WHY WE PUNCTUATE

OR
REASON VERSUS RULE
IN THE USE OF MARKS
BY
WILLIAM LIVINGSTON KLEIN
“Punctuation seems to be an art based upon rules without congruity, and derived from practice without uniformity.”
Second Edition—Entirely Rewritten
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA
THE LANCET PUBLISHING COMPANY
1916

COPYRIGHT, 1916, BY
WILLIAM LIVINGSTON KLEIN
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

TO MY WIFE

who during the many years the subject of punctuation has occupied my attention has ever been ready, with great intelligence and helpfulness, to discuss with me the intricate and often dull problems which punctuation presents

THIS BOOK IS DEDICATED IN
LOVING APPRECIATION

PREFACE

The first edition of this work was published in 1896, and the treatment of the subject was so highly commended by many leading men and periodicals of the country that the entire edition, though a large one, was soon exhausted. In spite of this favorable commendation, which may have been due to my effort to set forth reasons, instead of rules, for the use of marks, I had a keen sense of certain shortcomings in the work, and have long been unwilling to permit its reprinting or to undertake its rewriting. At least one of the reasons—and I hope the principal one—why the work fell short of my ideal of the book needed, was the inevitable failure inherent in the mode of treating the subject. As a sentence may contain the four principal marks (comma, semicolon, colon, and period) and, in addition, one or more of the other marks, a writer courts failure if, in treating the difficult art of punctuation, he deals with the marks separately, beginning, as all writers, myself included, have hitherto done, with the comma, the most difficult mark to understand, and proceeding, one at a time, with the other marks. Failure follows this mode of treatment because it disregards the interrelation of marks and the relations between groups of words to be interpreted by marks.

In this edition, which has been entirely rewritten, I have endeavored to avoid the fault of such mode of treatment, and have dealt, from the outset, with groups of interrelated marks, exhibiting, for instance, in a single illustrative sentence (No. 6) the four principal marks in their interrelation as affected by the sense relations of the language of the sentence. I believe that this treatment of the subject of punctuation is the only logical one; and because of the lack of a logical treatment of the subject it is no exaggeration to say that almost utter chaos as regards punctuation which is helpful to both reader and writer, exists everywhere, inside and outside of printing-offices.

In the preface of the first edition I said it was a remarkable fact that the subject of punctuation had been very inadequately treated, as evidenced by the existence at that time of only a single treatise on punctuation in the English language, and by the total absence of any consideration of it in periodical literature. This assertion, with slight modification, is true today. An admirable essay by Mr. Phillips Garrison, sometime editor of The Nation, appeared in the Atlantic Monthly for August, 1906. This essay, which deals with the interchangeability of marks, only confounds the confusion of punctuation. Mr. Garrison admits that the more the difficulties of the art of punctuation are faced and considered, the fuller becomes our understanding of the principles which do underlie the convention that makes punctuation correct or faulty. One of his illustrative examples exhibiting the interchangeability of three marks, is discussed herein; and an effort is made to discover the “principles” that determine the correct punctuation of the example, and to show that the marks used by him are not interchangeable. No other article on punctuation is found in the world’s great mass of periodical literature listed in American library Indexes.

The one treatise referred to above is the work of Mr. John Wilson, which, it may safely be asserted, is the only treatise on the subject in English. It is a masterful work, exhibiting an amount of research and a degree of acumen probably unexcelled in the preparation of a text-book on any subject. In spite of this fact, I think the work is so minute, so voluminous, and so lacking in scientific generalization, as to make mastery of its great number of rules, with “remarks” and exceptions equivalent to rules, an exceedingly difficult and, to many, an impossible task. Mr. Wilson’s work was first published in 1826.

The excellent handbook of Mr. Marshall T. Bigelow, published in 1881, is merely a summary of the principal rules of Mr. Wilson’s work. Its briefness greatly limits its value.

The work, entitled “Punctuation,” of Mr. F. Horace Teall, published in 1897, is also an admirable handbook, but it gives more space to spelling than to punctuation. It gives only four pages, very small ones, to the consideration of the colon; and two of the colon’s principal uses, discussed at length herein, are not mentioned.

Mr. Theodore L. De Vinne, the founder of the well-known De Vinne Press, published his “Correct Composition” in 1901. This work is indeed a treatise, but a treatise on printing, not on punctuation. Its treatment of punctuation is somewhat iconoclastic, radically so at points. Some of its rules are excellent, but others are well-nigh incomprehensible.

The University of Chicago Press issued its “Manual of Style” in 1906, and its “Manual for Writers” in 1913. The latter work is edited by Professor John Matthews Manly, head of the Department of English in the University of Chicago, and Mr. John Arthur Powell, of the University of Chicago Press. These Manuals, in their treatment of punctuation, are practically identical, and each devotes less than thirty pages to the subject. Their rules are brief, clear, and comprehensive; but their inconsistencies in the use of marks are so great as to be exceedingly puzzling.

The Riverside Press, which for many years maintained the reputation of being one of the three or four most painstaking printing establishments in the world, recently issued a small “Handbook of Style,” setting forth the style in use by that Press; but it also contains many errors and inconsistencies in punctuation, which lessen its value.

I have assumed, for several reasons, the seeming impropriety of criticising the above books: (1) they are recognized as the best authorities on the conventional use of marks, I acknowledge my indebtedness to them, and I show my appreciation of them by quoting no others in my discussion of the subject; (2) criticism of usage by any other class of writers is worthless; (3) my own work, if it will not stand comparison with the above-named works, has no value, and I invite such comparison by my specific criticism of some of their examples which exhibit the fundamental principles of punctuation.

In no work known to me has an attempt been made to show the sense relations between parts of language with such relations indicated by marks, themselves differentiated by these sense relations. A single illustration will serve to show the truth of this broad assertion concerning the sense relations between groups of words determined by marks, yet not recognized by writers on punctuation. Practically all such writers use a comma after etc., the comma of course following the period. The two Manuals of the University of Chicago Press and the Handbook of The Riverside Press specifically name this as the proper punctuation. That such punctuation disregards the sense relations determined by the meaning of language, is proved, I think, beyond question by illustrative Sentence 7-1 herein.

If my own work is of any value, or possesses any degree of originality, it is to be found in my efforts to show that the sense relations between groups of words are a large factor in determining the meaning of language, and that a mark of punctuation, or even its absence, sometimes determines a sense relation, and at other times only serves readily to point it out. Neither the comma in illustrative Sentence 1-1 nor the semicolons in Sentence 7 determine meanings: they simply suggest them. The absence of commas in Sentence 3, and their presence in Sentence 3-1, determine meanings.

