Chapter IX Miscellaneous Uses of Marks
Adjectives Before a Noun
When two or more adjectives come before a noun, and are not connected by a conjunction, the meaning to be conveyed determines the punctuation:
75. This is a large wild grape.
75-1. This is a large, wild grape.
The punctuation is correct in each of the above sentences; but the two sentences do not mean the same.
Sentence No. 75 says that the grape is a large one in the class of wild grapes, confining the comparison to wild grapes.
Sentence No. 75-1 says that the grape is large and is wild. It is large in comparison with all kinds of grapes.
In No. 75 we give the language its natural meaning. In No. 75-1 we use a comma to show that the natural meaning is not the meaning we wish to convey; we disconnect “large” from “wild grape,” as, in Sentence 1-1, we disconnected words standing in an apparent relation which was not the real relation.
Other examples at the end of this chapter will further illustrate the punctuation.
Double Object
We have already seen that nouns standing together require some mark between them if their apparent relation is not their real relation. This principle was illustrated especially in Sentence 8-1.
The so-called double object furnishes an apparent exception to the principle. The relation, however, between such words is as regular as the relation between an adjective and a noun when the former precedes the latter. Thus the following sentence requires no mark between the nouns constituting a so-called double object:
76. They elected John Smith president.
A similar relation is seen when the first noun in a sentence like the above is followed by an adjective. The relation is regular, and calls for no mark:
76-1. They called John Smith wise.
In some cases the relation may be more idiomatic than regular, the mark being omitted because there is no real need for its use. The next sentence exhibits such relationship:
77. I myself will undertake the work.
A “Long” Subject
When a subject is composed of two or more words, and these words do not readily group themselves, a comma may be helpful to group them as a subject. This failure of words to fall readily into a group is generally due to one of three causes: the subject may be somewhat long and contain marks of punctuation, or it may end with a word that seems itself to sustain grammatical and sense relation with the word or words following it, or it may end with a verb. In either of such cases the comma serves to show the end of the subject; and its use is therefore helpful punctuation:
78. Whatever is, is right.
79. He that sees a building as a common spectator, contents himself with speaking of it in the most general terms.
The use of the comma after “spectator” simply warns the reader that “the spectator contents himself” is not the meaning of the language at this point. The comma disconnects “spectator” and “contents,” just as the comma disconnects certain words in Sentence 1-1. Thus the punctuation of this sentence depends upon the fundamental principle of grouping and disjunction.
This principle also explains the value of a comma at the end of several subject-nouns not connected by a conjunction:
80. Ease, indulgence, luxury, sloth, are the sources of misery.
With the conjunction “and” before “sloth,” the comma after “sloth” would not be needed, as “and” and the comma before it would give notice of the ending of the group.
The value of a comma in No. 79 is unmistakable; but is such punctuation helpful when the subject clearly ends itself, either because of its manifest completeness or because there is no apparent relation between the last word of the subject and the predicate verb? Probably a definite and satisfactory answer to this question cannot be given, for the mental capacity and alertness of the reader are involved.
Doubtful Modifiers
Perhaps more obscurity in language, often resulting in hurtful misunderstandings and expensive litigation, grows out of doubtful modifiers than out of any other source of bad construction. A knowledge of punctuation here serves a very useful purpose, not always by putting the proper mark in the proper place, but generally by showing the writer the necessity of recasting his sentence, thus removing the cause of any possible wrong interpretation. Punctuation points out the danger; the writer removes it.
What did Smith write according to the wording and punctuation of the following sentence?
81. Smith wrote part of the preface and Chapter I.
It says clearly that Smith wrote part of the preface and part of Chapter I.
And what does the next sentence say he wrote?
81-1. Smith wrote part of the preface, and Chapter I.
It says that Smith wrote part of the preface, and all of Chapter I.
It is not wise to make the meaning of language, especially in important matters, depend upon a mode of punctuation little understood. The wise way is to recast the language. Legal phraseology grew out of the difficulty of so writing as to make one’s meaning unmistakable; but it went to the extreme in verbiage, and has become distasteful even to lawyers. Such verbiage is not necessary to express one’s meaning.
Our next sentence is particularly informing to us in our efforts to establish two or three fundamental principles governing the use of all marks:
82. Life may be held so pure, so receptive to all high influence, so noble in its aspirations, as to furnish the right conditions for these finer promptings; or it may so degenerate into the material, the selfish, the self-centered, as to become deaf and blind and unresponsive to them.
