Printers and proof-readers are to take for granted, that, in every work which falls under their supervision, the proper agreement between thought and expression has been effected by the author. He alone has the right to change the words and their collocation; and, if fairly punctuated, the manuscript should be closely followed, word for word, and point for point.

Every person who writes for the press should punctuate his work presentably; but—since the majority of writers are inattentive to punctuation—custom and convenience, if not necessity, have thrown upon the compositor and proof-reader the task of inserting in their proper places the grammatical points, and such other points and marks as shall assist a reader in obtaining a ready apprehension of the author’s meaning. These are the period (.), the colon (:), the semicolon (;), the comma (,), the note of in­ter­ro­ga­tion (?), the note of exclamation (!), the parenthesis (), and the dash (—).

Besides these principal characters, there are other marks and signs used in writing and printing,—the hyphen (-), the apostrophe (’), and others; all which may be found in the concluding division of {p72} this chapter, numbered VIII., and should be referred to as occasion may require.

Books which treat of English grammar speak of four of the points in common use—to wit, the period, the colon, the semicolon, and the comma—as “grammatical” points; while the dash, the note of in­ter­ro­ga­tion, the note of exclamation, and the parenthesis are classified as “rhetorical,”—being used to indicate various effects produced in conversation by changes in the tone of the voice. But as “English grammar is the art of speaking and writing [or printing] the English language with propriety,” and as all points and marks in the printer’s case are necessary to printing with propriety, it is not essential in this work to make the distinctions alluded to above. Nor shall we treat at length, if at all, of technical marks not in common use; as, for instance, signs used in algebra and chemistry, and in various arts and sciences. These can be referred to, should occasion require, in handbooks, and in Webster’s Dictionary, pp. 1864–68, or in Worcester’s, pp. 1773–75.

Our school-books used to tell us, that at the period we should stop long enough to count four; at the colon, three; at the semicolon, two; at the comma, one. But pauses vary in length, as readers and speakers wish to affect or impress their hearers: hence reporters of speeches and orations sometimes—finding ordinary points and marks insufficient—insert, in brackets, some comment indicating that there was a pause made which outreached the time {p73} allowed for an ordinary period. We listened in April, 1861, to a speech by Wendell Phillips, in which, at the close of one sentence, the orator paused long enough to count ten or twelve; the reporters at that place inserted in brackets the words “[An impressive pause].”?[7] To denote by distinctive characters every possible length of pause would require an infinitude of signs, types, and cases. We must therefore do the best we can with the few points now in use, leaving much to the taste of authors, printers, and readers. Still, the immense advantage modern students have over those of ancient times is made obvious by a comparison of antique and modern writings,—for punctuation is comparatively a modern affair, whose origin and changes it will be both useful and interesting to trace,—and in doing this, we shall endeavor to avoid the charge of prolixity, by condensing into brief space information gained from a variety of sources.

The most ancient Greek manuscript known is among the papyri of the Louvre. It is a work on astronomy, and is indorsed with deeds of 165 and 164 B.C. This has “a certain sort of separation of words.” In a copy of Homer, written B.C., a wedge-shaped sign > is inserted “between the beginnings of {p74} lines” to mark a new passage. But even these marks were soon lost sight of; subsequent Greek and Latin writing runs on continuously without distinction of words. In the fifth century of our era, the fourth verse of the Second Epistle of John was thus written:

In Greek MSS. this method continued until the fourteenth century.

St. Jerome (A.D. 324–420) wrote a Latin version of the Bible—“the foundation of the Vulgate”—“per cola et commata”; not with colons and commas as we understand those words, but by a stichometric arrangement,—dividing the text into short sentences or lines, according to the sense, chiefly with a view to a better understanding of the meaning, and a better delivery in public reading. It is not until the latter part of the seventh century that there is some separation of words in Latin MSS. In the later Latin (eighth century) the full point in various positions was introduced,—being placed on a level with the top, bottom, or middle of the letters,—as the students of “Andrews and Stoddard” are well aware. In still later MSS. in small letter, the full point on the line or high was first used; then the comma and {p75} semicolon; and the inverted semicolon (?), whose power was stronger than the comma.

In early Irish and English MSS., separation of words is quite consistently followed; and in these the common mark of punctuation was the full point, while to denote the final stop or period one or two points with a comma (..,) were used.

