All power to the pedagogues?
Boomers, relax. The Sixties have not gone away.
Yesterday, commenting on the post “Brace yourself for National Punctuation Day,” a gentleman named Scott Fisher commented:
“Ah, the punctuation Nazis have their own holiday. Please remember that language belongs to the people. It doesn't belong to an elite group of academics that are following arcane rules that were invented around the time of the printing press.
“If I can communicate and get my point across then punctuation is secondary to my message, not primary.”
I tell you, it took me back to my hot-blooded youth as a graduate teaching assistant in Syracuse’s English department, where “What does it matter so long as I get my point across?” was an almost ritual defense of inept freshman composition essays.
But seriously, folks, there is some substance to Mr. Fisher’s comment. For most purposes, casual conversation or text messages or personal e-mail, comprehensible is an adequate standard. I should probably post a note at the top of the blog to remind readers that I’m here to talk about using standard written English for publication, and that your conversation and casual communications lie beyond my writ.
I should also probably post a suggestion that commenters remark on what I said, not on what I didn’t say, because I don’t think that yesterday’s post said, or implied, that punctuation was primary to communication, and I don’t think I know anyone who would assert that. So if you want to argue with me, I’d appreciate your taking issue with a point I actually made.
Before I go, I’d like to make one more effort to sink a dagger into the heart of “It doesn’t matter so long as I get my meaning across.” I think that even Mr. Fisher would agree that there are times when absolute clarity and precision are paramount, for example, if he were composing a ransom note.
Beyond that, suggesting that nothing matters beyond raw meaning is like saying that so long as your person is covered, it doesn’t matter what clothing you wear. Try wearing a loincloth to your job interview. Communication, like etiquette, involves complex social conventions, and flouting them can come at a cost. The conventions of punctuation in formal written English have developed over generations of use, and of use by the people, the collective body of writers and editors and teachers. To say that those conventions were invented and are enforced by “an elite group of academics” gives us broken-down instructors more credit than circumstances bear out.
Comments
The fact is, punctuation is usually (not always, utterly, essentially) as much a part of "getting the point across" as the rest of the black bugs one puts on the page. To wit, removing, or changing, the punctuation in this post would change the point of what I'm saying here, (as would my spelling in sum cases--for those who think it ain't that important) wooden it?
Posted by: Alexander Brittain | September 14, 2010 10:09 AM
The fact is, punctuation is usually (not always, utterly, essentially) as much a part of "getting the point across" as the rest of the black bugs one puts on the page. To wit, removing, or changing, the punctuation in this post would change the point of what I'm saying here, wooden it?
Posted by: Alexander Brittain | September 14, 2010 10:10 AM
Punctuation is primarily a cohesive device. The function of cohesive devices is to facilitate the reader's getting your message. YOUR message, not the one he might get if all he had as an unpunctuated, conjunction- and capital-letter-less string of words. Using the 'wrong' punctuation can be like using "but" when you mean "thus".
Posted by: The Ridger | September 14, 2010 11:13 AM
My vocation as an attorney may provide a similar, though not entirely analogous, instance of Mr. Fisher's thinking. Some like to remind us that the law doesn't belong to an elite group of lawyers, but to the people. "And it doesn’t matter so long as I get my complaint heard." Though the elimination of all lawyers might seem too good to be true, it only takes a moment of observation of most in pro per litigants (those who forgo professional legal counsel) to understand the importance and value of a properly-trained lawyer. This isn't to say that one cannot possibly survive without a lawyer. But the law also involves complex conventions, and flouting them can come at a great cost. Thus the quip, "He who represents himself has a fool for a client."
Posted by: Andrew DeLoach | September 14, 2010 11:23 AM
So, punctuation is like a lawyer?
What's black and brown and looks good on punctuation? A Doberman.
Nope. Not alike at all.
Posted by: Bucky | September 14, 2010 11:35 AM
Hmm, bit of an error in punctuation there, Andrew. It should be "in pro. per.", short for in propria persona 'in one's own person'.
Posted by: John Cowan | September 14, 2010 11:56 AM
If I didn't punctuate correctly in the documents I wrote for my company, I would get two points across:
- my company is not competent
- I am not deserving of my wage
Posted by: Thomas | September 14, 2010 1:13 PM
@Bucky: Perhaps I was unclear. I was comparing punctuation with the law (not with lawyers), and the "punctuation Nazis" in Mr. Fisher's comment to lawyers. Sure, one can manage a lawsuit or punctuation on his own. But sometimes a trained lawyer or editor can make a huge difference. As I said, similar, but not entirely analogous.
@John Cowan: There was no error. I'm aware of the full Latin name. And both options are acceptable. Searching through Westlaw, I've just found numerous examples of both being used, as well as the more common pro se. Take a look through Black's Law Dictionary (which, by the way, is edited by usage guru Bryan Garner). Or just do a Google search and find things like the following:
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/equalaccess/documents/blankn.o.m.6months.pdf
http://www.accesskent.com/CourtsAndLawEnforcement/FriendoftheCourt/pdfs/InProPerSupport.pdf
Posted by: Andrew DeLoach | September 14, 2010 1:23 PM
I wish your blog had a print function (other than CTRL+P and printing the entire page). This one is going on my cubicle wall!
Posted by: Karla | September 15, 2010 8:56 AM
"Suggesting that nothing matters beyond raw meaning is like saying that so long as your person is covered, it doesn’t matter what clothing you wear. Try wearing a loincloth to your job interview. Communication, like etiquette, involves complex social conventions, and flouting them can come at a cost. "
Elegantly put! I think I will post it to my office door.
Posted by: a-dub | September 15, 2010 5:57 PM
Another connection between punctuation and lawyers, unmentioned by Mr. DeLoach, is that contract cases involving millions can hang entirely on punctuation. In that situation, precision becomes very much primary.
Posted by: City Redux | September 16, 2010 11:16 AM
My answer to the stock 'What does it matter...?' defence is always 'Not at all. But when it stops you from getting your point across or gets across an entirely different point from the one you intended, it matters a whole lot.' Doubt it ever convinced anyone, but it always makes me feel better....
Posted by: jhughes | September 16, 2010 9:49 PM
Americans of all ages are so badly dressed now that a loincloth might be an improvement.
Posted by: Patricia the Terse | September 22, 2010 1:46 AM