Читать книгу Why We Punctuate; or, Reason Versus Rule in the Use of Marks - William Livingston Klein - Страница 3

Table of Contents

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.