05.22a Commas; Lynne Truss's Eats, Shoots & Leaves. "The use of commas cannot be learned by rule," says Sir Ernest Gowers, as quote by Lynne Truss on page 82 of Eats, Shoots & Leaves (where does he say it? She doesn't give a citation! She ought to, on the book website at least, and so I will tell her by email.) I came across one of the controversial situations this past week in reading over the copyedits of my "The Economics of Agency Law and Contract Formation," for the American Law and Economics Review. What I think the sentence should be is:

A maxim of the law and economics of contract is that if transaction costs are low the parties will customize their contract, regardless of the legal default rule, so an inefficient default rule can cause only a limited amount of harm.

The copyeditor suggested:

A maxim of the law and economics of contract is that, if transaction costs are low, the parties will customize their contract, regardless of the legal default rule, so an inefficient default rule can cause only a limited amount of harm.

On page 70, Lynn Truss puts the problem nicely:

More than any other mark, the comma draws our attention to the mixed origins of modern punctuation, and its consequent mingling of two quite distinct functions:

1 To illuminate the grammar of a sentence

2 To point up -- rather in the manner of musical notation -- such literary qualities as rhythm, direction, pitch, tone and flow.

This is why grown men have knock-down fights over the comma in editorial offices: because these two roles of punctuation sometimes collide head-on-- indeed, where the comma is concerned, they do it all the time.

The rule given on page 73 is
If the clause is "defining", you don't need to present it with a pair of commas. Thus:
The Highland Terriers that live in our street aren't cute at all.
If the information in the clause is "non-defining", however, then you do:
The Highland Terriers, when they are barking, are a nightmare.
No doubt "defining" is in quotes because it is hard to define. The clause in the second Terrier sentence looks defining to me too. The Highland Terriers are *not* a nightmare when they are not barking is its implication-- the bark determines whether they are a nightmare. It would be better to write:
The Highland Terriers are a nightmare when they are barking.
At any rate, I think the rule helps me out with the copyeditor, because it is only if transaction costs are low that parties will customize their contract, so the clause about transaction costs defines the situation, rather than being merely incidental.

We can also look to the sense of the rule. As a matter of grammar (purpose 1 above), it makes sense, because commas are usually employed to set off clauses that could be dropped without greatly altering the meaning. (True? What of "In France, the people speak French"?) As a matter of breathing and feel, a comma after the word "that" is abominable. Nobody would insert a breathing space after "that" in

"A maxim is that, if transaction costs are low, parties customize contracts."
I do, however, feel like there should be slight pause after "low". My inclination is therefore often to write
"A maxim is that if transaction costs are low, parties customize contracts."
This also is consistent with writing
If transaction costs are low, parties customize contracts."
Perhaps we must go with Sir Ernest Gower on this one. Page 73 of Eats, Shoots & Leaves does have an example of the ugly "comma after that", though:

Perhaps the key thing ones needs to realise about the early history of punctuation is that, in a literary culture based entirely on the slavish copying of venerated texts, it would be highly presumptuous of a mere scribe to insert helpful marks where he thought they ought to go.

I think that for someone who puts emphasis on grammar this ought to be

Perhaps the key thing ones needs to realise about the early history of punctuation is that in a literary culture based entirely on the slavish copying of venerated texts it would be highly presumptuous of a mere scribe to insert helpful marks where he thought they ought to go.

and , for someone who puts emphasis on breathing it should be

Perhaps the key thing ones needs to realise about the early history of punctuation is that in a literary culture based entirely on the slavish copying of venerated texts, it would be highly presumptuous of a mere scribe to insert helpful marks where he thought they ought to go.

Moving along to other matters: Eats, Shoots & Leaves also has good punctuation anecdotes and examples on pages 74 and 75. Cecil Hartley used Luke 23:43 in his 1818 book, Principles of Punctuation. These are the words of Jesus to the Good Thief on the cross next to him:
(1) Verily, I say unto thee, This day thou shalt be with me in Paradise.
versus
(2) Verily I say unto thee this day, Thou shalt be with me in Paradise.
The King James version says,
And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.
Version (1) says something about the mysterious problem of where Jesus was during the three days from death to resurrection, and also about what happens to repentant thieves. It says that Jesus did not descend to Hell or simply lie in the ground; and the thief did not need to go through Purgatory to purge the sins he undoubtedly had accumulated. Version (2) is neutral on both questions. Another example is Isaiah 40:3:
(1) The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness: Prepare ye the way of the Lord...
versus
(2) The voice of him that crieth: in the wilderness prepare ye the way of the Lord...
The King James Version has
The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.
Version (2) says that you must go to the wilderness to prepare the way of the Lord, whereas Version (1) is neutral on that question. Since Greek and Hebrew did not have punctuation, this must be left to theology and philology. ... [in full at 04.05.22a.htm]


To return to Eric Rasmusen's weblog, click http://php.indiana.edu/~erasmuse/w/0.rasmusen.htm.