; but in the former we convey the meaning by inflections and pauses, while in the latter we convey the meaning by marks of punctuation.

The use of the conjunction (and) in the sentence under consideration clearly takes the inserted group of words out of the proper definition of a parenthesis; for it puts such words into _grammatical_ connection with what precedes, although the words are quite strongly parenthetical in nature.

Now, having eliminated the comma, the semicolon, and the parentheses as the proper marks for setting off this group of words _thrust_ into the sentence, and still making good sense by their grammatical connection, how shall we punctuate them? It is perfectly evident that this group of words makes a decided _break_ in the thread of the thought, and that they do not have logical or natural connection with what precedes, because the true _and_ relation does not exist between the thoughts, implied or expressed. Such language may be said to be idiomatic and therefore proper; but the group of words is not properly set off in either No. 67 or No. 67-1. As the fundamental use of the dash is to note such a break in language as here occurs, it is the proper mark before “and” in this sentence. In language of this kind it may be said that the writer _dashes_ off the track of his thought for a moment; and therefore the dash is the proper mark to indicate such a break in the continuity of thought.

The second dash is used to close the group in the same way that the second comma of a pair of commas, or the second part of the marks of parenthesis, is used; and this makes the punctuation of No. 67-2 correct punctuation, for it is based upon the fundamental meanings of both the marks and the sense relations of the words.

This careless use of the marks of parenthesis, especially as in No. 67-1, is quite common in some literary periodicals of high standing and in not a few large printing establishments; but, we venture to assert, it is rare among painstaking writers who punctuate their own writings.

Such use of marks utterly prevents a differentiation between commas and parentheses; and this disregard of sense relations finds an exact parallel in a disregard, only too common among careless writers, of such fundamental differences in meanings as exists between the words _vocation_ and _avocation_.

Let us also note that groups of words defined in Chapter III as “slightly parenthetical” do not make any break in the thread of thought, so that Sentence 67 is not at all similar to such sentences as were considered in that connection. In further proof of this statement, let us compare Sentence 67 with Sentence 10-2. If the _and_ relation in No. 67 does not exist between the two groups of words (all that precedes it, and what follows it up to “is”), the group “I have no doubt” should be set off by commas, as is a similar group in Sentence 10-2. This punctuation would make “and” connect “be” and “it is,” which would not make sense.

If it is not now clear that the punctuation of Nos. 67 and 67-1 violates the fundamental principles of the meanings of both marks and sense relations, it may be worth while to consider the subject further.

Mr. Teall does not go quite so far as Mr. Garrison, who puts the three marks into a class from which any one may be selected for the punctuation of Sentence 67. Mr. Teall, however, makes the following statement (page 50): “As in some instances there is no absolute choice between commas and parentheses, so also there is none between parentheses and dashes.” He illustrates the latter part of his statement, but not the former. His illustrative example is a sentence taken from Mr. Wilson’s work, which sentence, he says, may take either the parentheses or the dashes. We give the sentence (No. 68) as punctuated by Mr. Wilson:

68. If we exercise right principles (and we can not have them unless we exercise them), they must be perpetually on the increase.

Mr. Teall evidently agrees with Mr. Wilson in the punctuation of the sentence, which, he says, may as well take dashes; but he expresses no choice between the two modes of punctuation.

We have already said that this punctuation violates fundamental principles; and that it does so is evidenced by Mr. Wilson’s definitions. In one place (page 168) he defines a parenthesis as “words thrown obliquely into the body of a sentence”; and on the preceding page he says a parenthesis is “an expression inserted in the body of a sentence,[8] with which it has no connection in sense or in construction.” Mr. Teall gives a like definition of a parenthesis.

The meaning of “obliquely thrown into” is, we think, unmistakable. It is equivalent to “thrust into,” and characterizes matter that is “without grammatical connection.”

It does not seem to us true that the parenthesis (group of words) in No. 68 has “no connection in sense” with the sentence. As “and” gives it constructive connection, why does “and” not give it sense relation? and why is “and” used, what does it mean, and what does it connect?

The punctuation of No. 67-2 seems to us to be in accord with the fundamental meanings that determine the use of marks; and it at once differentiates the dash from the two other marks. These principles are violated in the punctuation of No. 68, which requires dashes.