As the difficulties in punctuation arise largely from the subtle relations between groups of words into which all language, often the simplest, is divided, the study of punctuation becomes in reality the study of language. Upon the importance attached to the clear understanding and correct use of language, depends the value of punctuation.

I desire to express my high appreciation of the helpful suggestions and criticisms made by three friends, each of whom has read the proof of this work one or more times, bringing to the arduous task large knowledge of the subtle principles of punctuation and of language. Of these friends, Mr. W. F. Webster, Principal of the East High School, Minneapolis, is well known in educational circles as a teacher of English, as a lecturer, and as the author of a widely used text-book on composition and literature. Mr. S. R. Winchell, of Chicago, is likewise well known in educational circles as a high-school and college teacher, and as the author of several text-books on English and Latin. Dr. William Davis, of St. Paul, is an unusually critical scholar and a lover of good English, with an extensive editorial experience.

Minneapolis, Minnesota,
February 1, 1916.

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

I hope my appreciation of the difficulties which beset the student and teacher of punctuation may justify a suggestion from me as to a good method in the study of the subject with this book as a guide.

Until one has gained almost complete mastery of the meanings of marks and of the subtle sense relations between the groups of words constituting language, he cannot interpret such relations when indicated by marks or by their omission. The first step, then, for the student is not to give extended consideration to points discussed herein which are not readily comprehended by him, but to gain mastery of the reasons for the use of marks which indicate language relations that are thoroughly familiar to him. The principles of punctuation, unlike the principles of mathematics, are not regularly progressive from the simple to the complex; therefore the student should not attempt to master consecutively such principles. Let him, rather, read the entire work carefully, marking with his pencil the illustrative sentences whose punctuation presents principles which, though new to him, are still obvious. This course, repeated with special attention to the marked sentences, will, I am sure, give him a comprehension of the nice relations in language which may be clearly pointed out by marks of punctuation based upon reason.

Having in this way gained a fairly complete knowledge of the fine use of marks, that is, of close punctuation, he will naturally begin so to frame his own written language that many marks may safely be omitted, thus gaining mastery of an open punctuation that will not destroy clearness of expression.

AN ANNOUNCEMENT

I am now engaged in the preparation of a briefer book than this one, omitting most of the discussion, but retaining the reasons, briefly stated, for the use of marks. I hope to be able to make the treatment of the subject, even in a small handbook, so clear that all the ordinary uses of marks may be readily mastered by one who has not had a thorough high-school or college training in language.

Always read the preface [and the introduction] to a book. It places you on vantage-ground, and enables you to survey more completely the book itself. You frequently also discover the character of the author from the preface. You see his aims, perhaps his prejudices. You see the point of view from which he takes his pictures, the rocks and impediments which he himself beholds, and you steer accordingly.—Bryan Waller Procter.

CHAPTER I
THE FUNCTIONS OF MARKS, AND HOW PERFORMED

A mark of punctuation is used because it has a meaning, and serves a useful, if not an indispensable, purpose in printed language.[1] In order to serve such purpose, the meaning of the mark must be thoroughly understood by both the writer and the reader.

The function of marks is twofold:

1. To reveal the real meaning of printed language.

2. To reveal such meaning at a glance.

Marks perform this function in three ways:

1. By breaking up apparent groups of words, which readily form themselves into new groups.

2. By showing the relations between groups.

3. By characterizing a group of words.

Language, both printed and spoken, conveys meaning, not only by the meanings of the words constituting such language, but by the meanings of the relations between the words, used singly or in groups. In spoken language these relations are indicated, at least to a considerable extent, by pauses and by inflections of the voice; in printed language, however, we are compelled to use punctuation to indicate them. As spoken language is generally quite different from written language, marks of punctuation do not always indicate voice-inflections; but, as both marks and inflections express the sense relations between groups of words, they are not infrequently suggestive of each other. For instance, each of the three end-marks groups words into a sentence, and tells what kind of a sentence it follows. Let us illustrate this in a dialogue between a teacher and a pupil:

Pupil. John has gone home.

Teacher. John has gone home? [or]

Teacher. John has gone home!

We call the first sentence a declarative sentence because it makes a declaration. We call the second, regardless of its form, an interrogative sentence because it asks a question (interrogates). We call the third an exclamatory sentence because it expresses surprise (exclamation).

In the oral conversation between the teacher and the pupil the voice would readily indicate the meaning of each sentence; but on the printed page marks of punctuation are necessary to convey the meaning. Thus each mark in these sentences characterizes the kind of sentence it follows, and thus reveals the real meaning of the language.

The meanings of these three marks are so plain that they give little trouble to any reader, even the youngest. Most of the marks that fall within the sentence should convey meanings quite as plainly and quite as readily as do these three end-marks. It is the purpose of our study that they be made to do so, for they are quite as useful as the end-marks.

Marks are used intelligently only when each mark can give an intelligent answer to the reader who, meeting it on the printed page, challenges it with “What do you say to me?” This challenge may be made the supreme test of the value of any mark of punctuation.

The function of marks can best be shown by a study of their uses in illustrative examples:[2]

1. Respect the rights of children and their mothers will respect you.

No mark is required in this sentence to reveal its real meaning, for that is unmistakable; but almost any reader will momentarily mistake the meaning at the point where it seems to read as if written “the rights of children and of their mothers.” When the reader discovers that “the rights of their mothers” are not referred to, he is like a traveler who has taken the wrong road, and, discovering his mistake, must retrace his steps.

If a mistake has been made in reading this sentence, the reader must go back to the point where the mistake was made, and regroup the words. The process of regrouping the parts of a sentence is both distracting and tiresome when reading silently, and is very awkward when reading aloud.

The mistake is a mistake in grouping, that is in making one group of the words “children and their mothers” when these words are not so grouped by the meaning of the language.

We call “and” a conjunction, that is, a grouping word. It naturally groups together the two words between which it stands, especially if they make sense when so grouped. If these words are not to be thus grouped, the reader will be helped by having notice to this effect at the point where a wrong grouping may be made. We place a sign-board to guide a traveler; and one is equally useful to guide a reader. A mark of punctuation is the reader’s sign-board; and it is to be read for its directions.

As we cannot well discuss at this point in our study the proper mark to use in Sentence 1 we may select the comma, leaving the reason for the selection to be considered later. Thus the sentence written with a sign-board, is as follows:

1-1.[3] Respect the rights of children, and their mothers will respect you.

The answer to the challenge, “What do you mean?” put by the reader to the comma in this sentence, would be somewhat like this: “Reader, ‘and’ is not to be followed by a word with the same relation to ‘of’ that ‘children’ sustains to ‘of.’” In other words, “and” does not form the very simple group of words that it appears to form without the comma: it forms a new group.

