CHAPTER II
SYNTAX
Case
There is not much opportunity in English for going wrong here, because we have shed most of our cases. The personal pronouns, and who and its compounds, are the only words that visibly retain three—called subjective, objective, possessive. In nouns the first two are indistinguishable, and are called the common case. One result of this simplicity is that, the sense of case being almost lost, the few mistakes that can be made are made often—some of them so often that they are now almost right by prescription.
1. In apposition.
A pronoun appended to a noun, and in the same relation to the rest of the sentence, should be in the same case. Disregard of this is a bad blunder.
But to behold her mother—she to whom she owed her being!—S. Ferrier.
2. The complement with am, are, is, &c., should be subjective.
I am she, she me, till death and beyond it.—Meredith.
Whom would you rather be?
To how many maimed and mourning millions is the first and sole angel visitant, him Easterns call Azrael.—C. Brontë.
That’s him.
In the last but one, him would no doubt have been defended by the writer, since the full form would be he whom, as an attraction to the vanished whom. But such attraction is not right; if he alone is felt to be uncomfortable, whom should not be omitted; or, in this exalted context, it might be he that.
On that’s him, see 4, below.
3. When a verb or preposition governs two pronouns united by and, &c., the second is apt to go wrong—a bad blunder. Between you and I is often heard in talk; and, in literature:
And now, my dear, let you and I say a few words about this unfortunate affair.—Trollope.
It is kept locked up in a marble casket, quite out of reach of you or I.—S. Ferrier.
She found everyone’s attention directed to Mary, and she herself entirely overlooked.—S. Ferrier.
4. The interrogative who is often used for whom, as, Who did you see? A distinction should here be made between conversation, written or spoken, and formal writing. Many educated people feel that in saying It is I, Whom do you mean? instead of It’s me, Who do you mean? they will be talking like a book, and they justifiably prefer geniality to grammar. But in print, unless it is dialogue, the correct forms are advisable.
5. Even with words that have no visible distinction between subjective and objective case, it is possible to go wrong; for the case can always be inferred, though not seen. Consequently a word should never be so placed that it must be taken twice, once as subject and once as object. This is so common a blunder that it will be well to give a good number of examples. It occurs especially with the relative, from its early position in the sentence; but, as the first two examples show, it may result from the exceptional placing of other words also. The mere repetition of the relative, or insertion of it or other pronoun, generally mends the sentence; in the first example, change should only be to only to be.
The occupation of the mouths of the Yalu, however, his Majesty considered undesirable, and should only be carried out in the last resort.—Times.
This the strong sense of Lady Maclaughlan had long perceived, and was the principal reason of her selecting so weak a woman as her companion.—S. Ferrier.
Qualities which it would cost me a great deal to acquire, and would lead to nothing.—Morley.
A recorded saying of our Lord which some higher critics of the New Testament regard as of doubtful authenticity, and is certainly of doubtful interpretation.
A weakness which some would miscall gratitude, and is oftentimes the corrupter of a heart not ignoble.—Richardson.
Analogous to these are the next three examples, which will require separate comment:
Knowledge to the certainty of which no authority could add, or take away, one jot or tittle.—Huxley.
To is applicable to add, not to take away. The full form is given by substituting for or ‘and from the certainty of which no authority could’. This is clearly too cumbrous. Inserting or from after to is the simplest correction; but the result is rather formal. Better, perhaps, ‘the certainty of which could not be increased or diminished one jot by any authority’.
From his conversation I should have pronounced him to be fitted to excel in whatever walk of ambition he had chosen to exert his abilities.
A second in is required. This common slovenliness results from the modern superstition against putting a preposition at the end. The particular sentence may, however, be mended otherwise than by inserting in, if excel is made absolute by a comma placed after it. Even then, the in would perhaps be better at the end of the clause than at the beginning.
Lastly may be mentioned a principle upon which Clausewitz insisted with all his strength, and could never sufficiently impress upon his Royal scholar.—Times.
The italicized upon (we have nothing to do with the other upon) is right with insist, but wrong, though it must necessarily be supplied again, with impress. It is the result of the same superstition. Mend either by writing upon after insisted instead of before which, or by inserting which he after and.
