The Wall Street Journal - 09.08.2019

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL. Friday, August 9, 2019 |A

Between a Pause

AndaHardStop

Semicolon By Cecelia Watson (Ecco, 213 pages, $19.99)

BOOKSHELF| By Barton Swaim

M

ost English-speakers who write for a living have some appreciation for the semicolon, but a few dis- like it or avoid it altogether. “Do not use semicolons,” Kurt Vonnegut wrote. “They are transvestite hermaph- rodites representing absolutely nothing. All they do is show you’ve been to college.” Of course, you could say the same thing about the word “hermaphrodite.” I am fond of the semicolon; so much so, indeed, that the books editor of this newspaper once asked me if I buy my semicolons individu- ally or by the boxful. The semicolon can be overused, and there are contexts and genres in which it’s out of place. But the language needs a punctuation mark, as the New York Public Library Writer’s Guide to Style and Usage neatly puts it, that “tells the reader ‘Slow down, but don’t stop.’” As Cecelia Watson explains in “Semicolon: The Past, Present, and Future of a Misunderstood Mark,” the mark was born in the Italian Renaissance. European printers in the 15th and 16th centuries invented many such typographical signifiers— squiggles, dashes, curlicues of all sorts; now mostly forgotten. Why did the semicolon catch on and almost all the others fade away? “Probably because it was useful,” Ms. Watson writes. “Readers, writers, and printers found that the semicolon was worth the trouble to insert.” The book’s brief history of the semicolon is more fun than it sounds. One episode stands out. In 1875 the Massachusetts state legislature passed a law regulating the sale of alcohol. The law stipulated “that no sale of spirituous or intoxicating liquor shall be made between the hours of 11 at night and 6 in the morning, nor during the Lord’s day, except that if the licensee is also licensed as an Innholder he may supply such liquor to guests who have resorted to his house for food and lodging.” The law was straightforward: Only licensed innholders could serve booze past 11. But at some point over the next 25 years the law somehow acquired a semicolon after the word “morning,” with the result that the exception for innholders only applied to Sundays. When the semicolon came to light in 1900, Boston was thrown into a six-year clash between bars and temperance advocates. Impressive work for a comma with a dot over it. For Ms. Watson the semicolon serves a kind of symbol for the flexibility and variegated beauties of English. The “rules” governing the use of the semicolon have their place, she con- cedes, but they hardly begin to tell us what the language can do in the hands of a capable writer. “There is always joy in mastery of some branch of knowledge,” she writes of gram- matical rules. “But there is muchmorejoy in [understand- ing]...howitisthat a punctuation mark can create meaning in language that goes beyond just delineating the logical structure of a sentence.”

Well, OK. But by my reckoning this is a pretty commonplace view. Almost everybody who cares about this subject, even the vanishingly small number of grammar snobs left in the world, understand that writers who know what they’re doing can bend and break the rules to good effect. Do we need to be told one more time that all those “prescriptivist” grammarians of the 18th and 19th centuries failed to grasp the always-evolving nature of language? Do we need one more book alerting us, as Ms. Watson does, to the fact that an insistence on rule-following can exclude people of less privileged backgrounds? I was further discouraged by the fact that two of the “masters of English fiction and nonfiction” Ms. Watson draws on to illustrate skill in the use of the semicolon are the Scottish novelist Irvine Welsh and the American essayist Rebecca Solnit. Mr. Welsh, when composing ordinary English and not the hyperprofane faux-argot of his novels, writes about as well as an average 12-year-old; Ms. Solnit never says a thing simply that can be said elliptically or nonsensically. Ms. Watson’s ostensible objection is to the whole idea of authority in the use of language. “Whether it’s the [Chicago] Manualthat peers down from your bookshelf,” she writes, “or Strunk and White, or the APA style guide, or [H.W.] Fowler, or Lynne Truss, it’s fair to ask why we consider these books authoritative, and if there might not be some better way to assess our writing than through their dicta.” By “we” she means people other than herself, but Ms. Watson appears conflicted on the matter of authority. In the book’s introduction she casually mentions “my years of experience teaching writing at institutions like Yale, the University of Chicago, and Bard College.” In another passage, she mentions a point made about semicolons by a pair of friends “over dinner in Berlin.” These are subtle but unmistakable instances of what my teenage daughter would call “flexing.” Like most grammarians in our latitudinarian age, Ms. Watson enjoys her status as an elite user of language but can’t bring herself to pronounce judgment of any kind, except to dismiss those who do. But language is like any other field of human endeavor: Before you master it, you’re bound to feel inadequate and look stupid sometimes. Ordinary literate people understand this, which is why they buy Strunk & White and the Chicago Manual of Style. They aren’t interested in “seeing, describing, and creating beauty in language that rules can’t comprehend,” as Ms. Watson puts it; they are interested in stringing words together without appearing ignorant. Ms. Watson has shown us she’s been to college, but for what reason?

