Suspension Point
Posted by R | Posted in The English language | Posted on 09-11-2009
1
Well now hasn’t today been a voyage of discovery?! I have just learnt of the existence of a completely new punctuation mark; it’s called the suspension point.

No, it’s not one of those. That’s an entirely different sort of suspension point. The one I am talking about is a linguistic one. “So what is it?” I hear you ask – well I’ll explain it now. Here goes …
Did you see it? Yes, that was it! No no, back there! Just after the word “goes”. Those three little full stops. Yes apparently that’s called a suspension point, and frankly I find that quite interesting because I have been using them (wrongly as it happens) for longer than I care to remember.
The reason for me writing this drivel is that I have just been scorned by my good friend Plutus. You know, the one who enraged me previously when he taunted me about the elusive 50p coin? Yes, that one. Anyway, it turns out that unbeknownst to me he is a reader of this site, and today he left a comment in response to my rant about the Apostrophe Abuse. I thought it was quite a good rant, and you simply won’t believe how many times I checked it to ensure that I’d not made any grammatical errors. To do such a thing in a grammatical rant would have been unforgivable, but despite my best efforts it transpires that I actually made a complete monkey’s breakfast of my suspension point. Now I thought that when people used a series of full stops it was just a random collection of them, used to imply a pause. The “slang” of punctuation, if you will. But no, I have done my research and dammit he’s right.
Personally I am taking a little bit of comfort from the thought that Plutus could now be sitting at home wondering whether he has made himself look like the worst kind of snobby language-obsessed arse. Or at the very least I sincerely hope that’s the case. Incidentally, if you’d like to read some of his drivel then you can do so here.
Quite honestly though I really am rather cross about this whole affair, because it turns out that (a) he is right, and (b) I was close. I had used four full stops rather than three, and that’s really not too bad in the grand scheme of things. I take his point though; the use of more than ten full stops really is unforgivable and admittedly it has always struck me as looking highly sloppy. But on this particular occasion I am pleading innocence because I didn’t even know that there was a linguistic / grammatical convention about such things. Sadly I do now, and it therefore means that I shall lie awake tonight wondering in how many places I have previously made the same mistake. Of course to most of the population this will be a matter of completely inconsequential pedanticism, but to me this is a big deal. Why? Well because I’ve written quite a few articles in my time and therefore there’s a very good chance that I’ve made the same mistake in an awful lot of places.
Bugger.