The comma after “aspirations” is used to disconnect the two groups of words between which it stands, thus breaking up an apparent group (so noble in its aspirations as to furnish the right conditions for these finer promptings), and forming out of it two groups, each of which begins with “so,” each group having for its complement the group beginning with “as.”
We perhaps may not say that the comma after “aspirations” at once gives notice of the relation of each of the preceding groups to what follows; but, when the comma cuts “as” off from the preceding “so,” it shows that “as” introduces a group completing each of the preceding groups introduced by “so.” This disconnection between the last two groups compels the reader to make the new grouping.
In the second of the larger groups of this sentence occurs a somewhat similar grouping made by “so—as.” Here the comma is used, just as it is used in Sentence 80, to mark the end of the first part of the group. Its use in both clauses may be said to follow the punctuation diagrammatically exhibited in Sentence 3-2. In No. 82 the reader suspends the thought partially expressed by “so pure” until he reaches the complementary group of words beginning with “as.” This process of suspending the thought occurs in this clause after each group introduced by “so.” The process, instead of being difficult, is well-nigh intuitive, for “so” naturally raises the expectation of the correlative “as,” which introduces the complement of each group introduced by “so.”
Let us also note the last grouping in this sentence, where “to them” is tied to each of the three preceding adjectives by the grouping ands, thus requiring no mark after the last adjective.
Intermediate Restrictive Groups
Probably at no other point in punctuation do writers obscure the meaning of language so much as in dealing with restrictive and explanatory groups of words. We dealt with the subject in Chapter III, but passed over one feature of it,—namely, the intermediate restrictive group, or a restrictive group coming between two other groups closely tied together in sense, and seemingly requiring the suspension of the intermediate group by commas.
Before dealing with these groups, let us consider an interesting sentence, from very high authority, which tends to confirm our statement concerning the importance of properly punctuating restrictive and explanatory modifiers. The sentence is from a passage in Dean Alford’s notable book, “A Plea for the Queen’s English,” in which passage the Dean severely scolds compositors for their bad punctuation, particularly for the insertion of commas “without the slightest compunction.”
83. I have some satisfaction in reflecting, that, in the course of editing the Greek text of the New Testament, I believe I have destroyed more than a thousand commas, which prevented the text being properly understood.
Mr. De Vinne quotes the passage in which this sentence appears; and he does so in apparent approval of Dean Alford’s condemnation of the misuse of commas. Mr. De Vinne makes a single comment upon the passage, in which he says “the last comma in this extract is superfluous.” The reference is to the comma before “which.”
The comma before “which” is not simply “superfluous”: it is wrong. It is wrong because it changes the meaning of the language by making the writer say, apparently, that he destroyed all the commas in the text, while he, unquestionably, intended to say he destroyed more than a thousand offending commas, that is, commas that (which) obscured the text.
The superfluous comma in the above sentence is, in our opinion, the one after “reflecting.” This comma is used in accordance with the convention of Dean Alford’s day, and follows a rule of “close” punctuation.
But the punctuation is very bad at another point; and, we venture to say, in spite of the great distinction of its author as an English scholar, the language at this point is not the “Queen’s English.” Omitting the intermediate and final groups of words, and the superfluous comma, the sentence will read as follows:
83-1. I have some satisfaction in reflecting that I believe I have destroyed more than a thousand commas.
“Satisfaction in reflecting that I believe,” is, to say the least, a curious satisfaction. This is not the meaning the writer wished to convey.
The obvious error cannot be mended by setting “I believe” off with commas, for this would simply throw doubt upon the statement which follows (I have destroyed), which is a positive statement, needing no qualification. The only doubtful assertion in the sentence is as to the number of commas destroyed. The evident meaning of the language is, that the number of commas destroyed is probably (I believe) more than a thousand. To be sure, “probably” and “I believe” are not exactly equivalent terms; but the word probably here serves to show how “I believe” is used. We set it off by commas because of its slightly parenthetical character.
The entire sentence should be written thus:
83-2. I have some satisfaction in reflecting that, in the course of editing the Greek text of the New Testament, I have destroyed, I believe, more than a thousand commas which prevented the text being properly understood.
The absence of a comma before the adjective group of words beginning with “which,” tells the reader that such adjective group is restrictive, thus confining the destruction to harmful commas.
