Bryson's Dictionary of Troublesome Words - Bill Bryson [86]
While the parenthetical expression has no grammatical effect on the sentence in which it appears, the sentence does influence the parentheses. Consider this extract from the Los Angeles Times (which, although it uses dashes, could equally have employed parentheses): “One reason for the dearth of Japanese-American politicians is that no Japanese immigrants were allowed to become citizens—and thus could not vote—until 1952.” As written the sentence is telling us that “no Japanese citizens could not vote.” Delete could not.
When a parenthetical comment is part of a larger sentence, the period should appear after the second parenthesis (as here). (But when the entire sentence is parenthetical, as here, the period should appear inside the final parenthesis.)
period (British, Full stop). Two common errors are associated with the period, both of which arise from its absence. The first is the run-on sentence—that is, the linking of two complete thoughts by a comma. It is never possible to say whether a run-on sentence is attributable to ignorance on the part of the writer or to whimsy on the part of the typesetter, but the error occurs frequently enough that ignorance must play a part. In each of the following I have indicated with a slash where one sentence should end and the next should begin: “Although GEC handled the initial contract, much of the equipment is American,/the computers and laser printers come from Hewlett Packard” (Guardian); “Confidence is growing that OPEC will resolve its crisis,/however the Treasury is drawing up contingency plans” (Times); “Funds received in this way go towards the cost of electricity and water supply,/industries, shops and communes pay higher rates” (Times).
The second lapse arises when a writer tries to say too much in a single sentence, as here: “The measures would include plans to boost investment for self-financing in industry, coupled with schemes to promote investment and saving, alleviate youth unemployment, fight inflation, and lower budget deficits, as well as a new look at the controversial issue of reducing working hours” (Times). If the writer has not lost his readers, he has certainly lost himself. The last lumbering flourish (“as well as a new look . . .” ) is grammatically unconnected to what has gone before; it just hangs there. The sentence is crying out for a period—almost anywhere would do—to give the reader a chance to absorb the wealth of information being provided.
Here is another in which the writer tells us everything but his phone number: “But after they had rejected once more the umpires’ proposals of $5,000 a man for the playoffs and $10,000 for the World Series on a three-year contract and the umpires had turned down a proposal of $3,000 for the playoffs and $7,000 for the World Series on a one-year contract, baseball leaders said the playoffs would begin today and they had umpires to man the games” (New York Times).
There is no quota on periods. When an idea is complicated, break it up and present it in digestible chunks. One idea to a sentence is still the best advice that anyone has ever given on writing.
question mark. The question mark comes at the end of a question. That sounds simple enough, doesn’t it? But it’s astonishing how frequently writers fail to include it. Two random examples: “‘Why travel all the way there when you could watch the whole thing at home,’ he asked” (Times); “The inspector got up to go and stood on Mr. Ellis’s cat, killing it. ‘What else do you expect from these people,’ said the artist” (Standard).
Occasionally question marks are included when they are not called for, as in this sentence by Trollope, cited by Fowler: “But let me ask of her enemies whether it is not as good a method as any other known to be extant?” The problem here is a failure to distinguish between a direct question and an indirect one. Direct questions always take question marks: “Who is going with