Contractions were much used in ancient MSS. to save time and labor. Some of these were denoted by a semicolon; as b; =bus; q; =que; vi; =videlicet,—this character, in cursive writing, readily became a z, whence we have our viz =videlicet.

The Roman numerals in ancient texts were placed between full points; e.g., .CXL., to prevent confusion.

Punctuation remained very uncertain until the end of the fifteenth century, when the Manutii, three generations of printers,—the elder (1450–1515) the most learned, skillful, and energetic of the three,—increased the number of points, and made rules for their application; and these were so generally adopted, that Aldus Manutius and his son and grandson may be considered inventors of the present system of punctuation, notwithstanding it has been changed, and perhaps improved upon, since their time,—notably in the use of the colon. But scholars differ so widely in some respects as to the insertion of commas, as well as other points, that not many rules are as yet absolutely fixed.

Modern writers tell us that “points are used to mark the sense rather than the pauses.” We would {p76} substitute “as well as” for “rather.” In writing from dictation we place points where the dictator makes pauses; and in reading we make pauses where the writer has put the points. For example, note the difference in sense and pause, according as the comma is placed before or after “to the end,” in the following sentence:

Murray’s large octavo English Grammar and countless common-school grammars, from Murray’s time to the present day, contain rules for aiding students and writers to decide where points, and what points, should be placed. These are of great utility, and every young person should familiarize himself with them as found, briefly stated, in books now in use. It should be borne in mind, however, that a close and slavish adherence to stated forms, without ascertaining their bearings in individual cases, tends to becloud the judgment, and may cause an author’s meaning to be obscured, or even concealed, rather than elucidated.

In books issued by different houses will be found great diversity in the manner of pointing similar and even the same sentences; and some part of what we have called “style” results from the effort of a {p77} house to be consistent with itself, and to establish a uniformity among its own issues.

The rules given in this chapter, and the observations accompanying them, are mainly the results of our own training and experience as compositor and proof-reader at different periods, covering in the aggregate more than twenty years. To bring out by punctuation the sense of difficult and involved sentences—which are of frequent occurrence—requires close attention and careful study,—attention not the less close, nor study the less careful, because prompted by the necessity of immediate practical application.

As all rules suitable to guide human conduct lie folded up in the golden rule, so all rules for pointing sentences are embraced in this: Punctuate so as to bring out the author’s meaning. And by their consonance with this great rule all special rules must be judged. Yet in this, as in all other matters, men disagree in their judgments; and we must be content in our diversities, until the academy desiderated by the “Spectator” shall have become an actual institution, invested with a quasi grammatical infallibility.

For instance, as to placing a comma between a nominative phrase or sentence and the predicate, the best authorities differ. Wilson’s rule is,—

The “Practical Grammar,” by S. W. Clark, A.M., published by A. S. Barnes & Co., New York, gives the following rule: {p78}

Of course the examples under the rule exhibit a corresponding difference.

Ingersoll’s Grammar (Portland, 1828) and Kerl’s—which last is now very extensively used—agree with Clark. Both have the same example as Wilson, but pointed as follows:—

Goold Brown (Grammar of Grammars) inserts the comma. Cobbett’s Grammar omits it.

Take up the first dozen books that come to hand, and you will find diversity of practice.

The better method is to omit the comma, except in those cases where its insertion would prevent ambiguity; as in the quotation above, from Stanley, where there should have been a comma after “fostered”; {p79} as it stands, the word “long” may qualify either the word before or after it.

So, if you examine any number of volumes with reference to placing a comma before and, or, or nor, when three or more words, in the same category, are connected,—in some you will find “Faith, and hope, and charity”; in others, “Faith and hope and charity.” We have just met with the following lines in a well-known paper:

Wilson’s example is (p. 38),—

In view of these and similar differences of practice, and contradiction of rules, one is tempted to say that it is of no moment whether the commas are inserted or not. But, leaving “style” out of the question, a proof-reader should endeavor to have a reason for every omission he allows, and for every insertion he makes. We advise him, then, in the first place to note which method seems required by the golden rule of elucidating the meaning; then consider, further, if the sentence already contains commas, whether inserting more would offend the eye. Let him decide each case on its own merits; leaning, when in doubt, in favor of such grammatical rule as he may have adopted. But use judgment; for the most precise grammarians lay down pages of exceptions; and Cobbett (Grammar, Letter XIV.) cannot be gainsaid when {p80} he writes, “It is evident, that, in many cases, the use of the comma must depend upon taste.”

