The mechanics of writing, a compendium of rules regarding manuscript-arrangement, spelling, the compounding of words, abbreviations, the representation of numbers, syllabication, the use of capitals, the use of italics, punctuation, and paragraphing

Front matter

Class.

Book.

rii i4.

Preface

In order to write English in a way that befits an educated person, one must know a certain body of rules. The term rules is here used in a wide sense, including not only general precepts, such as the dictum that in a sentence " every part should be subservient to one principal affirmation," but also those numerous particular precepts which refuse to merge themselves into convenient generalizations — for instance, those to the effect that it is bad English to say "I devote my evenings in study" for "I devote my even- -ings to study," that the verb except should not be used in the sense of accept, nor the noun principle in the sense of the adjective principal, and that all right should be written as two words, the first spelled with two Vs. When I say that one must know these rules, I mean that one must not merely be acquainted with them, but habitually observe them.

Some of these rules are known and followed by nearly every person who has grown up in an English-speaking community. Nearly every such person knows, for example, the correct meaning of several hundred English words (that is to say, he knows several hundred rules directing how these words should be used) ; knows how to spell certain words, fewer than those which he knows how to use ; and knows that the pronoun /and such nouns as John, Mary, Smith, and Jones should be capitalized. But ignorance of many other rules — which might easily be enumerated if there were any need — is shared by children in the grammar school, boys and girls in high school, high-school graduates of recent and of long standing, college freshmen, college seniors, bachelors and masters of arts, and members of the learned professions.

With this fact in mind, I published in 1907 a little book called a Handbook of Composition, the purpose of which was to present the rules that, so far as I had observed, were unknown to any considerable number of the class of people

v vi PREFACE

mentioned above. Since that time my attention has been drawn to other deficiencies of the same sort as those treated in the Handbook. Some of these are matters of good English (technically so called), phraseology, sentence-structure, reference, and the structure of compositions ; others concern the mechanical processes involved in writing — that is, manuscript-arrangement, spelling, the compounding of words, the use of abbreviations, the representation of numbers, syllabication, capitalization, italicizing, punctuation, and paragraphing. The rules necessary for correcting these mechanical deficiencies I have formulated in this book ; and along with them I have incorporated most of the rules of the Handbook that concern the same subjects, altering them as there seemed to be occasion, and illustrating them more fully.

I have said that in order to write as befits an educated person, one must not only be acquainted with certain rules but also observe them habitually. Learning to write well, then, is more than being informed of these rules ; it is getting the rules fixed in one's habitual practice. To assist the student in this latter part of the work is the object of the exercises in the present book. Some of these are little more than manual exercises ; but such, I think, are just what in many cases students of writing need. Many people who write "to hot" and "finaly" and "alright" are acquainted with the rules which they thereby violate ; it is their hands that need discipline.

I hoped that the Handbook would find a place in the service of many who were not studying English in the classroom,— who were not students in any school or college, — but had writing of some sort to do, and wanted occasional help in doing it ; and this hope has been realized, to my great pleasure. Likewise I have wished to make the present book as helpful as possible to any one who needed the information it should contain, whether he was in a college, a high school, an office, or a warehouse. Nevertheless, most of the people who may find the book useful will be, as a matter of course, students under the direction of teachers. I have devised certain apparatus, to facilitate its use by such students, which I wish now to explain.

1 ^FACE Vil

The chief benefit derived from theme-writing lies probably in the instructor's indication of errors in the themes and his showing how these errors are to be corrected ; for by these means the student may learn the rules that he is inclined to violate, and thus may be helped to eliminate the defects from his writing. Hence it is important that the errors and the way to correct them be shown to the student as completely and clearly as possible. For instance, suppose that a theme contains the sentence UI have always chosen for my companions people who** I thought had high ideals." Suppose the instructor points out the grammatical fault and -gives the student information to this effect : " An expression such as he says, he thinks, or he hears 'interpolated in a relative clause does not affect the case of the subject of the clause. For example, ' The man who I thought was my friend deceived me ' is correct ; ' who ' is the subject of 4 was my friend' ; 'I thought' is a parenthesis which does not affect the case of ' who.' In your sentence, ' whom ' is not the object of 'thought,' but the subject of 'had high ideals'; it should therefore be in the nominative case." From this information the student is likely to get more than the mere knowledge that the "whom" in this particular case should be changed to "who"; he is likely to learn a principle, the knowledge of which — if he will remember it — will keep him from committing similar errors in future.

But the theme from which one sentence is quoted above contains fourteen other errors ; and 'the forty-nine other themes which the instructor is to hand back to-morrow morning contain among them about seven hundred and eighty -five more. How shall the instructor, as he indicates these eight hundred errors, furnish the information called for by each one ? Obviously he must use some kind of shorthand. Suppose, then, that he writes opposite the incorrect "whom" above quoted the expression "Gr." or "b. E." or "case." Do these expressions furnish the student with the information he needs regarding that "whom"? It seems to me that they do not. They are intended to imply all that information, but I doubt whether one student out of five hundred ever sees the implication. To be sure, four hundred and ninety -six out of five hundred will, possiviii PREFACE

bly, see that something is wrong with "whom," and will change it to "who" or will eliminate it in some other way — for instance, by altering the sentence thus : "People who seemed to have high aspirations have always been selected by me for companions.11 But they will do this without knowing why any change should be made ; and thus the correction of the error will fall short of the instructive value which it should have, and which it would have if it were made intelligently.