Mr. Swaim, an editorial-page writer at the Journal, is the author of “The Speechwriter: A Brief Education in Politics.”

The semicolon can be overused, but the language needs a punctuation mark that tells readers ‘Slow down, but don’t stop.’

Vegetarianism as Climate Virtue Signaling

‘E

at Less Meat” is the
typical headline used
to present a new
United Nations report on cli-
mate change released Thurs-
day. The report correctly
points to the need to improve
global food systems, but pun-
dits are fixating on the sup-
posed need for people in rich
countries to change their din-
ing habits radically. This is an
ineffective and unachievable
policy response.
Along with the report, the
Intergovernmental Panel on Cli-
mate Changes published 20
“headline statements” for policy
makers. Only one estimates the
effect of dietary responses. It
relies on a 2016 paper that finds
if the entire world switched to a
vegan diet, giving up dairy and
eggs as well as meat—what the
U.N. calls the “most extreme
scenario”—food-related green-
house-gas emissions could be
cutbyupto70%.
This sounds more impres-
sive than it is: Only a seventh
of all emissions are food-re-
lated. Besides, the estimate

also assumes that “people con- sume just enough calories to maintain a healthy body weight.” That seems unlikely. De- spite decades of healthy-eating campaigns, 1.9 billion adults globally are overweight. I’m a vegetarian for ethical reasons, but vegetarianism is not the environmental solution it’s sold as.

Going vegetarian is actually quite difficult. One large U.S. survey from 2014 found 84% of would-be vegetarians abandon the diet in less than a year. A 2015 literature review found switching successfully to vegetarianism reduces individual carbon emissions by the equivalent of 1,190 pounds of carbon dioxide per year. That’s only 4.3% of emissions for the average person in a developed country.

There’s also a rebound effect. Money saved on vegetarian food is likely to be spent on goods and services, causing additional emissions. Factor- ing that in, another 2015 study found going vegetarian reduces an individual’s emissions only by about 2%. In- deed, the IPCC report quotes studies showing meat restric- tion reduces emissions by a mere 2%. Rather than false hopes about dietary change, the fo- cus should be on improving agricultural practices. First, organic food is bad for sus- tainability. A 2017 paper found organic farming takes 70% more land on average to pro- duce the same amount of pro- duce as conventional methods. Making U.S. agricultural pro- duction entirely organic would require converting an area larger than California and Texas combined into farmland. Second, agricultural yields must increase. The Green Rev- olution of the 1970s spread fertilizers and modern practices, making a lasting differ- ence in Asia and South Amer-

ica. A second Green Revolution is needed to make agriculture even more efficient. This means more spending on agricultural research and development, from conventional breeding to genetic modification and even artifi- cial meat, which makes vegetarianism a more plausible choice. Copenhagen Consensus research estimates that in- creasing research spending by $8 billion a year would increase crop yields annually by an additional 0.4%. This might sound modest, but it would improve food security, reduce prices, and achieve social good worth more than $30 for every dollar invested. Focusing only on vegetarianism is more about virtue signaling than improving the food system. Instead of sham- ing people for eating hamburg- ers, let’s ramp up agricultural R&D.

Mr. Lomborg is the president of the Copenhagen Con- sensus Center and the author of “The Skeptical Environmen- talist” and “Cool It.”

By Bjorn Lomborg

First World solipsism misses the point of a new U.N. report.