Let us turn aside again to ask why, in the sentence above and beginning with “The evident,” “probably” takes no commas, while a similar expression (I believe) in No. 83-2 requires them. “Probably” here requires no commas because it coalesces with “more”; while “I believe” does not do so, but makes a decided break in the smoothness of the sentence. The latter expression is like an aside, thus becoming slightly parenthetical. The use of commas with “probably” would make “probably” more emphatic, because the pauses thus indicated would call special attention to it. Such use is good punctuation.
We will now turn to a restrictive group of words that comes between two other groups closely connected in meaning.
Mr. Wilson treats this subject at length, but, we think, in an unsatisfactory way. We find in the wording of one of his rules an illustration of this mode of punctuation which seems more informing than his discussion of the subject. As we do not desire to consider the subject-matter of Mr. Wilson’s rule, we make up a sentence modeled upon its language:
84. When books, that have been thoroughly examined and unqualifiedly approved by a board of college professors, are recommended by a teacher, her pupils should not refuse to read them.
The adjective group of words following “books” is restrictive. It is perhaps made more clearly so by the use of a pronoun (that) formerly used, in the place of who or which, to introduce a restrictive adjective in the form of a pronominal group of words.
If “which” be substituted for “that” in this sentence, the restrictive character of the group may not be so readily apparent; but this would not change the punctuation recommended by Mr. Wilson. Let us deal with the sentence in this form:
84-1. When books, which have been thoroughly examined and unqualifiedly approved by a board of college professors, are recommended by a teacher, her pupils should not refuse to read them.
If it is deemed helpful punctuation to set off by commas the group of words between “books” and “are,” in order to show clearly the dependence of “books” upon “are recommended,” then commas are required. If, on the other hand, we wish to show by the punctuation that the group of words following “books” is restrictive, we must omit the comma after “books.” Thus, apparently, we must here make a choice between two modes of punctuation. As failure to distinguish by punctuation the character of a qualifier,—that is, whether restrictive or explanatory,—not infrequently totally obscures the sense, we do not quite like a rule that calls for a comma before a restrictive group of words.
The sentence may be written without a comma after “books,” but with one after “professors.” The use of the latter would follow the punctuation of No. 79. This mode of punctuation is, after all, only a choice between two modes of punctuation. The better way is to recast all such sentences. No. 84 may be recast in several ways; but it is difficult, without introducing a new word, clearly to express the fact that one kind of books is meant, as shown in the restrictive adjective in both Nos. 84 and 84-1.
We suggest the following form for the recast sentence:
84-2. When certain books have been thoroughly examined and unqualifiedly approved by a board of college professors, and have been recommended by a teacher, her pupils should not refuse to read them.
Every restrictive word or group of words confines the meaning of the word or words so modified to a certain thing or certain things. The man who was here yesterday means a certain man, and means so because of the restrictive group of words following “man”; but “the man, who was here yesterday,” is not so designated by the same group of words set off by commas. These points were considered in another place in this book.
Not — But
The punctuation of intermediate groups of words gives rise to a peculiar phraseology, which needs explanation. We have seen that the intermediate group is set off by commas to show that the sense is suspended at the point where the first comma is placed, to be continued by connection with what follows the complementary comma. We illustrated this process diagrammatically in Sentence 4-3 by actually suspending on the printed page the intermediate group.
We do not hesitate to use commas in the following sentence:
85. His success was attained, not by ability and enterprise, but by friendly assistance.
If we suspend or omit the intermediate group in the above we obtain a result which is not a good sentence:
85-1. His success was attained but by friendly assistance.
We can say of such language as that of No. 85 only that it is idiomatic, thus justifying it as we justify the grammatical solecism “than whom.”
Mr. Wilson makes an exception to this mode of punctuation that is very perplexing; and it is probably because of this that few, if any, other writers refer to or deal with it.
We shall not attempt to discuss Mr. Wilson’s rule, but let us consider one of his examples:
86. It is not from wild beasts, but from untamed passions, that the greatest evils arise to human society.
We think the omission of a comma after “is,” thus suspending the negative group beginning with “not,” is justified, if at all, by the fact that such a sentence is usually read without a pause after the verb; in other words, the language thus readily groups itself, and shows the meaning and the force of the negative intermediate group.
Not a few good writers use a comma before “not” in sentences like No. 86.
If one or more words intervene between the verb and the negative particle, the parts of the sentence do not coalesce, and the comma is required.
