Is it acceptable to nest parentheses (for example, if I (meaning myself) write like this)?
7 Answers
It is acceptable, but you should use it with care. Generally, you should avoid having long texts in parentheses, as the reader will eventually forget that he is inside a parentheses block.
In serious papers and letters, you should avoid it completely, and rather find a way of re-phrase it.
In conversational e-mails, blog posts, StackExchange posts etc. it might be more natural to use it, but the inner parenthesis should never be long (just a couple of words). The most important is to make sure that the reader don't get confused of where the parenthesis start and end.
Example
With nested parentheses
This is a quick example on how to rephrase a potential problematic use of nested parenthesis. (It can be a less important section like this (which is quite long, even if it is not important), and when you continue, the reader might be lost in where in the parenthesized text he is, and might wonder if he still is inside any parentheses.) Anyway, the main text continues here.
Re-phrased to remove nesting
This is a quick example on how to rephrase a potential problematic use of nested parenthesis.
(It can be a less important section like this. It is quite long, even if it is not important. Now when you continue, the reader is not lost anymore because the long section is taken out in a separate paragraph, and no inner parentheses can be mistaken for an early termination of the outer section.)
Anyway, the main text continues here.
-
1Can you give links (or references) with examples of nested brackets? Even better with different types of nested brackets... – Gennady Vanin Геннадий Ванин Feb 15 '11 at 17:22
-
7"In conversational e-mails, blog posts, StackExchange posts etc. it might be more appropriate to use it, but the inner parenthesis should never be long (just a couple of words)." Unless you are answering a question on Stack Overflow that is about Lisp. – Dec 03 '11 at 12:24
-
I've found that with too many parentheses, it can be hard to make sure each is matched without a text editor or compiler that detects syntax errors (like a programming IDE) – T. Webster May 12 '12 at 01:20
-
@T.Webster: Yes, that is exactly why you should use it with care as I said in my answer. A good advice would be to look quickly over what you have written, and see if it is easy to spot the matched parenthese pairs (without the aid of a programming IDE...). – awe May 15 '12 at 07:41
-
1You are supposed to use square brackets for internal parens, if you must use them. You are not supposed to nest parens themselves. – tchrist Sep 04 '12 at 04:08
-
@T.Webster : If you have trouble keeping track of the parenthesis in a text you write, you should consider re-write. If the writer loose track, how should the reader be able to keep track? – awe Jan 21 '16 at 05:41
-
What about optional plurals in serious papers and letters? For example: Some text here (something about the author(s)) more text. – geekley Nov 01 '21 at 23:13
I believe it's acceptable, but vaguely considered poor form, and I tend to avoid it (often by restructuring a sentence and busting out some emdashes) unless I'm intentionally using it to be cute.
- 19,612
-
2True. Even single brackets are usually a thing to avoid in full prose, like novels or complicated, abstract texts: they are most of the time neither pleasant to the eye of the reader nor easy on his mind. Of course there are plenty of situations where they are fine, though. – Cerberus - Reinstate Monica Feb 03 '11 at 03:08
-
-
4@Brad: 'single' = single; 'brackets' = parentheses. :-) "Parentheses" is the American name for what is elsewhere just called "bracket". What Americans call "bracket" is called "square bracket" elsewhere. – ShreevatsaR Feb 03 '11 at 05:54
-
3Usually when I notice myself in the need to use two pairs of nested parentheses (or generally when overusing them), I edit the whole sentence so at least my outer parentheses-content is part of the actual text. – poke Feb 03 '11 at 08:46
-
3@ShreevatsaR: This is one of the few places where I feel American English has a better approach. In computing it is entirely necessary to differentiate with ease and I find myself having to train juniors to say parentheses, brackets, braces, chevrons, guillemets (ok, they never say this "double angle bracket" persists). – Orbling Feb 03 '11 at 11:05
-
@Orbling: What's wrong with the usual bracket, square bracket, curly bracket, angle bracket etc.? :-) We all learnt the differences in school, and in principle (for non-Americans) the names ought to be easier to remember than using a new word for every character. – ShreevatsaR Feb 03 '11 at 11:27
-
@ShreevatsaR: Granted, but I am generally pro-jargon. It makes conversations quicker and reduces confusion. I find people tend to ask you "what type of bracket", if you just say "bracket", and the others they can mishear. – Orbling Feb 03 '11 at 11:40
-
5@Orbling: Round bracket? Though generally I am of the parentheses, square bracket, curly brace camp; bracket is just such a nice square word, and brace so deliciously curly. – Jon Purdy Feb 03 '11 at 13:16
-
@Jon Purdy: Totally agreed, and guillemets are forgotten around about as often as the necessary ALT-codes to enter them. – Orbling Feb 03 '11 at 19:54
-
+1 Yes. The rules exist only to make a good background that will make breaking of them well seen. You can break rhythm maximally in 1/4 of tacts, or there will be no rhythm. – Gangnus Feb 07 '12 at 08:27
-
2I occasionally find myself copying the habit of a former workmate, who referred to angle brackets as madonnas. So < was "left madonna" or "open madonna", and > was "right madonna" or "close madonna". – Feb 07 '12 at 10:48
Well I do it, but then I spend a lot of time as a mathematician.