With this notice, the first group is quite automatically formed by the reader; for the meaning of the language up to this point has been fully comprehended, and is not to be supplemented by any word in the and relation to “children.”

In a sentence as simple in its grouping as No. 1, the liability to error is not very great, especially for one who has read much; nor is the readjustment of the thought, in case such a reader has made a mistake, very difficult for him. In more complex sentences, the confusion of ideas becomes more marked, and more difficult of readjustment even by the experienced reader:

2.... Far beyond this group of beautiful hills fell gradually to the plain.

The words in the first line of this sentence, as above printed, group themselves together in a natural manner, forming a definite picture; but, when the reader reaches the first word in the second line, he discovers that a subject must be found for “fell,” for he has made a wrong grouping. It is probable that most readers would read to the end of the sentence in search of a clue to the proper grouping, then turn back to the beginning, and regroup the words after a careful study of their relations. Although the sense is thus easily obtained, the process of regrouping is distracting.

The trouble arises from the fact that the words in the first line naturally fall into a group which makes good sense, but not the sense intended by the writer. A mark (sign-board) is needed to show the reader that the natural grouping is not the correct grouping. We mean by the “natural” grouping that grouping which arises from reading the words in the usual way, thus making “this group of beautiful hills” the object of “beyond.” In other words, the natural meaning is the apparent meaning.

When the apparent meaning is not the real meaning, the reader is momentarily misled,—that is, he gets off the real line of thought, just as a traveler gets off the right road.

With a sign-board the sentence will read as follows:

2-1. Far beyond, this group of beautiful hills fell gradually to the plain.

In this detached sentence we do not know the object of “beyond.” It would, however, be furnished by what preceded it in the context; and yet the liability to error in reading the complete, unpunctuated sentence would still exist. Let us supply the context:

2-2. In the morning we saw in the east a group of hills, the crest of which we reached at noonday. Far beyond, this group of beautiful hills fell gradually to the plain.

The context furnishes the object of “beyond,” which is “the crest.”

REAL AND APPARENT MEANINGS

Let us examine somewhat more carefully the meanings of “real” and “apparent,” terms which we have used, and shall continue to use, in our study.

The real meaning of any group of words is the meaning it unquestionably conveys to the intelligent reader after careful examination, if such an examination be required by its complexity. It is also the meaning the writer presumably desires to convey.

The apparent meaning of such group of words is the meaning it conveys when read at sight.

The apparent meaning should always be the real meaning. If it is not, the language needs either recasting or regrouping. Recasting is done by changing the positions of words or by the use of new words. Regrouping is done by the use of marks of punctuation, which thus perform their functions. Each of the three end-marks also determines the character of the group it follows, as we have already seen.

In Sentences 1 and 2 we obtained the apparent, and wrong, meaning at the first reading; and we obtained the real (right) meaning at the second reading. Marks, understood by the writer and the reader, give the reader the real meaning at the first reading, at least when the marks are used properly.

In each of Sentences 1-1 and 2-1 the mark of punctuation was used to disconnect words apparently connected. In Sentence 1-1 the apparent connection was made by a conjunction (and); in Sentence 2-1 it was made by a preposition (beyond). Thus, in each corrected sentence, the comma performed the office of disjunction; and therefore the comma might be called a disjunctive. When the reader thus disconnects words he regroups them, and learns, quite automatically, the proper relation between the new groups.

Let us note carefully that we are not dealing with difficult or obscure processes, but with processes familiar to the ordinary reader, and equally familiar to the speaker, this grouping being done in speaking, as already stated, by inflections of the voice and by pauses, which are understood by very young readers.

The relations between words and groups of words are expressed in terms of grammar; but we shall avoid in our discussion, as far as possible, the use of technical terms.

In our next sentence no change in grouping is necessary unless we want to make a complete change in the meaning of the language:

3. The prisoner said the witness was a convicted thief.

The apparent meaning of this sentence is its real meaning, for its language is capable of only one construction. If, however, the writer of the sentence wished to convey another meaning, he could have done so by recasting the sentence or by regrouping it by means of marks of punctuation. If we put a comma after “prisoner” we disconnect “prisoner” from “said”; and the comma gives notice to the reader that new relations for the words “prisoner” and “said” must be sought. The only other sense relations for the words are found quite automatically the moment the eye catches the next two words, which suggest to the reader a new group. When the new group (said the witness) is complete, the reader automatically cuts it off from what follows and what precedes. Thus we have, as shown in the following sentence, a new grouping and a new meaning:

3-1. The prisoner, said the witness, was a convicted thief.

The meaning of voice-changes is understood by children long before the meaning of marks of punctuation is understood; while the full value of marks is rarely understood, even by educated and cultured people.

In spoken language the meaning of No. 3 is expressed by a continuous reading with neither pause nor voice-inflection within the sentence. The reading of No. 3-1, in order to convey its meaning to another person, requires quite a different voice process, which may be represented diagrammatically:

3-2. The prisoner said the witneswas a convicted thief.

3-2. The prisonersaid the witnesss a convicted thief.

An analysis of one’s process of reading silently, that is, to himself, will show that, in reading No. 3-1, he takes note of the commas and their meanings (disconnecting and regrouping), just as he takes note, when reading aloud, of the group depressed (written in a line below) in No. 3-2.

To obtain the real meaning of this sentence when reading silently, he reads it commatically; to impart the meaning when reading aloud, he reads it inflectionally.

Our next illustrative sentence and its variations are not much unlike the sentences just considered; but the relations between some of the words in them are not quite so familiar to young readers:

4. Boys like Henry never fail in school.

The meaning of this sentence is unmistakable, and at no point within it is a mark of punctuation even suggested; but in a similarly formed sentence doubt as to the meaning may arise:

4-1. Boys like men may be courageous for principle’s sake.

“Like Henry” in No. 4 suggests some distinguishing quality that Henry is known to possess,—for instance, diligence. Then, “boys like Henry” means “diligent boys.” But “like men” suggests no particular qualities ascribed to boys; and therefore, if the term “like men” is not applicable to or intended for “boys,” we cut it off by commas. Thus an apparent relation is shown not to be the real relation; and therefore we must regroup the words, seeking the new meaning through our knowledge of the meaning of language thus regrouped. The regrouped sentence will read as follows:

4-2. Boys, like men, may be courageous for principle’s sake.