6. After as and than.
These are properly conjunctions and ‘take the same case after them as before’. But those words must be rightly understood. (a), I love you more than him, means something different from (b), I love you more than he. It must be borne in mind that the ‘case before’ is that of the word that is compared with the ‘case after’, and not necessarily that of the word actually next before in position. In (a) you is compared with him: in (b) I (not you) is compared with he. The correct usage is therefore important, and the tendency illustrated in the following examples to make than and as prepositions should be resisted—though no ambiguity can actually result here.
When such as her die.—Swift.
But there, I think, Lindore would be more eloquent than me.—S. Ferrier.
It must further be noticed that both as and than are conjunctions of the sort that can either, like and, &c., merely join coordinates, or, like when, &c., attach a subordinate clause to what it depends on. This double power sometimes affects case.
It is to him and such men as he that we owe the change.—Huxley.
This example is defensible, as being here a subordinating conjunction, and as he being equivalent to as he is. But it is distinctly felt to need defence, which as him would not; as would be a coordinating conjunction, and simply join the pronoun him to the noun men. So, with than:
Such as have bound me, as well as others much better than me, by an inviolable attachment to him from that time forward.—Burke.
On the other hand, we could not say indifferently, I am as good as he, and I am as good as him; the latter would imply that as was a preposition, which it is not. And it is not always possible to choose between the coordinating and the subordinating use. In the next example only the coordinating will do, no verb being capable of standing after he; but the author has not observed this.
I beheld a man in the dress of a postillion, whom I instantly recognized as he to whom I had rendered assistance.—Borrow.
A difficult question, however, arises with relatives after than. In the next two examples whom is as manifestly wrong as who is manifestly intolerable:
Dr. Dillon, than whom no Englishman has a profounder acquaintance with....—Times.
It was a pleasure to hear Canon Liddon, than whom, in his day, there was no finer preacher.
The only correct solution is to recast the sentences. For instance, ... whose acquaintance with ... is unrivalled among Englishmen; and ... unsurpassed in his day as a preacher. But perhaps the convenience of than whom is so great that to rule it out amounts to saying that man is made for grammar and not grammar for man.
7. Compound possessives.
This is strictly the proper place for drawing attention to a question that has some importance because it bears on the very common construction discussed at some length in the gerund section. This is the question whether, and to what extent, compound possessives may be recognized. Some people say some one else’s, others say some one’s else. Our own opinion is that the latter is uncalled for and pedantic. Of the three alternatives, Smith the baker’s wife, Smith’s wife the baker, the wife of Smith the baker, the last is unmitigated Ollendorff, the second thrusts its ambiguity upon us and provokes an involuntary smile, and the first alone is felt to be natural. It must be confessed, however, that it is generally avoided in print, while the form that we have ventured to call pedantic is not uncommon. In the first of the examples that follow, we should be inclined to change to Nanny the maid-of-all-work’s, and in the second to the day of Frea, goddess of, &c.
Another mind that was being wrought up to a climax was Nanny’s, the maid-of-all-work, who had a warm heart.—Eliot.
Friday is Frea’s-day, the goddess of peace and joy and fruitfulness.—J. R. Green.
Number
Very little comment will be needed; we have only to convince readers that mistakes are common, and caution therefore necessary.
1. The copula should always agree with the subject, not with the complement. These are wrong:
The pages which describe how the 34th Osaka Regiment wiped out the tradition that had survived since the Saigo rebellion is a typical piece of description.—Times.
A boy dressed up as a girl and a girl dressed up as a girl is, to the eye at least, the same thing.—Times.
People do not believe now as they did, but the moral inconsistencies of our contemporaries is no proof thereof.—Daily Telegraph.
It must be remembered that in questions the subject often comes after the verb and the complement before it; but the same rule must be kept. E. g., if the last example were put as a question instead of as a negative statement, ‘What proof is the inconsistencies?’ would be wrong, and ‘What proof are &c.?’ right.
Some sentences in which the subject contains only, a superlative, &c., have the peculiarity that subject and complement may almost be considered to have changed places; and this defence would probably be put in for the next three examples; but, whether actually wrong or not, they are unpleasant. The noun that stands before the verb should be regarded as the subject, and the verb be adapted to it.
The only thing Siamese about the Consul, except the hatchment and the flag, were his servants.—Sladen.
The only difficulty in Finnish are the changes undergone by the stem.—Sweet.
The most pompous monument of Egyptian greatness, and one of the most bulky works of manual industry, are the pyramids.—Johnson.
