You've probably seen the book Eats Shoots and Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation, a current best seller by Lynne Truss. The forward is by Frank McCourt, author of Angela's Ashes, who says (p.xii),

Lynne Truss bemoans the sad fact she never volunteered to have the babies of Aldus Manutius the Elder. Aldus Manutius the Elder (1450-1515) invented the italic typeface and printed the first semicolon. His son, yes, Aldus Manutius the Younger, declared in 1566, "that the main object of punctuation was the clarification of syntax."

A little careless. Truss actually said (pp. 77-78),

That man was Aldus Manutius the Elder (1450-1515) and I happily admit I hadn't heard of him until about a year ago, but am now absolutely kicking myself that I never volunteered to have his babies. Aldus Manutius and his grandson (conveniently of the same name) are generally credited with developing several of our modern conventional signs. Within the seventy years it took for Aldus Manutius the Elder to be replaced by Aldus Manutius the Younger, things changed so drastically that in 1566 Aldus Manutius the Younger was able to state that the main object of punctuation was the clarification of syntax.

Beyond that, what do you think of the last comma in the McCourt passage? This of all books would be a poor place to make a punctuation error, wouldn't it?

One hundred years ago commas were much more liberally sprinkled on the page. The fashion nowadays is for less commas, and I, for one, agree with that. (Or should that be: "I for one agree with that"?)

It is quite common, though not strictly necessary, to put a comma before quoted speech, thus:

Gilbert said, "Welcome to the Pleasure Dome!"
Stated George, "Entrance is only $10!"

This message has been edited. Last edited by: arnie,

I agree. I usually do this and I tend, also, to use the "Oxford" comma before the final "and" in a list.

I think I use way too many commas.

In this case, though, doesn't the that make the use of a comma incorrect?

I agree with shufitz and Kalleh. I think McCourt's last sentence should read either:

His son, yes, Aldus Manutius the Younger, declared in 1566 that "the main object of punctuation was the clarification of syntax."

or:

His son, yes, Aldus Manutius the Younger, declared in 1566, "the main object of punctuation was the clarification of syntax."

I doubt Aldus the Younger said "that" in his original declaration about punctuation. The comma is not the sole error here. The quotation mark is in the wrong place.

[I don't know how to indent text in this message box. Sorry.]

Chris, to indent a block of text precede it with {list} and end it with {/list}, using square brackets rather than the curly brackets shown here here. That will also put a pair of "new line" symbols before and after the block, so any more that you put in will create excess vertical space.

Glad to have someone agree with me on the comma. Also, as you note, the quotation mark was placed to include the word 'that' as part of the quotation. Agreed that this is a misplacement if McCourt is quoting Manutius, but it is correctly placed, I think, if he's quoting Truss's phrasing of Manutius's comment.

I found a quote from Manutius. What a great name for a book on puntuation: Interpungendi ratio.

That learned men are well known to disagree on this subject of punctuation is in itself a proof that the knowledge of it, in theory and practice, is of some importance. I myself have learned by experience, that, if ideas that are difficult to understand are properly separated, they become clearer; and that, on the other hand, through defective punctuation, many passages are confused and distorted to such a degree, that sometimes they can with difficulty be understood, or even cannot be understood at all.
-- Aldus Manutius, Interpungendi ratio, 1566. From the translation in Punctuation, its Principles and Practice by T. F. and M. F. A. Husband, Routledge, 1905

I've been waiting for my turn to read the Truss book - for 3 months now! Sigh!

I am glad I don't have to read Manutius - what a run-on!

CW,

Is it against the librarians' code to buy a book?

It's not expensive -- Amazon has it for $12.25 new; less for used copies.

My thoughts exactly, arnie! It is all over the place now, often at 30% off cost.

The other one I am anxious to see is the American version of Michael Quinion's book. Richard had sent me a copy of the British version. The British version is "POSH" and the American version is "Ballyhoo, Buckaroo and Spuds." Does anyone know if the latter is out yet? I thought it was due out in October.

Yep, it's out. Amazon has it for $13.97.

I haven't got around to it yet. I have looked in a shop near me a couple of times but didn't see it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by arnie:
CW,

Is it against the librarians' code to __buy__ a book?

---

BUY? BUY A BOOK????? Are you kidding me????