Regrouping of this kind cannot be automatically made by a writer, or automatically apprehended by a reader, until the meanings of both the unpunctuated and the punctuated language are perfectly familiar to the writer or the reader. One’s familiarity with language need not be purely technical to make it accurate and thorough; but we cannot readily discuss the language of our illustrative sentences without using some technical (grammatical) terms.

“Like men” in No. 4-1 is an adjective, and is in the natural position of an adjective of this kind. “Like men” in No. 4-2 is an adverb, and is out of its natural position, thus readily giving rise to a wrong grouping of the words in the sentence. To prevent such wrong grouping, commas are used; and they will be used by a writer quite automatically when the purpose and effect of such use are understood.

The use of most of the marks of punctuation should become as automatic as is the spelling of most words; but some parts of each art become automatic only after much study. The similarity between some of the difficulties presented by the arts of spelling and of punctuation seems worthy of notice at this point in our discussion. To spell the word pronounced pâr, one must know whether he is to spell the name of a fruit (pear), two things of a kind (pair), or the act of cutting (pare). Likewise, to punctuate language one must first know what relations exist between the parts of language. Every group of words, as well as every word, sustains some relation to another word or group of words in the sentence or paragraph. Somewhat exact knowledge of this relation is possessed by everybody, even by the child just beginning to talk. It is a part of one’s common sense; but, unfortunately, many text-books on language, used in the grade school, the high school, and the college, bury the common-sense knowledge of the pupil under technicalities that are never mastered. In like manner the technicalities of punctuation have made the art so difficult that it may be said to be almost a lost art. We are attempting to rediscover it through our common sense.

Let the reader challenge the first comma, when he reaches it, in No. 4-2 with “What do you say?” The answer will be, “Reader, if you think ‘like men’ is an adjective describing ‘boys,’ as ‘like Henry’ describes ‘boys’ in No. 4, you are mistaken, and you must look for another meaning.” A like challenge of the second comma, if necessary, will elicit this answer: “Reader, if you think ‘men’ is the subject of ‘may,’ you are mistaken, and you must look for another meaning.”

That the use of the commas in No. 4-2 is practically the same as their use in No. 3-1, may also be illustrated diagrammatically:

4-3. Boys like memay be courageous for principle’s sake.

4-3. Boyslike menmay be courageous for principle’s sake.

There is another and very important class of words whose sense relation is determined by the punctuation we have been considering. We shall merely touch upon this punctuation at this time, leaving it for fuller discussion later.

As the context is often necessary to show the real meaning of a word, we will supply it for our first example.

In response to a request to be excused from school, a teacher informs a pupil that he may go later. At a later hour the teacher says to him:

5. Now you may go.

The word “now” is here expressive purely of time, and suggests no other meaning than that obtained at the first reading. The sentence is another form of “You may go now,” which requires no punctuation other than the period. The word “now,” as here used, is an adverb expressing time.

In a similarly formed sentence the office of the word may be quite different; and, in order to show this fact, the comma is used.

5-1. Now we see we that cannot learn to punctuate until we comprehend the fundamental principles underlying the relations between groups of words, as well as the fundamental principles underlying the use of marks. Now, what are we going to do about it?

In No. 5-1 the first “now” conveys a sufficient idea of time to stand as an adverb, just as “now” does in No. 5; but the second “now” is a mere expletive. To show that it does not sustain its apparent relation, the relation of time, to the remainder of the clause, it is cut off by a comma.

RECAPITULATION

Let us now review and recapitulate the points we have tried to establish in our study thus far:

1. The meaning of language depends very largely upon the groupings of its words. In very simple language, words are so placed that each word is related to a word or words immediately or closely following or preceding it. In such language the reader is hardly conscious that the words are grouped, except into sentences; and no mark may be required, except the end-mark.

2. In more complex language the grouping within the sentence becomes manifest to the reader, and two constructions and two meanings of the language often become possible. In order to notify the reader which meaning the language is intended to convey, the writer may put a sign-board at the point where the meaning may be mistaken. The reader reads the sign-board, and thus keeps on the right line of thought-development.

3. In the sentences thus far studied, except No. 3-1, marks were used simply to aid the reader to catch the meaning quickly by avoiding a wrong grouping of words. In No. 3-1 the meaning of the language was entirely changed by the marks.

[Examples will be found at the end of Chapter II]

CHAPTER II
THE FUNDAMENTAL PURPOSE OF PUNCTUATION—GROUPING

We endeavored to show in Chapter I that the fundamental purpose of punctuation is to group by means of marks words whose relations in the absence of marks would be either easily mistaken or not quickly apprehended.

When to use a mark, and what mark to use, are determined by reason or by convention.

Some of the conventions that determine a punctuation familiar to most people, together with some of the problems that confront us in our study, are exhibited in the punctuation of the following sentence:

5A. Mr. Smith came to the city in 1872, and located at 1872 Wabash Avenue. He brought with him 1,872 horses, valued at $187,200.00.

How does punctuation enable the reader to obtain the meaning at one point in the above sentence, and so to group the language (figures) at another point that he can apprehend the meaning at a glance? Because of well-nigh universal usage, the above date and street numbers are read eighteen hundred seventy-two; but the same number in the next sentence is read one thousand eight hundred seventy-two. As we all know, in arithmetical notation three figures form a group, the groups so formed being named units, thousands, millions, etc. It is therefore evident that, in reading a number containing two or more such groups, the eye will be aided if the groups are indicated by some mark. (We here use the comma and the period for this purpose.) Although the left-hand group of a number may not be full, a figure in that group takes the name of the group, and so we mark it off. Thus we use commas in two of the numbers in our example, one of which (1,872) has only one figure in the second (thousand) group. This we call punctuation by reason, for we thus point off natural groups.

We do not use the comma to group the figures in the same number (1872) used in two other places in the above example. Because date and street numbers of four figures are read in groups of two figures each the eye readily does the grouping, and a mark is not needed as an aid in the grouping. This is also punctuation by reason.

In the fourth number in our example we use a comma to do one grouping, and a period to make another (the cents) group. We call the use of the period in this number conventional punctuation.

Many printing-offices do not punctuate a number containing less than five figures. Such a rule would call for 9999 and 10,000. This is purely arbitrary punctuation. Our problem is to find, as far as possible, a reason for the use of every mark, and to point out what seems to us good conventional usage in punctuation for which we can find no reason.

THE NAMES OF MARKS

The names of the principal marks were given to them by the Greek grammarians, the name of each mark being the name of the group of words with which the mark was used. The group of words which we call a sentence, they called a period. They arbitrarily marked its end by a dot, and called the dot also a “period.” We retain the name of the mark. They called one of the largest divisions of a sentence a limb, and set it off with a mark called the “kolon,” which means a limb. We retain the name of the mark in our word colon. The same is true of the mark we still call a comma. The semicolon is a mark of later date; and, as its name implies, it falls between the comma and the colon in its character and use.