If it gets confusing I think using alternative bracket glyphs assists ([{<« »>}]).
[Though using the guillemets (« ») as brackets can get you in to trouble, as a lot of languages use them as speech marks.(Wikipedia)]
- 5,035
-
perhaps n00b follow up question, but do the alternative bracket glyphs have the same meaning as parentheses? – Brad Cupit Feb 03 '11 at 01:39
-
3@Brad Cupit: Well, they can be. But technically they have specific uses, e.g. square brackets are usually used for editorial comments or amendments, annotations, though these uses are not absolute. Read through this article for a full explanation, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bracket – Orbling Feb 03 '11 at 01:47
-
1Very good answer. Using different kinds of parenthetical markers can work, though not in editions of manuscripts etc, where each marker has its own function. – Cerberus - Reinstate Monica Feb 03 '11 at 02:32
-
-
As an engineer/programmer I sometimes use different kinds of brackets for clarity, but only in informal emails and IM conversations. – Zsolt Török Feb 03 '11 at 08:19
-
3Let us all nest parentheses (brackets, whatever), please. The more we do this, the more it becomes standard English. – H2ONaCl Feb 03 '11 at 08:35
-
In maths you should not go beyond
([{}]). Once you need a fourth level you should start repeating yourself. The<and>symbols have a completely different meaning in maths! – David Heffernan Feb 03 '11 at 09:48 -
@David Heffernan: When I said I nest brackets, probably because of my mathematics influence, that was a separate statement to my list of bracket types. Inequality symbols used as bracketing would certainly be confusing, and would definitely sod up my Mathematica notebooks. – Orbling Feb 03 '11 at 10:58
-
@Orbling, would not it be more clear to use different types of brackets (round, square, etc.) to make text with nested brakets more readable? Is it permitted? – Gennady Vanin Геннадий Ванин Feb 15 '11 at 17:19
-
@vgv8: I think that was my suggestion, the comments above allude to its acceptability, which rather depends upon the context. – Orbling Feb 15 '11 at 17:29
-
@DavidHeffernan - all of these symbols have completely different meanings in maths. So if you're writing maths, and you need to nest parentheses; for Heaven's sake, nest parentheses! – Feb 07 '12 at 10:45
-
@DavidWallace Not in the maths I typically do. Can you tell me a single universal meaning of these symbols? – David Heffernan Feb 07 '12 at 10:50
-
1@DavidHeffernan - Sure. () alter the order of operations. Like ( 2 + 3 ) x 4, whch is 20, but without the parentheses would be 14. () also denotes an open interval - that is, (0,1) is the set of real numbers greater than 0 but less than 1. [] denotes a closed interval, so [0,1] means all the real numbers not less than 0, and not greater than 1. [] is also sometimes used for the floor function, but that's becoming less and less common. {} denotes a set, either with the elements listed or described - for example { 0, 1, 2 } or { all even numbers }. And yes, I do have a degree in mathematics. – Feb 07 '12 at 11:06
-
1@DavidWallace You are hoist by your own petard. If you wish to reserve [] exclusively for closed intervals then for consistency why not reserve () exclusively for open intervals? Mathematical notation is all about context. When it is clear from the context that [] and {} are being used as parentheses then it is fine to do so. And as for the maths degrees, do you only have the one? ;-) – David Heffernan Feb 07 '12 at 11:18
-
@DavidHeffernan - I think that you and I will have to agree to disagree on this. If I saw you write an expression in [], I would interpret it to mean the floor function. If I saw you write an expression in {}, I would interpret it to mean a singleton set. The context may make abuses of these notations CLEAR, but it would never make them CORRECT. – Feb 07 '12 at 19:56
-
2@DavidWallace On my desk at the moment, I have a Springer volume titled, An Introduction to Statistical Modeling of Extreme Values by Stuart Coles. The page it coincidentally happens to be turned to has an expression
exp{-[1+xi({z-u}/sigma)]^-1/xi}for the GPD distribution. It may not be the norm in your area of maths but there are plenty of subject areas in maths where it is the norm. I suggest you write to Springer to put them right!! – David Heffernan Feb 07 '12 at 20:03 -
Fantastic! I have just done a survey of the mathematics books on my bookshelf. I have found plenty of examples of both conventions; and even one book that mixes the two, seemingly at random. Thank you, @DavidHeffernan for taking the time to make your comments, and opening my eyes to this. I had obviously never really paid enough attention before, to which types of brackets I was looking at. I hereby take back my earlier comments. – Feb 08 '12 at 07:57
-
2@DavidHeffernan Yeah, but that book is on statistics, he said maths... ;-) – Orbling Feb 08 '12 at 15:41
My English Composition professor told us that if you ever feel you need to use nested parentheses, that is one sure sign you need to rewrite the sentence instead.