The next example is a curious problem; the subject to were is in sense plural, but in grammar singular (finding, verbal noun):
Finding Miss Vernon in a place so solitary, engaged in a journey so dangerous, and under the protection of one gentleman only, were circumstances to excite every feeling of jealousy.—Scott.
2. Mistakes in the number of verbs are extremely common when a singular noun intervenes between a plural subject (or a plural noun between a singular subject) and its verb. It is worth while to illustrate the point abundantly; for it appears that real doubt can exist on the subject:—‘“No one but schoolmasters and schoolboys knows” is exceedingly poor English, if it is not absolutely bad grammar’ (from a review of this book, 1st ed.).
And do we wonder, when the foundation of politics are in the letter only, that many evils should arise?—Jowett.
There is much in these ceremonial accretions and teachings of the Church which tend to confuse and distract, and which hinder us....—Daily Telegraph.
This sentence, strictly taken as it stands, would mean something that the writer by no means intends it to, viz., ‘Though the ceremonies are confusing, there is a great deal in them’.
An immense amount of confusion and indifference prevail in these days.—Daily Telegraph.
They produced various medicaments, the lethal power of which were extolled at large.—Times.
The partition which the two ministers made of the powers of government were singularly happy.—Macaulay.
One at least of the qualities which fit it for training ordinary men unfit it for training an extraordinary man.—Bagehot.
I failed to pass in the small amount of classics which are still held to be necessary.—Times.
The Tibetans have engaged to exclude from their country those dangerous influences whose appearance were the chief cause of our action.—Times.
Sundry other reputable persons, I know not whom, whose joint virtue still keep the law in good odour.—Emerson.
The practical results of the recognition of this truth is as follows.—W. H. Mallock.
The Ordination services of the English Church states this to be a truth.—Daily Telegraph.
All special rights of voting in the election of members was abolished.—J. R. Green.
The separate powers of this great officer of State, who had originally acted only as President of the Council when discharging its judicial functions, seems to have been thoroughly established under Edward I.—J. R. Green.
3. They, them, their, theirs, are often used in referring back to singular pronominals (as each, one, anybody, everybody), or to singular nouns or phrases (as a parent, neither Jack nor Jill), of which the doubtful or double gender causes awkwardness. It is a real deficiency in English that we have no pronoun, like the French soi, son, to stand for him-or-her, his-or-her (for he-or-she French is no better off than English). Our view, though we admit it to be disputable, is clear—that they, their, &c., should never be resorted to, as in the examples presently to be given they are. With a view to avoiding them, it should be observed that (a) the possessive of one (indefinite pronoun) is one’s, and that of one (numeral pronoun) is either his, or her, or its (One does not forget one’s own name: I saw one of them drop his cigar, her muff, or its leaves); (b) he, his, him, may generally be allowed to stand for the common gender; the particular aversion shown to them by Miss Ferrier in the examples may be referred to her sex; and, ungallant as it may seem, we shall probably persist in refusing women their due here as stubbornly as Englishmen continue to offend the Scots by saying England instead of Britain. (c) Sentences may however easily be constructed (Neither John nor Mary knew his own mind) in which his is undeniably awkward. The solution is then what we so often recommend, to do a little exercise in paraphrase (John and Mary were alike irresolute, for instance). (d) Where legal precision is really necessary, he or she may be written in full. Corrections according to these rules will be appended in brackets to the examples.
Anybody else who have only themselves in view.—Richardson. (has ... himself)
Ce n’est que le premier pas qui coûte, in novel-writing as in carrying one’s head in their hand.—S. Ferrier. (one’s ... one’s)
The feelings of the parent upon committing the cherished object of their cares and affections to the stormy sea of life.—S. Ferrier. (his)
But he never allowed one to feel their own deficiencies, for he never appeared to be aware of them himself.—S. Ferrier. (one’s)
A difference of opinion which leaves each free to act according to their own feelings.—S. Ferrier. (his)
Suppose each of us try our hands at it.—S. Ferrier. (tries his hand; or, if all of us are women, tries her hand)
Everybody is discontented with their lot in life.—Beaconsfield. (his)
4. Other mistakes involving number made with such pronominals, or with nouns collective, personified, or abstract.
No man can read Scott without being more of a public man, whereas the ordinary novel tends to make its readers rather less of one than before.—Hutton.
And so each of his portraits are not only a ‘piece of history’, but....—Stevenson.
Le Roman d’un Spahi, Azidayé and Rarahu each contains the history of a love affair.—H. James.
