186 



* KNOV/LEDGE ♦ 



[Sept. 21, 1883. 



NOTES OX PUNCTUATION. 



By Richard A. Proctor. 



THE Brighton Herald contends zealously for the rights 

 of the humble comma, though now somewhat changing 

 the figure by speaking of the comma as a humble but 

 willing soldier, always ready to do its duty. The Herald 

 is with us so far as the appearance of the comma before 

 " who " or " which," when not wanted there, is concerned. 

 A recent e.xample has illustrated the mischievous effect of 

 such excess of zeal on the part of the humble but willing 

 soldier. Writing of " the Brighton Liberals who met 

 yesterday, ic," the Hi'mld found a Conservative con- 

 temporary had altered the meaning of the words by pressing 

 a humble soldier in before the " who." 



But the Herald maintains its position about the use of 

 the comma on either side of " therefore," in such a sentence 

 as, " He called for help ; and therefore I struck him," 

 which the Herald writer would punctuate, " He called for 

 help ; and, therefore, I struck him." He reasons thus : — 



Onr position, and we think it a strong one, is that the "there- 

 fore" is a parenthetical introduction, quite independent of the 

 " and," which, indeed, it in no way qualifies. The " and " is the 

 conjunction," the "therefore" an explanatory aUasion, not to the 

 " and" but to the sentence preceding it. Mr Proctor thinks that if 

 the "and" were omitted, no one would think of addins: a comma 

 after " therefore." Possibly not, though even that is an open 

 issue ; but we must point out that the omission of the " and " 

 implies a re-construction of the sentence, and, therefore, that what 

 would hold good in one case need not necessarily be held to be bad 

 because it does not hold good in the other. The same remark will 

 apply to Mr Proctor's other illustrations. After reading the article 

 very carefully, we cannot adopt Mr Proctor's contention that " and, 

 therefore," is " simply monstrous," and we are afraid that we shall 

 persist in the " absurdity which no good writer ever allows to 

 remain, if he can possibly help it." How many well-intentioned 

 gentlemen who imagine tliemselves to be " good writers " will this 

 sentence shock ! 



[I am doubtful whether " this sentence " means the 

 quoted sentence of mine or the whole sentence : if the 

 former I can only say that I had no wish to shock "well- 

 intentioned gentlemen who imagine themselves good 

 writers."] 



Now though the question thus raised is not a very 

 important one it illustrates well the general principles in- 

 volved in punctuation. Here is a writer who, after careful 

 study of the matter, arrives at the conclusion that certain 

 commas are necessary or at least desirable soldiers in a 

 simple sentence, while here (at his desk perusing these 

 words) is another who considers them simply monstrous, 

 or at least described them so when he supposed that no 

 practised writer would stand up for them, after a little 

 consideration of what appeared to him their inherent 

 absurdity. Of course the word " monstrous" is withdrawn 

 now, out of courtesy. But my objections remain. 



Suppose for a moment that we regard the word " there- 

 fore " as a parenthetical introduction, would that justify 

 its enclosure between commas ? Not at all ; for " commas" 

 are entirely different from parentheses in their meaning 

 and effect. The best proof of this is that there may be 

 three or five commas in a correctly punctuated sentence, 

 whereas parentheses always come in pairs. Thus consider 

 the sentence "He insulted me; and, therefore, I struck 

 him, but not violently." Here there are three commas, 

 the two first put in according to the HerakTs plan and the 

 compositor's constant rule, the third manifestly necessary. 

 Where now is the parenthetical introduction % Is it the 

 word " therefore," or is it the statement " I struck him " ? 

 If commas and parentheses were interchangeable it might 

 as well be one as the other ; in other words, the sentence, 



judged by the Herald's way of treating commas, bears more 

 meanings than one. 



But again, (wliich compositors nearly always change 

 into But, again,) suppose we write " and (therefore)," or 

 " and, therefore," agreeing to regard the commas as paren- 

 theses, what liave we done by thus carefully nursing our 

 parenthetical introduction? Have we helpid the .sense'! 

 Have we made it clearer than it was before; that the word 

 " therefore " relates to the preceding sentence. On the 

 contrary, so far as we have done anything besides cum- 

 bering the sentence, we have made it appear that the word 

 " therefore " relates specially to the " and " ; for a paren- 

 thetical introduction is always referred to what imme- 

 diately precedes, or belongs specially to the place where 

 it is brought in. (In this indeed consists the whole art of 

 using parentheses properly). Apart from the logical 

 pressure thus brought to bear on the unfortunate little 

 " and," consider the pressure which falls on it from the 

 mere effect of pausing before and after the word " there- 

 fore." Read aloud successively, — 



He called for help ; and therefore I went to him, 

 He called for help ; and, therefore, I went to him, 



making in each case a proper pause for each stop, and the 

 absurdity of the commas attending on therefore becomes at 

 once apparent. Try these sentences again, — 



He insulted me ; and therefore I went away, 



He insulted me ; and, therefore, I went away, 



He insulted me ; and therefore (not wishing to make a scene) I 

 went away. 



He insulted me ; and, therefore, (not mshing to make a scene) I 

 went away. 



The last two show the proper use of parentheses. In the 

 former (of these) commas might have been used in accord- 

 ance with the custom which allows them sometimes to 

 replace parentheses ; but parentheses are better, since they 

 interrupt the sense less. 



Some who object to parentheses altogether, would prefer 



He insulted me ; and therefore I went away : for I did not wish 

 to make a scene. 



But there can be no doubt that the use of parentheses in 

 such cases as these diminishes what may be called the 

 mental friction in reading. 



In connection with the parenthetical value of the 

 comma, examine the first sentence in the passage quoted 

 above from the Brighton Herald. It is a curiosity in its 

 way. 



The fact is, however, that apart from all questions of 

 logic, punctuation, and so forth, the spirit of our language, 

 I may say the spirit of language, rejects altogether the idea 

 that such words as so, yet, tlius, hence, therefore, again, 

 however, indeed, and the like, are to be regarded as paren- 

 thetical introductions. They may be described as ad- 

 verbial conjunctions, with no more right, usually, to be 

 defended on either side by the humble comma, than and, 

 hut, and other conjunctions possess. Sometimes commas 

 are wanted, however. The Brighton Herald cannot see why 

 in the sentence " In quite a number of cases however the 

 commas are better omitted " I leave " however " alone, 

 while in the sentence, " Here, however, these is room for 

 the practice " I put a comma on each side of the word. I 

 had good reasons. In the first sentence the commas could 

 be omitted ; and whenever they can be they should be : 

 nothing is more suggestive of inexperience in writing than 

 failing to throw overboard every comma which can be 

 spared. In the other case, putting in the commas threw 

 the emphasis on " here," which was what I wanted. 



There is a very just objection to the unnecessary or too 

 frequent use of parentheses, but the feeling against them 