Here's what one technical editor has to say on the topic:
Nesting parentheses should be done with square brackets "([ ])". But since square brackets are usually used for citations, this is confusing. The answer is to eliminate all nested parentheses by appropriate rewording. (Dashes, otherwise not recommended, can have a use here.)
- 151,571
-
13Refactoring is apparently not a concept solely for programming then. ;-) – Orbling Feb 03 '11 at 11:00
-
4@Orbling: Yes, though after I started programming I rankled under the restriction. Why not have subgroups set off by extra parens? But the point is, code and mathematical expressions are usually set off with whitespace to be readable, and a good IDE will show you the opening brace when you put the cursor next to the closing brace, etc. Writing is not coding, although sometimes I wish it could be that precise. – Robusto Feb 03 '11 at 11:55
-
Aye, I certainly sympathise with that view. Though the great beauty of English is in the myriad of meanings that can be formed from the simplest of constructions. – Orbling Feb 03 '11 at 12:33
-
The copyeditor on the last edition of one of my books changed the two instances of nested parens into parens on the outside and square brackets on the inside. It’s formally correct, but not what a programmer would necessarily think to od. – tchrist Sep 04 '12 at 04:10
I have found that people who appreciate stressing thoroughly the logical construction of their sentences to make them totally unambiguous tend to use parentheses a lot, and to nest them, even though (see other answers) it's considered poor form. In particular, scientists (especially mathematicians and logicians) seem to do that more commonly than other people.
- 38,736
-
I guess you didn't mean that scientists do it more than mathematicians and logicians. :-) – ShreevatsaR Feb 03 '11 at 18:06
In looking at this question, I was immediately reminded of the work of William Faulkner, an undoubtedly well-known author in the United States. He is notorious for his complex sentences that can go on for pages. In some of them, he unapologetically uses nested parentheses.
While Faulkner sets a precedent doing this, it is not at all proof of the 'correct' usage. His motivation is quite different. I like the way Louis Rubin puts it in his essay The Dixie Special: William Faulkner and the Southern Literary Renascence:
His very style itself, with the long sentences, the liberal deployment of adjectives, the parentheses, and the parentheses within parentheses, proceeds from the conviction that reality can be represented only when presented in its full complexity, leaving out nothing that is important. His admiration for Thomas Wolfe, he said on several occasions, was for that novelist's attempt, however impossible of fulfillment, to put all experience on the head of a pin.
I bring Faulkner's example up for the sake of introducing a different angle on the OP's question. It may not be the best choice stylistically to nest parentheses, but there have been literary precedents that show the practice. The example of Faulkner's usage of the nested parentheses shows that there is a purpose in his writing to convey a sense of complexity and to leave nothing out.
- 6,516
-
5Judging by that short piece of text, Louis Rubin himself seemed to be showing a fondness of the commas as opposed to parentheses. – Lie Ryan Jul 21 '12 at 14:56
Parentheses are a way to stuff more ideas into a sentence than it could otherwise bear. They make life easier for the writer who is trying to capture all his ideas as they bubble up, but harder for the reader trying to make sense of it all. If you nest your parentheses, you risk losing your reader entirely.
So I'd say, in your first draft, go ahead and use as many parentheses as you want, but in later drafts you should try to eliminate them — especially the nested ones.
- 13,861
-
I would say that separating content with parentheses is an attempt to provide content to the reader in a parallell scope. Using commas, would be a more serialized approach. – awe Jan 21 '16 at 08:46
:)it's OK, otherwise, no, it's not ok. – awe Feb 03 '11 at 14:51)– Benjol Feb 03 '11 at 14:54[]as parenthesis, then I can freely use the smile [this way ;)] ; still bad, mind, but not as itching as doing the other way. – o0'. Feb 03 '11 at 18:39Actually this is not a very useful) – Billy Moon May 24 '11 at 07:32(... [...] ...)nesting is more logical though! – Noldorin May 04 '12 at 16:49