He manages to interest us in the men, who each in turn wishes to engineer Richard Baldock’s future.—Westminster Gazette.
When each is appended in apposition to a plural subject, it should stand after the verb, or auxiliary, which should be plural; read here, contain each, wish each in turn (or, each of whom wishes in turn).
As the leading maritime nation in the world and dependent wholly on the supremacy of our fleet to maintain this position, everyone is virtually bound to accord some measure of aid to an association whose time and talents are devoted to ensuring this important object.—Times.
Every one is indeed a host in himself, if he is the leading maritime nation.
It is not in Japan’s interests to allow negotiations to drag on once their armies are ready to deliver the final blow.—Times.
The personification of Japan must be kept up by her.
Many of my notes, I am greatly afraid, will be thought a superfluity.—E. V. Lucas (quoted in Times review).
My notes may be a superfluity; many of my notes may be superfluous, or superfluities; or many a note of mine may be a superfluity; but it will hardly pass as it is.
5. Though nouns of multitude may be freely used with either a singular or a plural verb, or be referred to by pronouns of singular or plural meaning, they should not have both (except for special reasons and upon deliberation) in the same sentence; and words that will rank in one context as nouns of multitude may be very awkward if so used in another.
The public is naturally much impressed by this evidence, and in considering it do not make the necessary allowances.—Times.
The Times Brussels correspondent ... tells us that the committee adds these words to their report.—Westminster Gazette.
The Grand Opera Syndicate has also made an important addition to their German tenors.—Westminster Gazette.
The only political party who could take office was that which ... had consistently opposed the American war.—Bagehot.
As the race of man, after centuries of civilization, still keeps some traits of their barbarian fathers.—Stevenson.
The battleship Kniaz Potemkin, of which the crew is said to have mutinied and murdered their officers.—Times.
6. Neither, either, as pronouns, should always take a singular verb—a much neglected rule. So also every.
The conception is faulty for two reasons, neither of which are noticed by Plato.—Jowett.
... neither of which are very amiable motives for religious gratitude.—Thackeray.
He asked the gardener whether either of the ladies were at home.—Trollope.
Were, however, may be meant for the subjunctive, when it would be a fault of style, not of grammar.
I think almost every one of the Judges of the High Court are represented here.—Lord Halsbury.
Every Warwick institution, from the corporation to the schools and the almshouses, have joined hands in patriotic fellow-working.—Speaker.
7. For rhetorical reasons, a verb often precedes its subject; but enthusiasm, even if appropriate, should not be allowed to override the concords.
And of this emotion was born all the gods of antiquity.—Daily Telegraph.
But unfortunately there seems to be spread abroad certain misconceptions.—Times.
But with these suggestions are joined some very good exposition of principles which should underlie education generally.—Spectator.
Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman has received a resolution, to which is appended the names of eight Liberal members and candidates for East London....—Times.
Comparatives and Superlatives
The chief point that requires mention is ill treatment of the more. In this phrase the is not the article, but an adverb, either relative or demonstrative. In the more the merrier it is first relative and then demonstrative: by-how-much we are more, by-so-much we shall be merrier. When the relative the is used, it should always be answered regularly by, or itself answer, the demonstrative the. Attempts to vary the formula are generally unhappy; for instance,
He was leaving his English business in the hands of Bilton, who seemed to him, the more he knew him, extraordinarily efficient.—E. F. Benson.
This should run, perhaps: whose efficiency impressed him the more, the more he knew him—though it must be confessed that the double form is nearly always uncomfortable if it has not the elbowroom of a whole sentence to itself. That, however, is rather a question of style than of syntax; and other examples will accordingly be found in the section of the Chapter Airs and Graces concerned with originality.
The farther we advance into it, we see confusion more and more unfold itself into order.—Carlyle.
Most readers will feel that this is an uncomfortable compromise between The farther we advance the more do we see and As we advance we see confusion more and more unfold itself. Similarly,
She had reflection enough to foresee, that the longer she countenanced his passion, her own heart would be more and more irretrievably engaged.—Smollett.