OPINION

One of the
largest gath-
erings of re-
ligious pil-
grims in the
world, the
hajj, begins Friday in Mecca,
Saudi Arabia. More than two
million Muslim men, women
and children will assemble to
honor the prophet Abraham
and his second wife, Hagar.
All of them will be challenged
to uphold the spirit of the
hajj.
People of many faiths know
the story of Abraham leaving
Hagar and baby Ishmael in the
desert and returning home to
Sarah. Years later he went
back to visit Ishmael, then a
grown man. According to the
Quran, together they built a
cubic structure called the
Kaaba and dedicated it to the
one God.
Today the Kaaba stands in
the courtyard of the Great
Mosque in Mecca, draped in
black with Quranic verses em-
broidered in gold. Muslims
across the world pray in the
Kaaba’s direction every day,
and it is the first stop pil-
grims make on the five-day
hajj. Dressed in theihram—
two pieces of unstitched white
cloth for men—pilgrims dis-
embark from buses and rush
to perform thetawaaf,orcir-
cumambulation.
The pilgrims, or hajjis,
walk barefoot in Abraham’s
footsteps, circling the Kaaba
seven times. They walk skin-

The Meaning of Mecca

to-skin around the Kaaba in temperatures reaching 110 de- grees, glorifying God, raising their hands in supplication, some weeping as they beg for forgiveness. This ritual is or- dained in the Quran—which Muslims believe is the word of God—and was instituted by the Prophet Muhammad. It also serves as a reminder that Jews, Christians and Muslims are cousins in faith. The hajjis also walk in Ha- gar’s footsteps, another Quranic injunction. As the story goes, when Abraham left Hagar and Ishmael in the desert, they ran out of food and water, and the baby started crying with thirst. Hagar went looking for water. On the seventh run between two hills, a spring of water suddenly gushed from where the baby was kicking in the sand. That spring, called Zamzam, flows to this day. Upon completion of the tawaaf, hajjis proceed to the spring of Zamzam and drink water believed to have medicinal properties. Hagar controlled the rights to Zamzam, the most precious commodity in the desert, and over time a city flourished around the spring. That city became Mecca, where Ishmael grew up. The nearby hills Safa and Marwa, where Hagar sought water, are the second stop for the pilgrims. They walk between the two hills seven times to honor a mother’s struggle for her

child. Walking long distances barefoot on hard marble isn’t easy. I remember spending hours on the treadmill train- ing for the hajj. The pilgrims then travel to the valley of Mina, or the City of Tents. It is only 5 miles away, but moving two million people can take hours. Some walk and arrive exhausted and dehydrated. They spend the night in the tents, color-coded by country. Some come air- conditioned with fully stocked refrigerators. Most don’t.

On Saturday all pilgrims depart to the plain of Arafat. This is where the Prophet Muhammad gave his farewell sermon when he performed the hajj. They will stand in the open spaces, raise their hands in prayer, and recall the prophet’s message deliv- ered to the Arabs in seventh century: “O People, it is true that you have certain rights with regard to your women, but they also have rights over you.” Another crucial line: “A white has no superiority over a black, nor does a black have any superiority over a

white; except by piety and good action.” These are the most impor- tant messages of the hajj— supporting gender and racial equality, honoring one’s mother, paying homage to the woman who founded Mecca, and embracing fraternity with Jews and Christians. Yet these themes often are forgotten. That is why hajj is mandatory for all Muslims, once in a life- time, if they can afford it. But even on hajj this message can be forgotten. The message gets lost when pilgrims board the bus to Mecca and the road signs signal that non-Muslims aren’t allowed. It gets lost when unaccompanied women are restricted entry to Mecca. It gets lost when, despite the hajj attire—meant to put prince and pauper in identical clothing—the well-heeled are offered exclusive travel pack- ages. It gets lost and costs lives when security guards re- direct the human flow to make room for dignitaries, re- sulting in people getting crushed to death. As pilgrims return home, I pray that they carry the message of hajj, promote it, and live it. Only then can one call himself a true hajji.

Ms. Rehman is author of “Threading My Prayer Rug: One Woman’s Journey from Pakistani Muslim to American Muslim” (Arcade, 2016).

Some Muslims have lost touch with the reason for the annual hajj pilgrimage.