COMMAS AND PARENTHESES

The differentiation of the comma, or commas, from parentheses, is the differentiation of the _purely_ parenthetical from the _slightly_ parenthetical. The purely parenthetical word or expression is wholly detached from the essential meaning of the language in which it is found, and properly takes marks of parenthesis as evidence of this fact; the slightly parenthetical is in grammatical relation with some word or words in the language in which it appears.

An excellent illustration of such erroneous definitions of a parenthesis as is noted above, and of a lack of differentiation between the semicolon and the period, is found in the following sentence, which is the opening sentence of the preface to a work on the proper use of words, written, we believe, by one who was formerly a college professor of English:

69. The author’s main purpose in this book is to teach precision in writing; and of good writing (which, essentially, is clear thinking made visible) precision is the point of capital concern.

From our point of view the principal faults of this sentence are the following:

1. The _and_ relation between the two clauses “and” here connects, is a strained one. The real relation between them would be better expressed by a period without the conjunction.

2. The _explanatory_ group of words set off by parentheses is not a _parenthesis_, and therefore should not be enclosed in marks of parenthesis. Commas are the proper marks.

DASHES AND PARENTHESES

The indiscriminate substitution of dashes and parentheses for commas, which is quite common in some literary periodicals and in some books by authors of recognized literary ability, greatly weakens the value of marks; for there can be no differentiation between the marks so used, and, consequently, the first part of either mark fails to give to the reader notice of what is to follow. The value of the punctuation is thus weakened. In some sentences, such use of these marks is not objectionable; but the necessity of the substitution is not always apparent.

The occasional substitution of parentheses for commas, where the use of semicolons is thus avoided, is desirable; but the occasion for such use is rare. In the following sentence the use of commas is strictly correct, but the result is not pleasing:

70. The following were appointed a committee on organization: John Smith, chairman, Henry Jones, and William Brown.

This punctuation seems to throw the four nouns following the colon into a series. This effect can be avoided by the use of a semicolon after “chairman”; but this punctuation would require another semicolon after “Jones,” thus grouping the words as words are grouped in Sentences 7, 7-1, and 7-2. The better punctuation of sentences like this is to enclose the descriptive word in parentheses, and retain the commas for the other words:

70-1. The following were appointed a committee on organization: John Smith (chairman), Henry Jones, and William Brown.

It seems surprising that good writers will adopt the punctuation of No. 70, and use it when it tends to obscure the sense. As illustrative of this point, we give a sentence from the current issue of the _Literary Digest_:

71. This new magnet is used for the study of light, the motions of electrons, the smallest components of matter, and the minute movements in the interior of an atom.

For the sake of clearness, which is a chief object of punctuation, the sense relations of the things named in this sentence as objects of study should be shown by the punctuation. As “electrons” are “the smallest components of matter,” the punctuation should reveal the fact:

71-1. This new magnet is used for the study of light, the motions of electrons (the smallest components of matter), and the minute movements in the interior of an atom.

By reserving dashes for the large groups of words which are purely parenthetical in nature, but are tied to what precedes by a connective, generally a conjunction or a preposition, we do not violate the fundamental meaning of either the dash or the marks of parenthesis; and therefore when we meet either mark its meaning is unmistakable. In short, we do not make a mark serve an additional and unnecessary use, and so render it more difficult to interpret as a sign-board.

When we speak of the “fundamental” meaning of a mark, we refer to the meaning implied in its name, the name, of course, being descriptive of a feature of the language which is to be pointed out by the mark. The word _dash_, as has already been said, points out that the writer has _dashed_ aside, as it were, in his line of thought, and is going to “parenthesize” something, keeping his thought, however, _grammatically_ connected with what precedes. We violate this principle in the use of the single dash exemplified in Sentence 33, just as we violate a fundamental principle in the use of the parentheses in No. 70-1. We think there is no objection to the former use of the dash; for it serves a good purpose, and its meaning can hardly be mistaken. The relation indicated by the comma and dash is suggested before the mark is reached, as, in Sentence 33, details are suggested by the words “three original parties.”

The indiscriminate use of dashes and parentheses for commas has become quite common; but, after a very careful study of language thus punctuated, we can find no justification or excuse for such usage. It may give the writer a choice of marks, but it gives no light to the reader. It is too much like using either red or yellow for a danger-signal when red better answers the purpose.