87. He came not to teach, but to be taught.
87-1. He came here, not to teach, but to be taught.
If we change the form of No. 87, we may perhaps see somewhat more clearly why this grouping is more natural than would be a grouping made by a comma after the verb (came):
87-2. He did not come to teach, but to be taught.
No. 87-2 seems to show that the grouping made by the comma in No. 87 is a natural grouping.
In spite of Mr. Wilson’s rule, and of our reasoning to explain it, we believe that each mode of punctuating the following sentence is correct, each depending upon where the emphasis is to be laid:
88. The book’s primary aim is, not to convince the skeptic, but to solve the difficulties of the best-thinking men.
88-1. The book’s primary aim is not to convince the skeptic, but to solve the difficulties of the best-thinking men.
In No. 88 the emphasis is placed upon “to solve the difficulties,” the preceding group being thrown in for contrast, thus heightening the effect of the statement made in the next group of words.
In No. 88-1 the emphasis falls upon “not to convince the skeptic,” just as it would if written, “It is not the book’s aim to convince the skeptic.”
Let us note carefully that the mode of punctuation in each of the two preceding sentences would grow out of the context, which would clearly tell where the emphasis was to be laid.
We have dwelt upon this punctuation in order to emphasize a purpose of punctuation too often overlooked.
O and Oh
The Century Dictionary says there is no difference between O and oh except that of their present spelling. The New Standard and Webster’s New International do not go so far, but they point out the difference observed by most good writers.
O is generally used only in direct address; and, as the name of the person or thing addressed immediately follows it, it takes no mark of punctuation after it. An exclamation-point may follow the group of words introduced by O. Its vocative character is not lost when the person or thing addressed is not named, for it may be understood.
O is used more in poetry than in prose.
O is used in an ejaculatory expression when followed by for or that. It does not here seem to lose its vocative character, although the name of the thing or person addressed may not readily be supplied.
O is sometimes used colloquially in expressions like “O my!” “O dear!” etc.
Oh is purely ejaculatory, and takes a comma or an exclamation-point immediately after it; but the latter mark may follow the group of words beginning with oh, with a comma before oh.
O is always written with a capital, but oh takes a capital only when beginning a sentence. Some writers prefer always to write oh with a capital.
EXAMPLES
1. Yesterday was my last bad day, but I remember the preceding bad days.
2. He played a prominent part in Congress during the last, bad days of the period of Reconstruction.
3. Cultivation is a fitting object to be attained by education, particularly in a country, like ours, of busy, practical people.
4. For this stream of apt illustrations Macaulay was indebted to his extraordinary memory, and his rapid eye for contrasts and analogies.
5. The so-called revolutions of Holland, England, and America, are all links of one chain.
6. A man who is sensitive, quick in his responses, loyal to his convictions, and strong in his feelings, is capable of a kind of public service that the phlegmatic, unresponsive, insensitive sort of man cannot render.
7. Much of this work was written, and some of it was printed, years ago.
8. We call a thing a blessing because it happens to fit our desires, or, at least, our ideas of what a blessing ought to be.
9. Many suns may set, and many dark nights may cover the earth with clouds, before the truth is ripened into fruitage.
10. These, and a hundred others which will occur to everyone, are marked instances of adaptation to environment.
11. His first problem is the growth of great fortunes, and the collocation of wealth and poverty in large cities.
12. They laud the commission’s report, and exult in its conclusions as the final vindication of their own motives and methods.
13. We have learned, or ought to have learned by this time, that the use of a mark of punctuation often depends wholly upon the sense of the language, and not upon grammatical construction.
14. Untrammeled physical motions may here perfectly express the feelings that elsewhere have to stay unexpressed, or be, at best, imperfectly expressed by a trammeled tongue.
15. A tiny owl with a queer little voice called continually, not only after nightfall, but in the bright afternoon.
16. His speech was noteworthy, not for its eloquence, but because of the effect it produced upon the public.
17. The secret of life is, not to do what one likes, but to try to like that which one has to do; and one does come to like it in time.
18. Mortality; the insane, feeble-minded, deaf and dumb, and blind; crime, pauperism, and benevolence; education; churches; foreign-born population; and manufacturers, are the subjects of his report.
19. Elijah is not the only one who has heard in the wilderness a still, small voice.
20. A holy war—oh, the irony of the appellation!—means the legitimatizing of slaughter, rapine, and plunder.