But it is when the demonstrative is used alone with no corresponding relative clause—a use in itself quite legitimate—that real blunders occur. It seems sometimes to be thought that the more is merely a more imposing form of more, and is therefore better suited for a dignified or ambitious style; but it has in fact a perfectly definite meaning, or rather two; and there need never be any doubt whether more or the more is right. One of the meanings is a slight extension of the other. (1) The correlative meaning by so much may be kept, though the relative clause, instead of formally corresponding and containing the (meaning by how much) and a comparative, takes some possibly quite different shape. But it must still be clear from the context what the relative clause might be. Thus, ‘We shall be a huge crowd’.—‘Well, we shall be the merrier’. Or, ‘If he raises his demands, I grant them the more willingly’, i. e., The more he asks, the more willingly I give. This instance leads to the other possible meaning, which is wider. (2) The original meaning of the demonstrative the is simply by that; this in the complete double form, and often elsewhere, has the interpretation, limited to quantity, of by so much, or in that proportion; but it may also mean on that account, when the relative clause is not present. Again, however, the context must answer plainly in some form the question On what account? Thus, He has done me many good turns; but I do not like him any the better; i. e., any better on that account; i. e., on account of the good turns.
The function of the, then, is to tell us that there is, just before or after, an answer to one of the questions, More by what amount? More on what account? If there is no such answer, we may be sure that the comparative has no right to its the. We start with a sentence that is entitled to its the, but otherwise unidiomatic.
We are not a whit the less depressed in spirits at the sight of all this unrelieved misery on the stage by the reminder that Euripides was moved to depict it by certain occurrences in his own contemporary Athens.—Times.
The less is less on that account, viz., that we are reminded. But the preposition required when the cause is given in this construction by a noun is for, not by. Read for the reminder. The type is shown in None the better for seeing you. Our sentence is in fact a mixture between Our depression is not lessened by the reminder, and We are not the less depressed for the reminder; and the confusion is the worse that depressed by happens to be a common phrase.
The suggestion, as regarded Mr. Sowerby, was certainly true, and was not the less so as regarded some of Mr. Sowerby’s friends.—Trollope.
The tells us that we can by looking about us find an answer either to Not less true by what amount? or to Not less true on what account? There is no answer to the first except Not less true about the friends in proportion as it was truer about Mr. Sowerby; and none to the second except Not less true about the friends because it was true about Mr. Sowerby. Both are meaningless, and the the is superfluous and wrong.
Yet as his criticism is more valuable than that of other men, so it is the more rarely met with.—Spectator.
This is such an odd tangle of the two formulae as ... so, the more ... the more, that the reader is tempted to cut the knot and imagine what is hardly possible, that the is meant for the ordinary article, agreeing with kind of criticism understood between the and more. Otherwise it must be cured either by omitting the, or by writing The more valuable his criticism, the more rarely is it met with. If the latter is done, than that of other men will have to go. Which suggests the further observation that the with a comparative is almost always wrong when a than-clause is appended. This is because in the full double clause there is necessarily not a fixed standard of comparison, but a sliding scale. The following example, not complicated by any the, will make the point clear:
My eyes are more and more averse to light than ever.—S. Ferrier.
You can be more averse than ever, or more and more averse, but not more and more averse than ever. Ever can only mean the single point of time in the past, whichever it was, at which you were most averse. But to be more and more averse is to be more averse at each stage than at each previous stage. Just such a sliding scale is essential with the more ... the more. And perhaps it becomes so closely associated with the phrase that the expression of a fixed standard of comparison, such as is inevitably set up by a than-clause, is felt to be impossible even when the demonstrative the stands alone. In the next two examples, answers to the question More on what account? can be found, though they are so far disguised that the sentences would be uncomfortable, even if what makes them impossible were absent. That is the addition of the than-clause in each.
But neither is that way open; nor is it any the more open in the case of Canada than Australia.—F. Greenwood.
The the might pass if than Australia were omitted, and there would be no objection to it if we read further (for in the case) if we take the case, and better still, placed that clause first in the sentence: Nor, if we take the case of Canada, is the way any the more open. The then means on that account, viz., because we have substituted Canada.
I would humbly protest against setting up any standard of Christianity by the regularity of people’s attendance at church or chapel. I am certain personally that I have a far greater realization of the goodness of God to all creation; I am certain that I can the more acknowledge His unbounded love for all He has made, and our entire dependence on Him, than I could twenty years ago, when I attended church ten times where I now go once.—Daily Telegraph.
In this, the answer to More on what account? is possibly implied in the last clause; it would perhaps be, if clearly put, Because I go to church seldomer. The right form would be, I can the more acknowledge ... for going (or that I go) to church only once where twenty years ago I went ten times. Unless the than-clause is got rid of, we ought to have more without the.