THE RELATIVE VALUES OF MARKS

We still recognize, at least in large measure, the values given the marks by the Greek grammarians; and the principle is important in our study. Thus we say, of the four principal marks the comma indicates the slightest degree of separation between groups of words within a sentence; the semicolon indicates the next larger division; and the colon indicates the largest division. The period separates a full sentence from the sentence standing next to it; and it is also used when a sentence stands alone.

We have seen the need of marks in the above illustrative sentences, and have also seen where the marks were needed; but we had to assume that the comma was the proper mark to use. We now know the relative values given the marks by the Greek grammarians. If our knowledge of language, even though it is not based upon technical grammar, teaches us that the degree of separation between the groups of words where we found the need of a mark, was the least degree requiring a mark, then the comma was the proper mark to use. With this relative degree of separation in language and the relative value of the comma intelligently settled, we can assert that we punctuated our illustrative sentences in Chapter I by reason, and not by rule. An apparent exception to the exact truth of this statement is presented in the punctuation of Sentence 1-1, because the degree of separation between its parts cannot be exactly fixed. We discuss this point in Chapters IV and VII.

A sentence exhibiting the relations calling for the use of the four principal marks will serve to show their relative values, and the relative degrees of separation between groups of words which the marks indicate:

6. Athens’ freedom and her power have, for more than twenty centuries, been annihilated; her people have degenerated into timid slaves; her language, into a barbarous jargon; her temples have been given up to the successive depredations of Romans, Turks, and Scotchmen: but her intellectual empire is imperishable.

Reading this sentence with the knowledge of the comma already gained, we reach the end of the first fairly complete group of words, where we meet a semicolon. Let us challenge this mark, or sign-board, for its meaning. In answer, it says that what is to follow is not to be tied in the comma relation to what has preceded, as would be the case if the sentence continued in the following way:

6-1. Athens’ freedom and her power have, for more than twenty centuries, been annihilated, her people having degenerated through luxury.

The semicolon, on the contrary, says that the group of words to follow is of equal rank with the whole group which has preceded the mark; and it thus shows how the sentence is to develop. The next semicolon in No. 6 says to the reader that a series of semicolon-divided groups is under way. This makes easy reading up to the colon, which, being followed by “but,” is to mark the extent of the but relation between what is to follow and what has preceded. The meaning of the colon, as learned from its original use, tells the reader that the sentence is divided into members, or “limbs”; and therefore the but relation here is between all that precedes and all that is to follow, for these groups constitute the limbs of the sentence. If what follows the colon was to be tied to less than all that precedes, the but relation could extend only to the last semicolon, thus completing this particular group. It is very evident that the but relation could not terminate in the midst of language tied together as are the groups preceding “but” in this sentence; and yet many good writers use the semicolon, instead of the colon, in sentences like this, probably, however, without considering what grouping is thus made.

The entire sentence is divided into two groups by the colon, as the sense relation manifestly requires. If we change the order of the two larger groups in No. 6, the colon will be the first mark reached by the reader; and it will give him notice of what is to follow:

6-2. Athens’ intellectual empire is imperishable: but her freedom and her powers have, for more than twenty centuries, been annihilated ...

Here the colon, if challenged for its meaning, would say that all that follows it in the sentence is to form one group in the but relation to all that precedes, with the further information that what follows is to be divided into groups by semicolons, thus requiring the colon to divide the sentence into two main parts. A semicolon at this point would have given another reply, and would not have been followed by other semicolons.

Probably the beginner in the study of punctuation will not fully comprehend this discussion of Sentence 6 and its modifications; but the discussion may throw some additional light on the disjunctive and grouping office of the four marks, including the period at the end of the sentence.

We will now consider a sentence in which the grouping, with its consequent punctuation, is at once very simple and very subtle. It is subtle because it is based upon the subtle meanings of the language; and yet it becomes very simple when the language is understood:

7. The following are the names of the Deity and of Jesus Christ:

1. Jehovah, Lord, God Almighty; Creator, Father, Preserver, Governor; the Supreme Being; the Holy Spirit.

2. The Messiah, the Anointed; the Son, the Savior, the Redeemer; the Holy One; Prophet, Teacher, Master; Judge of the World.

Commas would be sufficient here to indicate what word or group of words constitutes a name; but there is additional information in the grouping of names which the writer desires to convey, and which, perhaps, would not appear to many readers if attention were not directed to it by proper grouping, which is done here by semicolons. It will be seen that the number of names in a group in the above example varies from one to four.

What information does this grouping convey, and upon what is the grouping based? The words in the first group are the primary terms for the Deity (Exodus vi, 2, 3); in the second group, the names of the Deity which express His relation to man; etc.

The next sentence shows a similar grouping, but a grouping based upon more familiar and more marked characteristics of the things grouped:

7-1. Among the chief products of Minnesota are the following: wheat, corn, and oats; potatoes, beets, beans, etc.; butter and cheese; lumber; iron; etc.

The semicolon grouping here needs no explanation, although the use of a mark at one point in the sentence may seem at variance with the punctuation at another point. In the second group a comma is used before “etc.”; and at the end of the sentence a semicolon precedes “etc.” The punctuation is consistent with the uses of the two marks in other parts of the sentence. In the second group the comma says the group is not complete; and therefore “etc.” stands for unexpressed items of the group, such, for instance, as peas. The last semicolon indicates to the reader that there are other groups; for instance, cattle, sheep, and hogs might constitute a group.

Many readers pass over punctuation of this kind; and they do not understand, or seek to understand, the meaning of such grouping as that in No. 7, while, because of its simplicity, that in No. 7-1 scarcely attracts their attention.

In the next sentence the grouping is informing and somewhat striking. The sentence, with a slight modification, is taken from a U. S. Census Report:

7-2. I have the honor to transmit herewith statistical tables of mortality; the insane, feeble-minded, deaf and dumb, and blind; crime, pauperism, and benevolence; education; churches; foreign-born population; and manufactures.

The third group in this sentence is particularly striking, for it suggests the relationship between crime and pauperism, and the consequent private effort, in the form of benevolence, to deal with a social condition with which every government must deal.

Thus in Sentence 7-2 the grouping by semicolons imparts information which might be readily overlooked.

PUNCTUATION OF A SERIES

Sentence 7-2 suggests two uses of the comma to be found in the simplest sentences, one of which uses we almost take for granted, and the other is a mooted use. Why do we use the comma between nouns standing together? and why do we omit it before the first “and,” and use it before the next “and,” in the second group (the insane, feeble-minded, deaf and dumb, and blind)?