When a phrase or clause, in its nature parenthetic, is quite closely connected with the parts of the sentence in which it is placed, the insertion of the comma before and after such phrase or clause “must depend upon taste.” The former comma especially, may often be omitted (see Obs. 10, under Rule 16, post). If the commas are inserted, we have a specimen of what is called “close pointing”; if omitted, we have “liberal pointing.”

Close pointing prevails in almost all publications except law-work, and in all doubtful cases puts in the comma. Liberal pointing, on the other hand, omits the points except when absolutely necessary to avoid ambiguity.

A middle course, retaining the spirit rather than adhering to the letter of the rules, will be found the safest. When, as will often be the case, a passage occurs, the meaning of which varies with the insertion or omission of a comma, while it would be grammatical either way, the compositor should follow the copy; the proof-reader should mark the passages with his quÆre; but if he first notices the fault when reading the press-proof, he should suffer it to stand as the author left it, letting all responsibility remain where it rightfully belongs.

Abbreviated words, besides the period denoting their ab­bre­vi­a­tion, require the same pointing as if they were spelled in full. Thus “Jno. Smith, Esq., of Worcester; Abel Soane, M.D.; and James Doe, {p81} LL.D.,—were appointed a comm. to take care of books, docs., etc., etc.,” has the same pointing as “John Smith, Esquire, of Worcester; Abel Soane, Doctor of Medicine; and James Doe, Doctor of Laws,—were appointed a committee to take care of books, documents, and so forth, and so forth.” But in some classes of work, as Directories, Catalogues of books, Genealogies, and where titles and ab­bre­vi­a­tions are of frequent occurrence, double pointing may be partially avoided by omitting the comma after a period which denotes an ab­bre­vi­a­tion.

Neatness requires the omission of the comma before leaders; thus,

is more pleasing to the eye than

Preambles to resolutions and laws are usually begun with “Whereas.” After this word a comma is sometimes heedlessly inserted, although the introductory word is not followed by a parenthetic clause. We append the most improved forms for punctuating and cap­i­tal­iz­ing preambles, resolves, and provisos:

The semicolon should be placed before as, in an enumeration of particulars following a general statement; thus:

But when as is not preceded by a general or formal statement, no point is necessary unless as is followed by a parenthetic clause; as:

But in liberal pointing, the commas before and after “for instance” would be omitted.

In regard to the points or marks connected with “viz.,” “namely,” and “to wit,” the punctuation varies according to the structure of the sentences in which they occur; but this does not prevent a publishing-house from having a style of its own. It is interesting to note the varieties which different offices present. We annex a few examples, which may be serviceable; to wit:

When viz. or namely or as follows ends a paragraph, the colon is commonly inserted; but the dash or comma-dash or colon-dash may sometimes be noticed,—it is a matter of office style. (See Punctuation, Rule 8, post.)

But if, referring to a succeeding sentence or paragraph, the words “the following” or “as follows” appear, the sentence in which they occur should be closed with the colon or colon-dash, as in the following examples: {p84}

The hyphen is used to connect the parts of a compound word; to show the divisions of words into syllables; it is placed at the end of a line when a word is not finished; and it is sometimes placed between vowels, to show that they belong to different syllables (as “co-ordinate”). In regard to its use in compound words great diversity exists; and the proof-reader can have, as we believe, no fixed system which will apply to all varieties of work. In specifications for bridges, buildings, etc., the better way is to avoid compounding; for, in everything of that kind, one will find so many “door-sills,” “newel-posts,” “stair-balusters,” “pulley-stiles,” etc., that if he begin marking in the hyphens he will scarcely make an end of it, and many hyphens sadly deform a page: better put “door knobs,” “window frames,” “stair nosings,” etc., omitting hyphens.

Here, too, the dictionaries can scarcely be said to assist, if they do not even mislead. Worcester has “brickwork,” “brasswork,” without hyphens; {p85} “wood-work,” “iron-work,” with them. “Greenhouse” is closed up, while “school-house” is not; “wood-house” has a hyphen, “almshouse” has none. (Wilson writes “schoolhouse.”) Webster has “brick-work” with the hyphen, “woodwork” without it,—just reversing Worcester. Again, Worcester writes, “humblebee” and “bumblebee”: Webster, under B, has “bumble-bee, .... sometimes called humble-bee”; and, under H, writes “humblebee, .... often called bumblebee,” apparently forgetful of his previous hyphens.

