The best way to
procrastinate on a 1500 word essay: write a 2200 word essay for fun.
Problems in
Punctuation
The
punctuation in common American English use is inadequate. Its point and purpose
is to allow written language to mimic the logical formulations of speech, to
distinguish one thought from another and to define the relationships between
thoughts, but it is far too simple for this task. One symbol, the comma for
instance, is often used to for several, quite different, functions, creating a
fair amount of ambiguity as to its meaning. For example, in the previous
sentence four commas were used to offset interjections and one to distinguish a
clause. It might otherwise have read, “One symbol – the comma for instance – is
often used to for several – quite different – functions, creating[…]”, but the em
dash has other uses and could just as easily replace the fifth comma. Another
option would be, “One symbol (the comma for instance) is often used to for
several (quite different) functions, creating[…].” This emphasizes that both
interjections are not necessary for the structure of the sentence, but
overstates their separation; parentheses generally indicate a greater degree of
separation from the main idea than in this instance. The basic logical problem
is not one of clarity, for the intended thought is perfectly clear in all three
versions, rather it is that the relationship the comma indicates changes, and
therefore the symbol serves only the relationship to spoken language in that it
indicates a pause in speech. The first set of commas indicates an interjection,
a clarifying phrase that could be entirely dropped out. The second and third
commas as used for a similar reason, but are not identical; they set apart the
two adjectives applied to the noun “function,” but without the word “quite”
they would not be necessary, as what is “several” is the difference of the
functions, but what is “quite” is only the difference. The fifth comma
indicates neither an true interjection nor an adjectival interjection, a series
of adjectives, but a clause; it is an extension of the thought that cannot
stand alone, as a semi-colon would indicate, but is not grammatically integral
to the rest of the sentence, meaning that the attached thought serves it, but
it does not serve the attached thought.
The
ambiguity of the comma is only the tip of the iceberg of our punctuation
problems. A more fundamental issue is how to indicate relationships between
complete thoughts that are not reliant on each other grammatically. We have,
essentially, five levels of separation, only three of which are clearly
defined. The paragraph break, the period, and the semi-colon indicate
progressively lesser degrees of separation. The colon and the em dash can also
divide complete thoughts, thoughts that could form their own sentence
grammatically, but their meaning is ambiguous and their usage debated. The colon’s
most common use is to set off a list, as in, ‘here are some types of
punctuation: commas, periods, semi-colons.’ This could be re-written as ‘some
types of punctuation here are commas, periods, and semi-colons,’ demonstrating
that the colon is really just a way of saying that what comes after is to be equated
with what came before. The em dash has a very similar usage, except that it can
also, as shown above, be used as a comma or an set of parentheses.
Other
failings of American English punctuation include the misquotation that arises
from the demand that quotation marks go outside punctuation and the limited
nature of the question and exclamation mark symbols, which can only replace
periods despite the turns of speech they indicate sometimes occurring within
sentences, as in, “Am I asking a question, because the question mark is at the
end of the sentence and this second clause is just a statement?” It would be
preferable, as it is the first clause and not the second that contains the
question, for the question mark to be where the comma is and for the sentence
to end with a period.
These
problems demand a variety of solutions. The simplest is the last – we need to
have comma versions of question marks and exclamation points and quotations
marks need to go inside punctuation if the quote demands it. While almost prohibitively
difficult to implement on a personal scale, this would require no substantial
modifications to the way we write. The comma, em dash, and semi-colon issues
are more vexing. We could eliminate almost all use of all three marks in favor
of their verbal replacements. ‘The comma is one instance of a symbol that is
often used for multiple and quite different functions and this creates a fair
amount of ambiguity as to its meaning.’ This is obviously a poor idea, for not
only is the translation approximate, “multiple” must be used in place of
“several” because “several” was being used as a determiner and not as an
adjective, but, despite its technical integrity (the first “and” refers only to
the words on either side of it, meaning that the second is permissible), it
reads like a run-on sentence and the average editor would suggest the deletion
of the second “and” in favor of a period or semi-colon. This would add a whole
new set of a problems; with a period one might wonder what “this” and “its”
refer to, while the use of a semi-colon might restrict the continuation of the
thought; while not technically incorrect, the use of multiple semi-colons (“…as
to its meaning; this is obviously a poor idea”) is considered bad form.
Instead
of the escalating dilemmas minimizing the use of punctuation creates, what we
need is a redefinition and sharpening of their meaning and use. Sentences like
the example we have been using seem littered with commas, yet there is no good
way to express the same thought without them. Many writers choose to simply
neglect their use, just as they neglect the use of the semi-colon, but this
leads only to imprecision, with breaks in sentence structure unmarked and relations
between thoughts ambiguous. What this attitude amounts to is an admission that
written word cannot have the same complexity as spoken word. Were one to read
the sentence before the last aloud, with its three commas, it would sound
perfectly natural, yet written it is cumbersomely complex. The basic problem,
as we described earlier, is that the comma is serving two functions – it is
setting off an interjection (“just as they neglect the use of the semi-colon”),
after which the thought continues, and setting off a clause, after which it
does not. The sentence we just wrote solves this problem by using an em dash to
insure that every comma sets off an interjection and using a set of parentheses
to avoid an awkward double interjection. That the thought does not resume after
the interjection set off by the last comma should not cause one to confuse it
with a clause; “after which it does not” is to “setting off a clause” what
“after which the thought continues” is to “setting off an interjection.” As
this last sentence demonstrates however, a semi-colon may be just as easily
inserted as an em dash. The difference should be one of connectivity; when one
thought applies very closely to the thought that has preceded it, a semi-colon
should be used instead of a period. An em dash should imply a even closer
connection – a connection between a thought and the part of the thought that
preceded it, almost like a colon with only one item in the list. In a way these
are all forms of commas – in speech they all translate to pauses where one
would otherwise need a verbal connection. That last em dash could be replaced
with ‘because’ or ‘[comma] for.’
