Multiple noun clauses.

[smalltalk]

I would appreciate any guidance on the correct punctuation when one is presenting multiple noun clauses. I'm a bit confused. I know this can lead to rather long sentences, but it seems reasonable at times. Sometimes I just want to present a noun clause as a stand-alone sentence, with the understanding that the reader can easily follow the train of thought, and would be aided by smaller bites. But I think this is a no-no. I'm very happy to be corrected on this, I'm just uncertain. The example that comes to mind is the US Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it...."

In the above (and the original handwritten text) we have commas for the first three clauses. Then we have a period, followed by what seems to be an em dash. Then another clause, period and em dash. Let me just go out on a limb and offer another version, for correction.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness; that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it...." Or perhaps one places a period after "Happiness", denoting that what follows is of a somewhat different character: "We further hold that to secure these rights...."

I suppose I'm asking about the use of commas and semicolons. What I see ordinarily, where there are only a few noun clauses, is the use of a comma: "She accepted my invitation, advising that she would be 30 minutes late, that she preferred I not smoke, and that she could stay no more than 45 minutes." I like this. But it seems to me (the following is rough) that sometimes noun clauses can be very detailed, and that a semicolon might be better: "She accepted my invitation, stating that the freeway traffic at that hour would delay her arrival by at least 30 minutes; that she abhorred the smell of tobacco and would leave immediately if I were smoking; that she had an early flight to Paris the next morning and could stay no more than 45 minutes; that a glass of wine would be welcomed, preferably a Malbec."

So, is a long list of noun clauses just not good, okay with commas, okay with semicolons, never good - break it up into separate sentences?

Appreciate any comments.

 

[probus]

It would be truly amazing if punctuation conventions had not evolved over the last 250 years. Even as recently as Victorian times people used far more commas than we do today.

I certainly agree that your version reads better than the original.

 

[SoothingDave]

This screams out for bullet points, or some sort of list.

We hold these truths to be self-evident,:

• That all men are created equal
• That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights
• That among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness
• That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
• That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it

 

[smalltalk]

Thank you, Probus, Dave. Bullets—perfect. The original scribe, Timothy Matlack, should have used them. I sometimes forget that grammar and punctuation are important aids to understanding, but not senior to understanding. Being sensible usually works.

 

[SoothingDave]

Ww have to remember that paper is cheap now. The bullet point list takes up more space.

Using parchment and writing things out by hand forced the economical use of writing space.

The official copy of the US Constitution on display in the National Archives (go if you go to DC) has at least one writing error that was crossed out. They weren't about to toss out a page because of one little mistake.

 

[jutfrank]

I don't think one should look to the punctuation style of a formal document written in the late eighteenth century for guidance on how we use punctuation now.

 

[Skrej]

Punctuation is often a talking point regarding the Constitution and Amendments. These debates typically hinge on interpreting a document based on writing conventions from a 200+ year old document, written in a time where conventions on spelling, punctuation and grammar weren't fully standardized and usage differed from current standards. Sometimes these even become full-blown legal battles ending up in the Supreme Court for a final interpretation.

There's an oft-debated interpretation of a single comma in the 2nd Amendment in particular. To avoid politics, I'll leave it to the reader to research if they so desire, but Penn and Teller do a short sketch on interpreting the 2nd amendment based around the use of a comma, with humorous commentary on the disputed comma usage.

The joke hinges on calling the Constitution writers "hack framers" for the supposed misuse.

Since it has strong language and is overtly political, I won't post a direct link, but if you're interested in the brief discussion on the meaning of the comma, you can look it up yourself. The punctuation reference is towards the end of the very short skit which is only about a minute and an half, and occurs in the last 20 seconds or so (depending on which clip you view).

 

[SoothingDave]

I was thinking of that infernal comma myself.