This question of the is important for lucidity, is rather difficult, and has therefore had to be treated at length. The other points that call for mention are quite simple; they are illogicalities licensed by custom, but perhaps better avoided. Avoidance, however, that proclaims itself is not desirable; to set readers asking ‘Who are you, pray, that the things everybody says are not good enough for you?’ is bad policy; ‘in vitium ducit culpae fuga si caret arte.’ But if a way round presents itself that does not at once suggest an assumption of superiority, so much the better.
1. More than I can help.
Without thinking of the corresponding phrase in his native language more than he can help.—H. Sweet.
We don’t haul guns through traffic more than we can help.—Kipling.
These really mean, of course, more than he (we) cannot help. To say that, however, is by this time impossible. More than he need, if (when) he can help it, too much, unnecessarily, and other substitutes, will sometimes do.
2. Most of any (singular).
A political despotism, the most unbounded, both in power and principle, of any tyranny that ever existed so long.—Galt.
She has the most comfortable repository of stupid friends to have recourse to of anybody I ever knew.—S. Ferrier.
And they had the readiest ear for a bold, honourable sentiment, of any class of men the world ever produced.—Stevenson.
Latin at any rate should be an essential ingredient in culture as the best instrument of any language for clear and accurate expression of thought.—Times.
The first chapter, which from the lessons it enforces is perhaps the most valuable of any in the present volume....—Sir G. T. Goldie.
Disraeli said that he had ‘the largest parliamentary knowledge of any man he had met’.—Bryce.
Though this is extremely common, as the examples are enough to show, there is seldom any objection to saying either most of all or more than any.
3. Most with words that do not admit of degrees.
Unique has been separately dealt with in the chapter on Vocabulary. Ideal is another word of the same sort; an ideal solution is one that could not possibly be improved upon, and most is nonsense with it; an ideal and most obvious should be read in the example:
That the transformation of the Regular Army into the general service Army and of the Militia into the home service Army is a most ideal and obvious solution admits, I think, of no contradiction.—Times.
Relatives
a. Defining and non-defining relative clauses.
For the purposes of b. and c. below, all relative clauses are divided into defining and non-defining. The exact sense in which we use these terms is illustrated by the following groups, of which (i) contains defining clauses, (ii) non-defining.
(i) The man who called yesterday left no address.
Mr. Lovelace has seen divers apartments at Windsor: but not one, he says, that he thought fit for me.—Richardson.
He secured ... her sincere regard, by the feelings which he manifested.—Thackeray.
The Jones who dines with us to-night is not the Jones who was at school with you.
The best novel that Trollope ever wrote was....
Any man that knows three words of Greek could settle that point.
(ii) At the first meeting, which was held yesterday, the chair....
Deputies must be elected by the Zemstvos, which must be extended and popularized, but not on the basis of....—Times.
The Emperor William, who was present ..., listened to a loyal address.—Times.
The statue of the Emperor Frederick, which is the work of the sculptor Professor Uphnes, represents the Monarch on horseback.—Times.
Jones, who should know something of the matter, thinks differently.
The function of a defining relative clause is to limit the application of the antecedent; where that is already precise, a defining clause is not wanted. The limitation can be effected in more than one way, according to the nature of the antecedent. As a rule, the antecedent gives us a class to select from, the defining clause enables us to make the selection. Thus in our first example the antecedent leaves us to select from the general class of ‘men’, the defining clause fixes the particular man (presumably the only man, or the only man that would occur in the connexion) ‘who called yesterday’. Sometimes, however, the functions of the two are reversed. When we have an antecedent with a superlative, or other word of exclusive or comprehensive meaning, such as ‘all’, ‘only’, ‘any’, we know already how to make our selection, and only wait for the relative clause to tell us from what class to make it. We know that we are to choose ‘the best novel’: the relative clause limits us to the works of Trollope. We are to choose ‘any man’ we like, provided (says our relative clause) that he ‘knows three words of Greek’. In either case, the work of definition is done by the exclusion (implied in the relative clause) of persons or things that the antecedent by itself might be taken to include.