Although the differentiation between commas and parentheses is at times somewhat difficult, generally it is very easy. The following sentences will illustrate common uses of the marks where the shades of meaning are nice, but unmistakable:

72. Ian Maclaren (Dr. John Watson) wrote “Beside the Bonnie Briar Bush.”

73. Ian Maclaren, a noted Scotch minister (Dr. John Watson), is the author of “Beside the Bonnie Briar Bush.”

74. Ian Maclaren (the pen-name of Dr. John Watson) is unmistakably Scotch.

In No. 72 “Dr. John Watson” is purely parenthetical matter, used to give the reader some information about the _name_ of the man already mentioned. As we have been talking about the man, the information about his name is like an aside,—that is, it is purely parenthetical. This matter may be omitted without affecting the sense of the language in any manner; and, as it is purely parenthetical, it properly takes the marks of parenthesis.

In No. 73 we have both an explanatory group of words and a parenthesis. The first is equivalent to “who is a noted Scotch minister.” In either form it is an essential part of the information the writer wishes to convey. We have already defined such a group as _slightly parenthetical_, to be set off by commas.

No. 74 is a particularly distractive sentence, although its punctuation may be technically correct. The first picture given in this sentence to the reader is that of a man; the next one, given by the parenthesis, is that of a name. A third thought follows; and this thought is applicable to either a _man_ or a _name_. As “Watson” is an Irish name, the question may arise in reading No. 74 whether the writer wishes to say “Ian Maclaren,” the _man_, is Scotch, or “Ian Maclaren,” the _name_, is Scotch.

There is a conventional way of writing a name of this kind to show that the name is referred to merely as a word. This is done by the use of italics or quotation-marks; and therefore to avoid the distractive effect of No. 74, it may be written thus:

74-1. _Ian Maclaren_ (the pen-name of Dr. John Watson) is unmistakably Scotch.

Here the italics notify the reader that he is to consider the name, not the person named; and this name is a Scotch word.

Like notice would be given by the use of quotation-marks in place of the italics.

The distractive effect caused by producing two impressions through a wrong use of marks of parenthesis, should be avoided.

EXAMPLES

1. I am a lady, and a coward.

2. I am a lady and—a coward.

In No. 1 the comma makes “a coward” an afterthought. In No. 2 the dash shows a hesitancy on the part of the writer about calling herself, or one (a lady) of her sex, a coward. The shade of meaning between the two sentences is clearly marked.

3. On these occasions I have been grateful to the happy accident, or design, that made me a participant in such scenes.

4. On these occasions I have been grateful to the happy accident—or design?—that made me a participant in such scenes.

In No. 3 the commas indicate an afterthought; in No. 4 the writer makes an aside, as if asking someone a question, thus requiring a dash to show the change in thought.

5. The Syracuse (New York) _Journal_ asserts that the spoilsman must go.

6. The following sentence contains three nouns: Do (1) good by (2) stealth, and blush to find it (3) fame.

7. She walked away, a very straight, beautiful—yes, certainly beautiful—young figure, and disappeared.

8. Crime is merely an unrebuked temptation, a natural instinct running at large,—a very natural thing.

In No. 8 the second group is a mere appositive or definition of the first; but the third group is a restatement of the thought implied in the two preceding groups. The comma shows the relation; the dash does the grouping.

9. The examination embraces spelling, punctuation, the use of capital letters, grammar, arithmetic, geography (descriptive and physical), languages, etc.

10. If you will take my advice, you will throw that letter into the fire. (A bright one was blazing on the hearth.) If you keep it, it will probably tempt you into an outlay beyond your means.

11. His voice and manner,—the manner of the old Oxford scholar of the best type, and, alas! of a bygone generation, with its indescribable indication of cultured and lettered ease,—were singularly attractive.

12. Measure as we may the progress of the world,—materially, in the advantages of steam, electricity, and other mechanical appliances; sociologically, in the great improvements in the conditions of life; intellectually, in the diffusion of education; morally, in a possibly higher standard of ethics,—there is no one measure which can compare with the decrease of physical suffering in man, woman, and child when stricken by disease or accident.

The consideration of the use of the dash in No. 12 does not strictly fall in this chapter; and yet its position gives what follows it the appearance of an aside with grammatical connection (apposition) with what precedes. “As we may” is equivalent to “in any manner”; and the matter set off by dashes gives details of “in any manner,” or, more strictly, of “measure in any manner.”