We answer that each use is based upon the fundamental principle of punctuation, the principle of disjunction, which distinguishes between the apparent and the real meaning of words or groups of words standing together.

It may be said, with apparent good reason, that no comma is absolutely necessary to separate the second and third nouns in such a group as “wheat, corn, and oats”; and it is quite common practice not to use a comma before the final “and” in such a group. While this practice may be correct, it is to be remembered that we are seeking helpful punctuation, not the absolutely necessary in each instance; and the most helpful punctuation is that which is most nearly uniform in its treatment of cases falling into well-defined classes.

As we are now considering what is technically called a series, it is well to consider the value of consistency in the punctuation of a series. A few examples will illustrate this point:

8. William Henry and James are at school.

The words in the above stand in the natural order and relations to express thought in almost the simplest form of language. “William” is a noun sustaining to “Henry” the adjective relation, just as it would do in the name William Smith, even though our grammars give it another relation. If we do not wish it to stand in this relation and to convey this meaning, we disconnect the two words by a comma:

8-1. William, Henry and James are at school.

This sentence names three boys; and its meaning is unmistakable at a glance.

We saw in Sentence 1 the tendency of the reader to combine in one group words connected by “and,” which is the natural manner of reading. Because of this fact, notice is to be given by punctuation when “and” does not connect the words between which it stands, unless notice is given in another way, as it often is. As Sentence 8-1 is written, “Henry and James” appears to constitute a group to be followed by other words in a series, just as is the case in the second group of No. 7-2. This tendency to wrong grouping will be seen in reading the following sentence:

8-2. Among the earliest colleges established in America were Yale, Trinity, William and Mary, and Harvard.

In this sentence one college (William and Mary) is named by a group of words connected by “and,” this group being followed by another name also connected by “and” to what precedes. All punctuators admit that such grouping imperatively demands a comma before the final “and,” for without the comma the reader could not possibly ascertain from the language the names of the colleges.

As such grouping is very common, and as the tendency to group together words connected by “and” is quite natural, the use of the comma before the final “and” in every series is helpful punctuation. This punctuation makes the absence of the comma before “and” give notice that a group of words within, and not at the end of, the series, is reached. For this reason it is well to make the punctuation of every series uniform.

This punctuation requires a comma before “and” in No. 8-1:

8-3. William, Henry, and James are at school.

Unless one, in reading aloud, exhibits the grouping by voice-inflection, his hearers may not comprehend the meaning conveyed by the grouping. Failure thus to show the grouping in No. 8-2 would utterly confuse the hearer as to the names of the two colleges designated by a group of words in which two “ands” appear. This relation between voice-inflection and punctuation is considered in our discussion of Sentence 28 and its variations.

A possible and apparent exception to the punctuation exhibited in No. 8-3 may be demanded in the punctuation of a very familiar group of words, the address line of a speech:

8-4. Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen.

The voice-inflection of almost every speaker who uses these words, as well as of almost every person who reads them aloud, exhibits a grouping that inhibits the use of a comma before “and.” In other words, the people addressed by the speaker are divided into two groups,—the “president” constituting one group, and “ladies and gentlemen” another. This grouping is exhibited by the voice-inflection of the speaker or reader and by the omission of a comma before “and” by the printer.

If, on the other hand, three groups are to be made of the persons addressed, the voice-inflection and the punctuation (a comma before “and”) should show the grouping.

In the absence of a comma before “and” in this group, the language of the group does not constitute what we technically call a “series”; and therefore the omission of the comma is only an apparent exception to the punctuation of a series.

We call attention to the punctuation of this group of words because we find it in the two Manuals issued by the University of Chicago Press. It is there printed without an explanation of the omission of the comma, although such omission is contrary to the rule given in each Manual for the punctuation of a series, while the words appear in another place in one of the Manuals with a comma before “and.” The words appear in the Manuals as illustrations of the use of capitals and italics, and not in connection with punctuation.

It may be well to recall that the relation between any two words or groups of words in a series is the relation shown by the final conjunction. If expressed, this conjunction is either “and” or “or”; if not expressed, it is practically always “and.”

It is a quite common practice to use a comma before the final “and” in a series requiring semicolons between the preceding groups. This punctuation often leaves the reader in doubt as to whether the “and” completes a group or ends the series; therefore the better punctuation is to use a semicolon before the final “and” in such a series.

The value of grouping is further shown in the following sentence:

9. There are no better cosmetics than temperance and purity, modesty and humility, a gracious temper and calmness of spirit.

We group the words in this sentence for the same reason that the words are grouped in Nos. 7, 7-1, and 7-2. It is simply natural grouping based upon the sense of the language.

How much would be lost in the absence of such grouping may be seen by breaking up the simple groups in No. 9:

9-1. There are no better cosmetics than temperance, purity, modesty, humility, a gracious temper, and calmness of spirit.

The punctuation of No. 9-1 is just as correct as that of No. 9; but it is purely mechanical and not “elegant.” Forceful grouping, with or without grouping words, requires proper punctuation.

Another quite simple form of this grouping, based upon the sense relation, is sometimes overlooked by distinguished writers, and even by authors of text-books on language. The following sentence exhibits both a correct grouping and a correct sense relation:

10. He is in doubt about the best course for him to pursue; but I am sure about the best course for me to pursue.

Here the but relation is between his doubt and my certainty, as if written, He is in doubt; but I am sure.

A similarly formed sentence may convey a meaning that is clearly not the meaning the writer wishes to convey:

10-1. He is in doubt about the best course for him to pursue; but I am sure his doubt will soon disappear.

The but relation in No. 10-1 is not between his doubt and my certainty, as in No. 10. The meaning of No. 10-1 may be expressed thus: He is in doubt; but his doubt will soon disappear. But the assertion made in the latter part of this statement is too strong, and requires a modifier. “Probably” would nearly express the meaning intended to be expressed by the modifier in No. 10-1. If “I am sure” is preferred as the modifier, its relation to the verb (will disappear) must be made unmistakable. It is not so made in No. 10-1, for it appears to be connected by “but” with what precedes it, just as it is connected with what precedes it in No. 10. To disconnect it, a comma precedes it; and one follows it to disconnect it from what follows.

The new relations are shown by the following punctuation:

10-2. He is in doubt about the best course for him to pursue; but, I am sure, his doubt will soon disappear.

Suppose the sentence read as follows, how would it be punctuated?

10-3. He is in doubt about the best course for him to pursue; but I am sure that his doubt will soon disappear.