The point to notice is that, whichever way the defining clause does its work, it is essential to and inseparable from its antecedent. If for any reason we wish to get rid of it, we can only do so by embodying its contents in the antecedent: ‘The man in Paris with whom I correspond’ must become ‘My Paris correspondent’. To remove the clause altogether is to leave the antecedent with either no meaning or a wrong one. Even in such extreme cases as ‘the wisest man that ever lived’, ‘the meanest flower that blows’, where the defining clause may seem otiose and therefore detachable, we might claim that future wise men, and past and future flowers, are excluded; but we shall better realize the writer’s intention if we admit that these clauses are only a pretence of limitation designed to exclude the reality; it is as if the writers, invited to set limits to their statements, had referred us respectively to Time and Space.
This fact, that the removal of a defining clause destroys the meaning of the antecedent, supplies an infallible test for distinguishing between the defining and the non-defining clause: the latter can always, the former never, be detached without disturbing the truth of the main predication. A non-defining clause gives independent comment, description, explanation, anything but limitation of the antecedent; it can always be rewritten either as a parenthesis or as a separate sentence, and this is true, however essential the clause may be to the point of the main statement. ‘Jones’, in our last example above, is quoted chiefly as one ‘who should know something of the matter’; but this need not prevent us from writing: ‘Jones thinks differently; and he should know something of the matter’.
To find, then, whether a clause defines or does not define, remove it, and see whether the statement of which it formed a part is unaltered: if not, the clause defines. This test can be applied without difficulty to all the examples given above. It is true that we sometimes get ambiguous cases: after removing the relative clause, we cannot always say whether the sense has been altered or not. That means, however, not that our test has failed, but that the clause is actually capable of performing either function, and that the main sentence can bear two distinct meanings, between which even context may not enable us to decide. The point is illustrated, in different degrees, by the following examples:
Mr. H. Lewis then brought forward an amendment, which had been put down by Mr. Trevelyan and which provided for an extension of the process of income-tax graduation.—Times.
This was held to portend developments that somehow or other have not followed.—Times.
The former of these is quite ambiguous. The bringing forward of an amendment (no matter what or whose) may be all that the writer meant to tell us of in the first instance; the relative clauses are then non-defining clauses of description. On the other hand, both clauses may quite well be meant to define; and it is even possible that the second is meant to define, and the first not, though the coordination is then of a kind that we shall show under c. to be improper. Similarly, in the second sentence, ‘to portend developments’ may possibly be complete in itself; the whole might then be paraphrased thus: ‘It was thought that the matter would not stop there: but it has’. More probably the clause is meant to define: ‘It was held to portend what have since proved to be unrealized developments’. This view is confirmed, as we shall see, both by the use of ‘that’ (not ‘which’) and by the absence of a comma before it.
Punctuation is a test that would not always be applicable even if all writers could be assumed to punctuate correctly; but it is often a guide to the writer’s intention. For (1) a non-defining clause should always be separated from the antecedent by a stop; (2) a defining clause should never be so separated unless it is either preceded by a parenthesis indicated by stops, or coordinated with a former defining clause or with adjectives belonging to the antecedent; as in the following examples:
The only circumstance, in fact, that could justify such a course....
It is he only who does this, who follows them into all their force and matchless grace, that does or can feel their full value.—Hazlitt.
Perfect types, that satisfy all these requirements, are not to be looked for.
It will occur to the reader that our last two examples are strictly speaking exceptions to the rule of defining clauses, since they tell us only what is already implied, and could therefore be removed without impairing the sense. That is true to some extent of many parallel defining clauses: they are admissible, however, if, without actually giving any limitation themselves, they make more clear a limitation already given or implied; if, in fact, they are offered as alternative versions or as reminders. Our next example is of a defining clause of the same kind:
This estimate which he gives, is the great groundwork of his plan for the national redemption.—Burke.
The limitation given by ‘this’ is repeated in another form by the relative clause. ‘This estimate, the one he gives, is....’
The reader should bear in mind that the distinction between the two kinds of relative is based entirely on the closeness of their relation to the antecedent. The information given by a defining clause must be taken at once, with the antecedent, or both are useless: that given by a non-defining clause will keep indefinitely, the clause being complete in sense without the antecedent, and the antecedent without the clause. This is the only safe test. To ask, for instance, whether the clause conveys comment, explanation, or the like, is not a sufficient test unless the question is rightly understood; for, although we have said that a non-defining clause conveys comment and the like, as opposed to definition of the antecedent, it does not follow that a defining clause may not (while defining its own antecedent) contribute towards comment; on the contrary, it is often open to a writer to throw his comment into such a form as will include a defining clause. It may even appear from a comparison of the two sentences below that this is the origin of the non-defining clause, (2) being an abbreviation of (1):