Let us here note, parenthetically, that if “as we may” were changed to “as we can,” these words would be set off by commas, being simply an explanatory group, and not a restrictive group, as they are now, being equivalent to “in whatever way.”

13. Shooting stars are only little masses of matter,—bits of rock or metal, or cloudlets of dust and gas,—which are flying unresisted through space, just as planets and comets do, in paths which, within the limits of our solar system, are controlled by the attraction of the sun.

Why not use marks of parentheses in No. 13, instead of dashes? The reason lies in the meaning of the former marks. If “matter” or “little masses of matter” were an obscure term requiring explanation, the explanatory term would properly take the form of a parenthesis; but we have here a mere apposition, used by way of example or illustration, as we might use the words apples and pears to explain what we mean by the word fruit in a sentence.

14. That child of so many prayers, who was to bear the significant name of John (Jehochanan, “the Lord is gracious”) was to be the source of joy and gladness to a far wider circle than that of the family.

15. Such scanty record was kept of Sebastian Cabot’s voyages of 1497 and 1498 that we cannot tell what land the Cabots first saw,—whether it was the bleak coast of Northern Labrador, or some point as far South as Cape Breton.

15-1. Such scanty record was kept of Sebastian Cabot’s voyages of 1497 and 1498 that we cannot tell what land the Cabots first saw; whether it was the bleak coast of Northern Labrador, or some point as far South as Cape Breton, is still a matter of dispute.

The differentiation between the comma in No. 15 (here aided by a dash) and the semicolon in No. 15-1, is very plain; and each mark, when reached, unmistakably notifies the reader what relation exists between what precedes and what follows it.

When one is reading these sentences aloud, each mark determines the voice-inflection that will convey the meaning to the listener.

16. An ellipsis or omission of words is found in all kinds of composition. (Remarks _d_ and _i_.)

17. When a quotation is short, and closely connected with the words preceding it, a comma between the parts is sufficient.—See page 108.

18. Capitalize the exclamations “O” and “Oh” (see chap. iii, sec. 6).

19. In resolutions, italicize the word “_Resolved_,” but not the word “Whereas.” (See chap. iv, sec. 36.)

The above four examples show a variety of treatment of reference matter (real or apparent) that is perplexing, not only because of the sources of the examples, but because the same is found many times in the books from which the examples are taken. Nos. 16 and 17 are from Mr. Wilson’s work, and Nos. 18 and 19 are from “A Manual for Writers.”

No. 16 is one of a number of examples to be punctuated according to a preceding rule and the “Remarks” under such rule. (The punctuation of No. 16 is to follow “Remarks _d_ and _i_,” which require commas before and after “or omission.”) Thus “Remarks _d_ and _i_” above is purely parenthetical matter in its relation to the language of the example. As it explains no word or group of words within the example it is treated as an independent sentence, and is therefore properly punctuated.

No. 17 is a “Remark” under a general rule. “See page 108” is a part of this “Remark.” Instead of condensing the information found on page 108 and adding it to what precedes, in the example such information, additional to and not explanatory of what precedes it, takes the form of a sentence,—“See page 108.” It has no reference by way of explanation to what precedes, but stands for an additional sentence. It also belongs in another paragraph; and this fact is shown by the dash, the use of which here is purely conventional punctuation.

We do not understand why the references in Nos. 18 and 19 should not be treated alike. We think No. 19 is correct, except that “Resolved” should not here be italicized. It is properly italicized in a resolution, while “Whereas” in a resolution should be written with a capital and small-capital letters.

NOTE.—We do not think that “oh” is often written with a capital, except when it begins a sentence.

20. None of the ills from which England is at present suffering are due to democracy or to freedom, but to inherited conditions and traditions which British democracy (one of the finest and most devoted bodies of men and women in the world) has been working manfully to throw off. These go back to the days—not yet wholly past—of British Imperialism and paternalism.

The above example is a good illustration of the improper use of both the dash and the marks of parenthesis. The group of words enclosed in parenthesis is an appositive of “British democracy,” appositional in form and adjectival in meaning. The group of words set off by dashes is adjectival in both form and meaning. Each group is explanatory, not restrictive; and therefore, according to the principles we have discussed herein, each should be set off by commas.