Yet shorthand must be used in correcting themes. Is there no system of shorthand which conveys to the student the information he should have regarding each error marked in his themes ? There is such a system ; it consists of references to a book. If the writer of the theme containing the erroneous "whom*1 has a book which explains, in a section numbered 33, the grammatical rule that he has violated, the instructor can do his duty in the premises by writing "33 " opposite the " whom" ; and if the book contains likewise a piece of information appropriate to the other seven hundred and ninety -nine errors above supposed, each piece placed under a reference number, the instructor can do his duty in the case of the seven hundred and ninety-nine errors by writing a reference number opposite each one. The Handbook was designed, and the present book has been designed, to be used in this way.

To illustrate further the use of the present book for reference in the correction of themes, suppose a page of a student's theme reads as follows :

My associates . have usualy been choosen with some consideration of there morality. Boys, who I (thought) beleived posessed good principals.

My fathers buisness made it neecesary, for our family to move about considerably so I have been thrown arnoung (the) many differant classes of people, (the) easterners, nort-herners, westerners and southerners,

PREFACE IX

(the) Chinese, germans, and french, have all been under my observation this enabeles me to feel at home every-where and judge different kindes of men quick -ly and with-out difficulty.

The errors in this passage can be indicated, and the writer can be referred to the information on each point by means of the following numbers, which designate sections in this book :

My associates have usualy 70 101 been choosen with some cons- 173-175

101 ideration of there morality. Boys, 463,307,336 46 who I (thought) beleivedposessed 96, 98 93 good principals. 32, 33

482 My fathers buisness made it 66 101 neccesary, for our family to 452

move about considerably so 279,280,282 I have been thrown amoung 101 46 (the) many differant classes 101 293,294,46,197 of peopleL (the) easterners, nort- 173,174,178 197, 328 herners, westerners and southerners, 197 46 (the) Chinese, germans, and 198 198 french, have all been under 329 292, 257, 203 my observation this enabeles me 80 a, b 129, 180 to feel at home every-where and ju- 101, 73 dge differant kindes of men quick 183 -ly and with-out difficulty. 129

The writer of the passage might also be advised to do, more or less at his leisure, the following exercises :

627, concerning " usualy "

678, concerning "cons-ideration," " nort-herners,"

" ju-dge," and " quick -ly " 657, concerning " there "

X PREFACE

683, 719, 720, concerning " morality. Boys"

707, 708, concerning "Boys, who"

655, concerning ubeleive"

651, concerning "principals"

739, 742, concerning "fathers"

622, 623, concerning " buisness "

689, concerning " considerably so "

683, 698, 699, concerning "people, (the) easterners" 680, concerning "Chinese, germans, and trench"

684, 685, concerning "observation this" 634, concerning "enabeles"

629, concerning "kindes"

672, 675, concerning "every- where " and " with-out "

The synopsis on pages xvi-xxxi will enable a teacher who is fairly familiar with the book to find in a few seconds any reference number he desires. Copies of the synopsis printed in the form of a chart, by means of which one can find all the reference numbers without turning pages, will be furnished by the publishers to teachers who desire them.

So much for the book as a whole. Now I wish to speak particularly of the system of separative punctuation presented in sections 229-481.

Of the system both the plan and the phraseology were determined largely by one dominating purpose : to make an instrument that would be effective in combating the comma fault and the period fault, those twin vices so common and yet so baffling — the despair of teachers. I say "twin vices" because it is clear that they spring from one fundamental deficiency — failure to recognize the distinction between the integral syntactic unit and constituent, or subordinate, units. A writer commits the comma fault thus:

" Then I rushed to get my breakfast, it was good but I could not linger at it,"

because he does not see that there are in this expression two integral syntactic units. He commits the period fault thus :

PREFACE xi

" My parents were extremely afraid of the river. That is to have me near it,"

because he does not see that here there is only one integral unit.

Why is it so hard for people to learn that the period belongs only at the end, and the comma only in the interior, of an integral syntactic unit? Because they are not so instructed. They are instructed that the period belongs only at the end, and the comma only in the interior, of a sentence. This is the root of the difficulty — our calling the integral syntactic unit a sentence. For the integral syntactic unit is an independent subject and predicate, or a pair or series of such syntactically conjoined. But what is a sentence ? Most students are taught that it is "the expression of a complete thought." Therefore, instructed to use the comma only within a sentence, they say "Very well," and proceed to write,

" She found that Gabriel had departed on the preceding day, this was very disheartening news,"

feeling that this is a "complete thought," and that therefore the comma is right. Instructed to use the period only at the end of a sentence, they write,

"The author points his moral in a very clear way. In a way that any child can understand and yet the story is deep,"

feeling that this is two " complete thoughts," and that therefore the period is right. Again, sentence, as the term is generally used by writers and teachers, includes expressions like these :

" He is not a Russian ; he is a Pole." "I came, I saw, I conquered."

