The-Grammar-of-English-Grammars-299

Prévia do material em texto

probably	contains	so	great	a	quantity	of	condensed	and	useful	matter	with	so
little	superfluity."—Sanborn's	Preface,	p.	v.
OBS.	29.—Murray's	rule	for	the	punctuation	of	relatives,	(a	rule	which	he
chiefly	copied	from	Lowth,)	recognizes	virtually	the	distinction	which	I	have
made	above;	but,	in	assuming	that	relatives	"generally"	require	a	comma	before
them,	it	erroneously	suggests	that	the	resumptive	sense	is	more	common	than	the
restrictive.	Churchill,	on	the	contrary,	as	wrongly	makes	it	an	essential
characteristic	of	all	relatives,	"to	limit	or	explain	the	words	to	which	they	refer."
See	his	New	Gram.,	p.	74.	The	fact	is,	that	relatives	are	so	generally	restrictive,
that	not	one	half	of	them	are	thus	pointed;	though	some	that	do	restrict	their
antecedent,	nevertheless	admit	the	point.	This	may	be	seen	by	the	first	example
given	us	by	Murray:	"Relative	pronouns	are	connective	words,	and	generally
admit	a	comma	before	them:	as,	'He	preaches	sublimely,	who	lives	a	sober,
righteous,	and	pious	life.'	But	when	two	members,	or	phrases,	[say	clauses,]	are
closely	connected	by	a	relative,	restraining	the	general	notion	of	the	antecedent
to	a	particular	sense,	the	comma	should	be	omitted:	as,	'Self-denial	is	the
sacrifice	which	virtue	must	make;'	'A	man	who	is	of	a	detracting	spirit,	will
misconstrue	the	most	innocent	words	that	can	be	put	together.'	In	the	latter
example,	the	assertion	is	not	of	'a	man	in	general,'	but	of	'a	man	who	is	of	a
detracting	spirit;'	and	therefore	they	[say	the	pronoun	and	its	antecedent]	should
not	be	separated."—Murray's	Gram.,	Octavo,	p.	273;	Ingersoll's,	285;	Comly's,
152.	This	reasoning,	strictly	applied,	would	exclude	the	comma	before	who	in
the	first	example	above;	but,	as	the	pronoun	does	not	"closely"	or	immediately
follow	its	antecedent,	the	comma	is	allowed,	though	it	is	not	much	needed.	Not
so,	when	the	sense	is	resumptive:	as,	"The	additions,	which	are	very
considerable,	are	chiefly	such	as	are	calculated	to	obviate	objections."	See
Murray's	Gram.,	p.	ix.	Here	the	comma	is	essential	to	the	meaning.	Without	it,
which	would	be	equivalent	to	that;	with	it,	which	is	equivalent	to	and	they.	But
this	latter	meaning,	as	I	imagine,	cannot	be	expressed	by	the	relative	that.
OBS.	30.—Into	the	unfortunate	example	which	Sanborn	took	from	Murray,	I
have	inserted	the	comma	for	him;	not	because	it	is	necessary	or	right,	but
because	his	rule	requires	it:	"Self-denial	is	the	sacrifice,"	&c.	The	author	of	"a
complete	system	of	grammar,"	might	better	contradict	even	Murray,	than
himself.	But	why	was	this	text	admired?	and	why	have	Greene,	Bullions,	Hiley,
Hart,	and	others,	also	copied	it?	A	sacrifice	is	something	devoted	and	lost,	for
the	sake	of	a	greater	good;	and,	if	Virtue	sacrifice	self-denial,	what	will	she	do,
but	run	into	indulgence?	The	great	sacrifice	which	she	demands	of	men,	is	rather
that	of	their	self-love.	Wm.	E.	Russell	has	it,	"Self	defence	is	the	sacrifice	which
virtue	must	make!"—Russell's	Abridgement	of	Murray's	Gram.,	p.	116.	Bishop
Butler	tells	us,	"It	is	indeed	ridiculous	to	assert,	that	self-denial	is	essential	to
virtue	and	piety;	but	it	would	have	been	nearer	the	truth,	though	not	strictly	the
truth	itself,	to	have	said,	that	it	is	essential	to	discipline	and
improvement."—Analogy	of	Religion,	p.	123.
OBS.	31.—The	relative	that,	though	usually	reckoned	equivalent	to	who	or
which,	evidently	differs	from	both,	in	being	more	generally,	and	perhaps	more
appropriately,	taken	in	the	restrictive	sense.	It	ought	therefore,	for	distinction's
sake,	to	be	preferred	to	who	or	which,	whenever	an	antecedent	not	otherwise
limited,	is	to	be	restricted	by	the	relative	clause;	as,	"Men	that	grasp	after	riches,
are	never	satisfied."—"I	love	wisdom	that	is	gay	and	civilized."—Art	of
Thinking,	p.	34.	This	phraseology	leaves	not	the	limitation	of	the	meaning	to
depend	solely	upon	the	absence	of	a	pause	after	the	antecedent;	because	the
relative	that	is	seldom,	if	ever,	used	by	good	writers	in	any	other	than	a
restrictive	sense.	Again:	"A	man	of	a	polite	imagination	is	let	into	a	great	many
pleasures	that	the	vulgar	are	not	capable	of	receiving."—Addison,	Spect.,	No.
411.	Here,	too,	according	to	my	notion,	that	is	obviously	preferable	to	which;
though	a	great	critic,	very	widely	known,	has	taken	some	pains	to	establish	a
different	opinion.	The	"many	pleasures"	here	spoken	of,	are	no	otherwise
defined,	than	as	being	such	as	"the	vulgar	are	not	capable	of	receiving."	The
writer	did	not	mean	to	deny	that	the	vulgar	are	capable	of	receiving	a	great	many
pleasures;	but,	certainly,	if	that	were	changed	to	which,	this	would	be	the
meaning	conveyed,	unless	the	reader	were	very	careful	to	avoid	a	pause	where
he	would	be	apt	to	make	one.	I	therefore	prefer	Addison's	expression	to	that
which	Dr.	Blair	would	substitute.
OBS.	32.—The	style	of	Addison	is	more	than	once	censured	by	Dr.	Blair,	for	the
frequency	with	which	the	relative	that	occurs	in	it,	where	the	learned	lecturer
would	have	used	which.	The	reasons	assigned	by	the	critic	are	these:	"Which	is	a
much	more	definitive	word	than	that,	being	never	employed	in	any	other	way
than	as	a	relative;	whereas	that	is	a	word	of	many	senses;	sometimes	a
demonstrative	pronoun,	often	a	conjunction.	In	some	cases	we	are	indeed
obliged	to	use	that	for	a	relative,	in	order	to	avoid	the	ungraceful	repetition	of
which	in	the	same	sentence.	But	when	we	are	laid	under	no	necessity	of	this
kind,	which	is	always	the	preferable	word,	and	certainly	was	so	in	this	sentence:
'Pleasures	which	the	vulgar	are	not	capable	of	receiving,'	is	much	better	than
'pleasures	that	the	vulgar	are	not	capable	of	receiving.'"—Blair's	Rhetoric,	Lect.