To search for authority, then, in the matter of compounding words, will avail next to nothing. In a volume containing “School Committees’ Reports,”—and certainly school committees ought to know many things,—we find “blackboard” and “black-board”; and, on one page, “schoolbooks,” “schoolkeeping,” “schoolmaster,” “school-houses,” “school-checks.” “Semi-annual” is frequently printed with the hyphen, according to Webster; but Worcester, omitting the hyphen, has “semiannual.”

Thus it appears, that, in regard to compounding (by which we mean inserting the hyphen between the parts of a compound word), the proof-reader is left to his own discretion, and can do very much as he pleases. He should, however, adopt some method by which he can approximate to uniformity in his own work; for as to agreeing with anybody else, that is out of the question.

Perhaps as good a rule as can be laid down on this subject is to close up the word when {p86} compounding changes the accentuation; otherwise, insert the hyphen. Thus, “Quartermaster” has a different accentuation from the two words “quarter master”; therefore make one word of it, without the hyphen. “Head-assistant” is accented like the two words “head assistant,”—therefore insert the hyphen. By this rule “schoolhouse” and “blackboard” should be severally closed up; “salt-mine” takes the hyphen,—“saltsea” (adjective) does not.

The word “tree,” with a prefix indicating the kind, should be compounded; as “oak-tree,” “forest-tree,” “pine-tree,” etc. (Webster has a hyphen in “whiffle-tree,” Worcester prints “whiffletree.”)

“Cast-iron” and “wrought-iron” are usually compounded, and should always be so when used as adjectives; as “cast-iron pillars,” “wrought-iron boilers.”

“Temple-street place” (or “Place,” according to style), “Suffolk-street District,” “Pemberton-square School,” are quite correct; the hyphen is too frequently omitted in such cases.

The words ex officio do not require a hyphen, but some very reputable offices insert it.

Hyphens are sometimes used to indicate grotesque pronunciation, as in the following couplet from “Rejected Addresses”:

When two words connected by a conjunction are severally compound parts of a following word, the hyphen is omitted; as: {p87}

Some authors follow the German style, inserting the hyphens; thus:

But this style is rare.

Precision requires that hyphens should be inserted in fractions expressed in words; as “one-half,” “three-fifths,” etc.

There being no hyphen in the above example, the “seven” and “three” are in the same category as “peach” and “apple” in the last previous example. The answer is ten-fourths, or 2?½.

If “seven” is meant to express a whole number, a hyphen should be inserted after “three.”

A prolific source of trouble in correcting is wrong syllabication when it is thought necessary to carry part of a word to the succeeding line. Neither the English method of dividing on vowels, where this can be conveniently done, nor the American method of dividing on syllables, obtains exclusively in this country. Convenience, and the desire of spacing in such a manner as to make the lines look well, frequently determine the dividing letter; so that, in the same work, you may find “pro-perty” and “prop-erty,” “trea-sure” and “treas-ure.” In a recent English work, we note the following divisions: {p88} Pre-bendaries, mea-sure, pre-decessors, supre-macy, the Re-formation, pro-perty, theo-logy, bre-thren, pre-paration.

But the division on the syllable is the mode most generally practiced in the United States, and we must, however reluctantly, adhere to it as closely as possible, until a convention of publishers shall sanction the adoption of the English usage. Our authorities close the first syllable of “fa-ther” on the a, of “moth-er” on the th, so that, practically, the latter word should not be divided at all; the English printer, without hesitation, places the hyphen after the a and the o respectively.

As to the word “discrepancy” there is a discrepancy. Webster accents the second syllable, and divides “discrep-ancy”; while Worcester accents the first syllable, and divides “discre-pancy.” In this, printers and readers must be governed by the “style” of the work upon which they are engaged.

One of the most frequently recurring errors noticed in reading first proof is the placing of an s at the end of a line when it should have been carried over. Corres-pondence, des-cribe, des-cription, Aus-tralian, are wrong, and are corrected daily; and their reappearance proves that in this, as in weightier matters, “error is wrought by want of thought.”