"Hath a Jew money ? is it possible a cur can lend three thousand ducats ? "

Such expressions are not syntactic units, for the junction in them is mechanical or rhetorical, not syntactic. What, then, is a sentence ? It is like the wreck of the Flying Scud : 4 c Any one can make half a dozen theories for sixty xii PREFACE

or seventy per cent of it ; but when they're made, there's always a fathom or two of slack hanging out of the other end." At any rate, sentence does not and can not stand, to students' minds, clearly and distinctly for the integral syntactic unit ; it is not a syntactic, but a rhetorical term. But the only sure basis for rules of punctuation is syntax ; that is, the only certain rules of punctuation are those that say, " Use such and such a mark with such and such a syntactic element." If we wish to teach students how to recognize the end of an integral syntactic unit, we cannot succeed by explaining in terms of sentence. Hence the use of the term complete independent predication in the present work.

Certain rules of punctuation in the following pages will, I suppose, be hard sayings to some readers. For instance, of the rule that a noun in apposition with a noun not expressed should be set off by a dash (878), some readers will say, "But in literature such appositions are set off by other symbols than the dash."

This is true ; and in framing the rule cited, I have not intended to suggest that it is not true. But to tell the reader one way of punctuating such an appositive, and not to trouble him with a discussion of permissible alternatives, seemed to accord best both with the needs and with the wish of m^st of my readers. The people for whose aid and comfort I have written are, in the course of their writing, continually asking themselves or somebody else, " How should this be punctuated ? What point goes here ? Should I put a colon here ? Is it all right to omit this comma ? " and they want a short, quick answer. Their thought is "Just give me a direction by following which I may be sure I am right ; I don't want to know all the ways, but just one good way." Such a direction I have tried to give for the case in question, and for other cases as far as possible.

Certain other rules of punctuation stand on a different basis ; these are the prohibitions — the assertions that certain things should not be done. For example, there are the heavily stressed rules denouncing as an Unpardonable Sin the placing of a comma at the end of a complete independent predication (203), or the placing of a period before final clauses and phrases (463). These things so

PREFACE Xlll

threateningly forbidden are, it will be said, done by every good writer of flexibility and spirit.

This is also true. But still the prohibitions are sound doctrine ; teachers should enforce them rigorously on their students, and students should enforce them rigorously on themselves. If a young person censured for the comma fault remonstrates, " Stevenson does it," the obvious answer is, of course, "You are not Stevenson." This sounds like a flippant evasion, but in reality is eminently (though perhaps not sweetly) reasonable and just. For some rules of punctuation, like some rules of rhetoric, may be violated in various ways — in ways that are ludicrously uncouth, and in ways that produce no such effect. This is a point that the young remonstrant always forgets. Let us illustrate. A certain rule of rhetoric prohibits dangling participles. This rule is violated in the sentence " Having eaten our lunch, the horse quickened his pace"; the effect is plainly bad, as even the most indulgent critic will admit. But the rule is also violated by Charles Lamb when he writes, " Coming into an inn at night — having ordered your supper — what can be more delightful than to find lying in the window-seat, left there time out of mind by the carelessness of some former guest, two or three numbers of the old Town and Country magazine . . . ? " And here the violation of the rule has no bad effect. The knowledge of when the violation of such a rule will produce a conspicuous fault which will catch the attention of a casual reader, and when it will seem unexceptionable to a fastidious rhetorician, can scarcely be conveyed by rules ; it can be acquired only by experience. A literary master possesses this knowledge. Through wide observation and long practice and a quick sensitiveness to the subtle effects of words in various combinations, he knows intuitively whether an expression that, violates a certain rule will produce a bad effect or not ; hence his violations are hardly noticeable. But a writer of little experience is likely, if he violates certain rules, to produce in most cases signal blunders ; these rules it is therefore best for him to observe rigorously, until he has acquired the power to waive them, as the masters do, without risk of offense. And among these rules are the prohibitory rules of punctuation referred to above — particularly those regardxiv PREFACE

ing the comma fault and the period fault. These are not laid down with the claim that they cannot be violated without incorrectness ; but violation or lax observance of them by inexperienced writers means incessant blundering, and a slovenliness of style which is abominable in the present, and which can lead to no good in the future ; strict observance of them is wholesome discipline conducive to the growth of a firm, clean-cut style.

In the latter part of Professors Scott and Denney's Paragraph Writing y the authors make admirable use of some illustrative diagrams resembling ladders lying in a horizontal position. These figures suggested to me the strategic design of assaulting the paragraph by escalade, a design which I have tried to execute in Sections 538-583. Professor William Dwight Whitney's Essentials of English Grammar, that most admirable classic, and Professor J. M. D. Meiklejohn's ample store of data on English grammar, have helped me greatly in some parts of my work. I am very much obliged, also, to my colleagues who have given me advice and assistance.

E. C. W.

Madison, Wisconsin, October, 1909.