HOUSES OF
WORSHIP
By Sabeeha
Rehman

Coming in BOOKS this weekend The indispensable George C. Marshall • The youth of the French Resistance • A history of war at sea • The vanishing languages of Papua New Guinea • A musical history of the American brothel • Toni Morrison remembered • & more

Democrats in-
sist there’s
no more ur-
gent job than
ensuring
Donald
Trump is a
one-term
president.
Which is odd,
given how
hard they are
simultaneously working to
alienate the voters they most
need to make that happen.
See this week’s debate on
gun control.
The weekend’s shootings
in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton,
Ohio, inspired the entire lib-
eral-media complex to chant
“gun control,” reflexively and
predictably. A favorite de-
mand is to expand back-
ground checks—never mind
that these mass shooters, and
those of recent years, bought
their guns legally and there-
fore passed such checks. An-
other is an “assault weapons”
ban—never mind that “as-
sault” weapons function in
the same way as tens of mil-
lions of other semi-automatic
rifles that would remain in
circulation.
But the Democratic presi-
dential candidates went fur-
ther. It is not enough, they
insisted, to expand back-
ground checks or limit types
of firearms going forward.
What is needed is to take
guns away and to make it
harder for law-abiding Amer-
icans to own them. They at
least get credit for being
more honest about the left’s
gun intentions.

Going to Extremes Against Guns

Texas’ former Rep. Beto O’Rourke said he is now “open” to a “mandatory” gov- ernment gun-buying pro- gram—a polite way to de- scribe confiscation of entire classes of firearms. New Jer- sey Sen. Cory Booker high- lighted his plan to require every American to obtain a federal “license” to purchase a firearm. Responsible gun owners would have to submit fingerprints, pass an inter- view, and take safety courses to obtain even a .22-caliber long rifle. And they’d have to repeat the process every five years. California Sen. Kamala Harris has vowed to ignore Congress and impose gun regulations via executive action. She’d ban certain firearm imports and sue gun manufacturers for “negli- gence,” among other things. As for former Vice President Joe Biden, CNN asked him if gun owners should worry that a Biden administration “is going to come for my guns.” He answered: “Bingo. You’re right if you have an assault weapon. The fact of the matter is, they should be illegal, period.” The media is cheering all this on, as well as highlight- ing polls that claim majori- ties of Americans support this or that gun-control pro- posal. But polls are quick snapshots of tiny pools of Americans, often answering vaguely worded policy ques- tions. This is a shoddy, and politically dangerous, way of measuring attitudes on a

subject voters take seriously. Especially for Democrats, who spent much of 2017 la- menting their failure to con- nect with white working- class Americans, many of whom live in rural areas. These are the coal and oil workers they are now prom- ising to put out of jobs with their climate plans; the union members and housewives

they label as “white suprema- cists.” And they are gun owners who, unlike most journal- ists, deeply understand firearms and view these proposals as a threat. The Pew Research Center’s 2017 study of the “demo- graphics of gun ownership” found that 42% of American adults live in a household with a firearm. Some 58% of rural Americans live in a gun household, as do 48% of independents and 41% of sub- urbanites. Forty-eight percent of white men personally own a gun. A quarter of self-iden- tified Democrats live in a gun household—many in those rural and suburban areas of Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, Penn- sylvania and Wisconsin where Hillary Clinton lost and the Democratic nominee will desperately need to win in 2020.

Just as striking are gun owners’ attitudes about their Second Amendment rights. Nearly three-quarters of the Americans who currently own a gun say they “can’t see themselves evernotowning one.” Pew reports that “for today’s gun owners, the right to own guns nearly rivals other rights laid out in the U.S. Constitution”—including “freedom of speech, the right to vote, the right to privacy, and freedom of religion.” It notes that “about three-quarters of gun owners (74%) say this right is essential to their own sense of freedom.” Presumably none of the Democratic candidates is foolhardy enough to call for bans on voting or going to church. Yet millions of Ameri- cans—including independents and Democrats—will see their gun-ban and licensing proposals as the equivalent. This isn’t your usual debate over tax rates or health-care pro- viders; these proposals are deal breakers. That Demo- crats don’t realize this is a function of a striking party and media insularity from “flyover” America. Mass shootings are a terri- ble problem, but they won’t be solved with gun regula- tion. And no competitive pol- itician will be rewarded for offending law-abiding gun owners—and the Constitu- tion—with radical proposals that won’t achieve their ob- jectives. Democrats write off gun-owning America at their peril. Write to [email protected].

Threatening to take voters’ firearms away isn’t the way to beat Donald Trump.

POTOMAC
WATCH
By Kimberley
A. Strassel

The Wall Street Journal - 09.08.2019

Get our desktop app

Company

Features

Documentation

Resources