In newspapers, or any work which is to be read once and then cast aside, the carrying over of an ed or ly, or any other syllable of two letters, may perhaps be tolerated; but in bookwork such a division is inexcusable, except in side-notes, or when the {p89} measure is very narrow. To avoid extremely wide or thin spacing, and to escape the trouble and expense of overrunning pages already imposed, it must be considered admissible, in certain cases, to carry over a consonant preceding the final syllable ed; as, expec-ted, divi-ded. We state this with some misgivings; but, as we have known it to be done by excellent readers and skillful printers, even by John Wilson himself, of blessed memory, we lay it down as allowable in extreme cases. Theories are elastic,—are expansible and compressible; but types of metal have set dimensions of extension, and, in some circumstances, absolutely refuse to budge,—wherefore theories must gracefully yield, and allow, it may be, a two-letter division even in wide measure. Types are tyrannical, and will sometimes perpetrate solecisms under the plea of necessity.

An author can sometimes much improve the appearance of a page, by slight changes in the phraseology.

A good compositor studies to avoid divisions. Some printers, rather than divide a word, will justify a line by separating the words with two three-em spaces. But no arbitrary rule can be laid down in this regard. A well-spaced page with several divided words looks much better than a page unevenly spaced in which no divisions occur. The number of hyphens occurring in succession at the end of the lines on any page, should never exceed three.

In manuscript the dash occurs more frequently than any other mark of punctuation, many writers {p90} using it as a substitute for every other point. This habit very much retards the compositor in his task; for, as we have already intimated, he feels obliged to study the sense of his copy, and to waste his valuable time in considering how he shall best supply those aids to meaning which the author has rejected, and without which any work would be wholly unpresentable.

That the author of the paragraph quoted below pointed it with perfect accuracy before sending it to press, does not admit of a doubt. For the nonce, however, we will, with his leave, punctuate the passage in the manner in which the compositor frequently finds passages pointed on his “takes”; thus:

With so many dashes before him, it would not be strange if the compositor were to retain some of them; and the proof might, perhaps, appear as follows:

This is much improved; and, if we substitute commas for the dashes in the first sentence, the punctuation may be considered unobjectionable.

Beginners at the “case” are often puzzled in regard to the insertion of commas before the dashes which {p91} inclose a parenthetic clause. To decide this point, it is enough to notice whether or not a comma would be used, were the parenthetic clause omitted. This, we think, will be readily understood by reference to the following examples:

Now, if a parenthetic clause is inserted before the word “but,” the comma should be retained, and another placed at the end of the inserted clause; thus:

If there is no comma where the clause is to be inserted, dashes alone should be used:

If a parenthetic clause be inserted after “countries,”—where there is no comma,—only dashes are required; thus:

A thin space should be placed before, and also after, a dash.

If a parenthesis is inserted in a part of a sentence {p92} where no point is required, no point should be placed before or after the marks of parenthesis.

As a general rule, if the parenthesis occur after a punctuated clause, the point should be placed after the latter mark of parenthesis.

If a parenthesis which closes with a note of exclamation or in­ter­ro­ga­tion is inserted where a point occurs, that point should precede the first mark of parenthesis.

An exclamation point is often found preceding the first mark of parenthesis.

When a parenthesis occurs within a parenthesis, brackets should be substituted for the first and last parenthetic marks.

“Brackets are generally used ... to inclose an explanation, note, or observation, standing by itself.”—Parker’s Aids.

A short comment inserted in a paragraph by a reviewer is placed in brackets.

In transcripts of trials at law, brackets are used to inclose statements of things done in court, which things would not appear in a report of the verbal proceedings alone; as,—

Whether the words in brackets should also be in italics is a matter of style. In the following passage from the same report, italics are used: {p94}

For inserting commas or other points after, before, or within brackets, the same rules apply as in case of marks of parenthesis.

Whether when a noun singular terminates in s, its possessive case requires an additional s is yet an open question. We have no hesitation in giving an affirmative answer, especially in the case of proper names. If Mr. Adams were to manufacture ale, one might, perhaps, from prohibitory considerations, advise him to advertise it as “Adams’ ale”; but should Mr. Adams have no fear of the law, he would avoid all misunderstanding by calling it “Adams’s ale.” It may be objected that the position of the apostrophe makes the matter sufficiently clear without the additional s. Yes,—to the eye; but to the ear the propriety of the additional s becomes very apparent. “Jacob’s pillow” and “Jacobs’s pillow” may be of very different materials. But, to avoid too much sibilation, we read “for conscience’ sake,” “for goodness’ sake,” etc.

The apostrophe, with s subjoined, is used to denote the plural of letters and figures.

The apostrophe may be used in denoting the plural whenever its use will assist in avoiding obscurity.

For convenient reference we append a series of rules and examples, which, we think, will be found useful by teachers and scholars, and our friends of the press.