None
of this, however, solves the problem of the original sentence. If em dashes and
semi-colons set apart two complete, if closely related, thoughts, they cannot
set apart clauses that are not independent of each other. The previous sentence
serves just as well as a example. Neither an em dash nor a semi-colon can
replace the comma between “thoughts” and “they.” What we need then, is another
way of setting off interjections so that commas can be exclusively used to form
complex thoughts. For this, there is no existing mechanism. If brackets ([ ])
are used to clarify quotations, the existing punctuation marks on the standard
keyboard without a common usage in American English prose are braces ({ }),
chevrons (< >), the underscore ( _ ), the tilde (~), and the vertical bar
( | ), and all of these are on the keyboard because they have common uses outside
American English prose (most notably in musical and mathematical notation). Regardless,
all of these are too elaborate for our purposes, which is to find an
alternative to the unobtrusive comma is its most unobtrusive form. One can imagine
some sort of simple point (•) being used, but already
there are complications – used like an ellipses this might seem natural for
true interjections, but it would be cumbersome for adjectival interjections
(the difficult• problematic• frustrating• punctuation mark).
The common answer is to write more simply. It is to restrict
ourselves to those styles of communication that are not broken by punctuation
because they construct their thoughts in a uncomplicated and straightforward
manner. Yet, while this has a time and a place, it is not always the way one
wishes to write; smooth prose, flowing off the pen and tongue, imparts a very
specific tone, one that is not always appropriate or desired. The function of
punctuation, and the laws of grammar that pertain to them, is to make written
language as easily understood as spoken language and at this task it is
failing. This is evidenced by the fact that throughout this paper we have
deliberately written many intricate, convoluted, almost impenetrable,
sentences, not one of which was grammatically incorrect. To some of these
problems there are simple answers, to others the solutions are complex; some of
these solutions can be easily implemented, others will require the creation of
new punctuation marks, still others will result in frequent corrections by
well-meaning editors. What they all have in common is an admission that the
system as it currently stands is in need of revision, that proper American
English grammar contains serious logical flaws and lacks the specificity to deal
with truly complex sentences. For the moment this admission is enough.
For clarity’s
sake, here is, in outline form, how you can implement our conclusions and what
you can expect when you do:
- Mention, as
often as is it arises, how question mark and exclamation point usage can be
improved, and improvise those improvements when writing by hand.
- Insist on
correct quotation, even if it results in awkward double punctuation (,”.). If a
word or punctuation mark is in a set of quotation marks and is not inside
brackets it should be exactly as it is found in wherever it is being quoted
from; anything else is misquotation.
- Also, and this
was not mentioned earlier, us the double quotation marks (“”) only when YOU are
actually quoting something; use single quotation marks (‘’) when either
something you are quoting is quoting something or you wish to use a word or
phrase as a word or phrase and not as meaning whatever it means; this is a
somewhat difficult concept to convey, but I have been careful to use both forms
correctly throughout this paper.
- Use the fine
distinctions I have outlined between colons, em dashes, semi-colons, periods,
and paragraph breaks. These are generally issues of degree of connectivity and
so the goal is to be consistent – any two thoughts set apart by a period should
be about as separate from each other as any other two thoughts set apart by a
period. Overuse of the period results in awkward, choppy, prose. Using the more
gentle colon, em dash, and semi-colon shows connectivity between thoughts and
helps the reader understand how your ideas work together.
- Use commas to
offset interjections that can be removed without harming the integrity of the
sentence.
- Separate
elements, even the final, of an adjectival interjection (interjections that
consist of lists of adjectives) with commas, but note that lists of nouns still
function as true interjections and do not need a comma after the last item.
- Note that
these last two are provisional; a better way of setting off interjections that
does not litter sentences with contradictory commas needs to be found.
|
|
Simple
|
Complex
|
|
Easily implemented
|
|
Correct use of
commas for interjections and clauses
|
|
Requiring non-standard marks
|
Improvement of
? and !
|
Revision of
punctuation for interjections
|
|
Prone to correction
(based on 8 years of my
grammar being corrected by highly educated people)
|
Correct use of
quotation marks
|
Logically
consistent use of semi-colons, em dashes, and periods
|
Funny story: my
peers are generally the ones who attempt to vivisect and reform my labyrinthine
sentences; my professors, I suppose, are either discerning enough to know that
technically I am right or are more worried about my clear lapses in reason on
an analytic level (they don’t so much care how I am saying it, they are more
concerned that what I am saying is wrong). In a rare moment of triumph an
English professor corrected a student who was critiquing my “run-on” sentences,
saying that my compositions were actually quite architecturally impressive, if
difficult to read at times.