This sentence cannot be punctuated. The but relation is here between incongruous thoughts; and therefore the sentence must be mended, which can be done by making it like No. 10-2, omitting “that.”

No amount of usage, even among good writers, can justify the absence of commas in No. 10-1, or the construction of No. 10-3.

The discussion of these sentences emphasizes the necessity for observing the meaning of language as expressed by its grouping and by the relation of one group to another.

Additional light will be thrown upon some of the relations already discussed if we consider them from another viewpoint, as we shall do in the next chapter.

EXAMPLES

Note.—As the principles set forth in Chapters I and II will be discussed more in detail in succeeding chapters, the following examples are given as general illustrations:

1. They think as I do.

2. They think, as I do, that you are wrong.

3. Far below, the mill was heard singing merrily.

4. Far below the mill the stream dashed over the precipice.

5. As all will recognize, the methods adopted were wise methods.

6. John is, like his father, a great hunter.

7. Genius finds its own road, and carries its own lamp.

8. He who pursues pleasure only, defeats the object of his creation.

9. Father and son, prince and subject, stranger and citizen, are correlative terms.

10. While principles may abide, the phenomena in which they appear may change.

11. He has the equipment to play saint or sinner, devil or angel.

12. To the wise and good, old age presents a scene of tranquil enjoyment.

13. The people of Miletus are not stupid, but they do the sort of things that stupid people do.

14. In his successes and his failures, in his greatness and his littleness, Burns is ever clear, simple, true, and glitters with no luster but his own.

15. The high-school course includes arithmetic, algebra, and geometry; grammar and composition; ancient and modern history; geography, natural history, and astronomy.

16. If Bacon could find time to write Shakespeare, Marlow, and Greene, I see no reason why he should not have written Ben Johnson, Beaumont and Fletcher, and the whole Elizabethan drama.

17. Aristophanes, Boccacio, Moliére and Cervantes, Dickens and Mark Twain, and our weekly comic papers make us laugh anew over the same old story, told in different accents and in different syntax.

18. With one of his two boys or a friend, and a dog, Tennyson would walk afield for miles.

19. With one of his two boys, or a friend and a dog, Tennyson would walk afield for miles.

In No. 18 the comma before “and” cuts “dog” off from “friend,” and makes a group of “dog” and “one of his two boys or a friend.” It makes this group simply because the sense permits no other grouping. Thus the meaning of No. 18 is, that Tennyson was accompanied by a dog and a person (one of his boys or a friend).

In No. 19 another grouping is made, which says Tennyson was accompanied by one of his boys or by a friend and a dog.

CHAPTER III
MODIFIED PARENTHESIS, EXPLANATORY AND RESTRICTIVE TERMS, AFTER-THOUGHT, AND APPOSITIVES

EXPLANATORY AND RESTRICTIVE MODIFIERS

The Greek grammarians gave the name parenthesis to a group of words “thrust into” language, either spoken or written, when such words have no grammatical connection with the language. We retain the word “parenthesis” to describe such a group, and also as the name of the curved lines with which the group is enclosed and thus identified. These lines are called parenthesis, marks of parenthesis, or parentheses.

Such matter is inserted for explanation or qualification; but it is not essential to the meaning of the language into which it is thrust, for matter essential to the meaning would not be so named or so marked.

The parenthesis did the ancient writers a larger service in the involved style of their composition than it does modern writers; however, in a modified form, it does the modern writer a very useful and, at times, an indispensable service.

What we may call a modified parenthesis (modified parenthetical matter) is found, one or more times, in almost every paragraph.

In order to clarify or explain our adopted term, “modified parenthesis,” a parenthesis, enclosed in parentheses, was used in the sentence preceding this one; and, in the same sentence, in order to qualify, in a somewhat peculiar manner, the expression “is found in every paragraph,” the modified parenthetical group of words “one or more times” was inserted. We characterize this parenthesis as somewhat peculiar. In its literal meaning, “one or more times” adds nothing to the statement in which it appears, for whatever occurs must occur “one or more times.” It does, however, add a new and perhaps subtle thought as to the frequency of the occurrence of the parenthesis.

The meanings of these terms, together with the reasons for their punctuation, will appear as we discuss illustrative examples:

11. The author says (page 5) that he did not go to London.

The words “page 5” were inserted in the above sentence by the writer himself simply as a matter of direction to the place in the book where the assertion was made. It has no grammatical connection with any part of the sentence: it is simply “thrust in”—it is “parenthetical.” We may modify its strictly parenthetical nature by putting it in another form:

11-1. The author says, on page 5, that he did not go to London.

Here the expression “on page 5” has still the parenthetical nature; but it is given grammatical connection, by means of the preposition “on,” to what precedes it. Thus we call it a “modified parenthesis”; or we may call it “slightly parenthetical” matter. It is obvious that the expression can be omitted in either No. 11 or No. 11-1 without the slightest effect upon the meaning of the sentence.

If we omit the commas in No. 11-1, we give the sentence practically a new meaning; and to complete the meaning a new clause must be added:

11-2. The author says on page 5 that he did not go to London; but he says on page 6 that he did go to London.

In No. 11-2 the language is used in its natural order; and no mark is required in either clause, for each group of words has its natural or logical relation to the group or groups standing next to it. The meaning is unmistakable. But why was the comma used in No. 11-1 and not in No. 11-2? Let us note carefully that we are still dealing with the proper grouping of words and with the relations of group to group, such relations giving rise to real and apparent meanings. With the real meaning of such groups as we are now considering fully understood, we know that a mark is used to change that meaning. Thus, in the consideration of these sentences, we come back to the principle exemplified in Sentences 1 and 2. We use the commas in No. 11-1 because the real meaning of the sentence is not the same as the meaning of the same language in No. 11-2.

One or two illustrative sentences will lead us, gradually and logically, to the punctuation of a large class of sentences in which the groups of words considered have somewhat more definite names than we have given the same groups in the above sentences.

A thorough comprehension of this punctuation is often indispensable, that the writer may convey to the reader his exact meaning, which may depend entirely upon the punctuation,—that is, upon the absence or the presence of marks:

12. Everywhere in America and England, as well as in Germany, the cry for peace is heard.

What does the language of No. 12 mean? Clearly, that in every part (everywhere) of America and in every part of England, as well as in every part of Germany, the cry for peace is heard. That is the apparent, and it is also the real, meaning of the language; but the writer may have had a different meaning in mind. If he did not wish to limit the “cry for peace” to America, England, and Germany, he would have disconnected from “everywhere” these limiting words, writing the sentence thus:

12-1. Everywhere, in America and England, as well as in Germany, the cry for peace is heard.

The use of the first comma in this grouping notifies the reader that a grouping different from the apparent grouping must be made. It also notifies him that a meaning different from that of No. 12 is to be conveyed by the new grouping. The second comma readily falls into its place; and by the same reasoning the third comma is called for.

The two groups are slightly parenthetical; and, treated as one group, they could be set off by parentheses.

12-2. Everywhere (in America and England, as well as in Germany) the cry for peace is heard.

They are not properly included in marks of parenthesis, because they do not constitute a pure parenthesis. They are inserted, not to explain the word “everywhere,” but for emphasis, being equivalent in meaning to even in America, etc. It will be observed that “everywhere,” as here used, means in all parts of the world. Nothing can be added to it; and therefore what the group of words under consideration explains is, that the word is used in its inclusive and exact meaning. The marks give a shade of meaning somewhat similar to that given by commas in setting off “one or more times,” discussed above.

It may be noted, in passing, that the middle (the second) comma in No. 12-1 acts with the first comma to form one group and with the third comma to form another group, thus making the three commas equivalent to two pairs of commas.

Our next sentence is an exceedingly interesting one. It has been submitted for interpretation to a number of persons, including editorial writers, authors, teachers, lawyers, and printers. Not a single one of them saw the real meaning; and, when the meaning was pointed out, not one of them could explain why the commas are used. Moreover, not one of the score or more of text-books on punctuation at hand gives a satisfactory explanation. The rules of all the books, it is true, cover the point; but the application of the rules is often so difficult as to render them valueless.

When understood, the sentence is simplicity itself, and the punctuation becomes equally simple and very informing.

The sentence (No. 13) is a part of a larger sentence taken from an essay on “Literature and Education” by Dr. Henry van Dyke, the larger sentence being one of several directions how to determine the value of a story:

13. Ask whether the people in the story develop, for better or for worse.

Let us suggest that the reader study the sentence before proceeding with our discussion of it. Let him put the sentence in the form of a question, and apply it to any story he has recently read. What two answers could be given to the question if applied to two stories requiring different answers?

Now let us ask why the comma is used. The answer is simple, for in our study of marks we have had only one reason for using the comma,—namely, to show that an apparent meaning is not the real meaning. If this is the reason for the use of the comma, the reason will be exemplified by a study of the sentence without the comma:

13-1. Ask whether the people in the story develop for better or for worse.

If the meaning of each sentence is not yet clear, let us consider the group of words following the comma in No. 13 as slightly parenthetical (a modified parenthesis). We may go a step further, and treat them as purely parenthetical, putting them in marks of parenthesis and putting the sentence in the interrogative form:

13-2. Do the people in the story develop (for better or for worse)?

Manifestly, the only answer is yes or no.

Why did Dr. van Dyke add these slightly parenthetical and apparently superfluous words (for better or for worse) to his sentence? He added them, primarily, because he knew some, perhaps many, readers might think “develop” means only growth upward (for better), while it is just as essential for the novelist to depict characters that “develop” downward (for worse) as upward.

But what does No. 13-1 mean? If put in the form of a question, what answer can be given? Only “for better” or “for worse.” This changes the meaning of the language. The first sentence (No. 13) asks whether the people in the story are static or dynamic; the second (No. 13-1) assumes that they are dynamic (they develop), and asks in what direction they develop.

Dr. van Dyke’s entire sentence clearly shows the meaning of the part of it we have been considering. The sentence is as follows:

13-3. Ask whether the people in the story develop, for better or for worse, and how far the change is credible and significant.

The groups of words we have been considering in Sentences 11 to 13-3 are either restrictive or explanatory groups, with the functions of nouns, adjectives, or adverbs, and with the relations that these parts of speech take in the construction of language.

The meanings of the terms “restrictive” and “explanatory” will appear as we consider other sentences; and the differentiation in the punctuation of restrictive and explanatory groups will be plain.

Our next sentence will serve a twofold purpose: first, to show how difficult it is to punctuate a sentence out of its context; and, secondly, to show that a sentence may be given two meanings by punctuation:

14. The boy who is at home is my best pupil.

14-1. The boy, who is at home, is my best pupil.

The person who is thoroughly familiar with the reasons for the use of marks can interpret these sentences; and he can also construct a context requiring the commas or their omission. On the other hand, one not familiar with such reasons could probably do neither.

The value of this knowledge is quite inestimable. Because of ignorance of it on the part of legislators, our courts have been required to determine the meanings of municipal, state, and national laws involving vital social relations and vast financial interests.

Applying the general principles already discussed, we say that the first comma in No. 14-1 is to show that the relation between “boy” and “who is my best pupil” is not the same relation that exists between the same groups in No. 14. But why is this? Let us construct contexts for the sentences, and then study them in the light of the information thus obtained.

Suppose a visitor to a school asks the teacher about a certain class, and the teacher replies as follows:

14-2. The class is composed of six boys. The boy who is at home is my best pupil.

The group of words “who is at home” is an adjective; and the meaning of the noun with the qualification made by the adjective may be thus expressed: the at-home boy. In this form the group specifies what boy, and so restricts the boy named as to mean a certain, definite boy.

We here take the language in its natural order, and obtain a definite and clearly understood meaning.

Another context will show a different relation. The teacher replies as follows:

14-3. The class is composed of one boy and five girls. The boy, who is at home, is my best pupil.

Because of the context, “the boy” needs no identification, no restrictive words to explain who is meant. The sentence could be written thus:

14-4. The class is composed of one boy and five girls. The boy (he is at home) is my best pupil.

In the above sentence the group of words in parentheses explains; but it is not restrictive. It tells something about the boy; but it does not tell what boy, for this information is given in what precedes, which says there is only one boy. In No. 14-3 this group of words is slightly changed, and is given grammatical connection by its form, and thus it becomes only slightly parenthetical.

In Nos. 14 and 14-2 the meaning is not complete without the restrictive words. In Nos. 14-1, 14-3, and 14-4 these words are not essential to identify the boy, being added simply by way of explanation, hence they are called explanatory.

In the consideration of the terms explanatory and restrictive, much confusion arises from the fact that a restrictive group may also be an explanatory group. A purely explanatory group, which requires commas to set it off, is never a restrictive group. This confusion can be entirely avoided by calling the groups restrictive and non-restrictive. The latter group is set off by commas because it conveys a different meaning from that of a restrictive group, and also because it is “slightly parenthetical,” that is, parenthetical in nature, but with grammatical connection.

Not a few writers use the marks of parenthesis or dashes, instead of commas, to set off a non-restrictive (explanatory) group; but, as their writings reveal no differentiation in the uses of these three marks, their system of punctuation is a wholly hit-or-miss one.