Chapter II: Syntax (1)

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) can_not_ 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):

1. Lewis, a man to whom hard work never came amiss, sifted the question thoroughly.

2. Lewis, to whom hard work never came amiss, sifted the question....

In (1), a comment is introduced by ‘a man’ in apposition with Lewis; ‘a man’ is antecedent to a defining relative clause; separate them, and the antecedent is meaningless. But next remove the connecting words ‘a man’, and the relative changes at once its antecedent and its nature: the antecedent is ‘Lewis’; the relative is non-defining; and the clause _is_ a comment, and does not merely contribute to one.

=b. ‘That’ and ‘who’ or ‘which’.=

‘That’ is evidently regarded by many writers as nothing more than an ornamental variation for ‘who’ and ‘which’, to be used, not indeed immoderately, but quite without discrimination. The opinion is excusable; it is not easy to draw any distinction that is at all consistently supported by usage. There was formerly a tendency to use ‘that’ for everything: the tendency now is to use ‘who’ and ‘which’ for everything. ‘That’, from disuse, has begun to acquire an archaic flavour, which with some authors is a recommendation. De Quincey, for one, must certainly have held that in exalted prose ‘that’, in all connexions, was the more dignified relative; his higher flights abound in curious uses of the word, some instances of which are quoted below.

This confusion is to be regretted; for although no distinction can be authoritatively drawn between the two relatives, an obvious one presents itself. The few limitations on ‘that’ and ‘who’ about which every one is agreed all point to ‘that’ as the defining relative, ‘who’ or ‘which’ as the non-defining. We cannot say ‘My father, that left Berlin last night, will shortly arrive’, and an examination of instances would show that we can never use ‘that’ where the clause is unmistakably non-defining. On the other hand, we cannot say ‘All which I can do is useless’; this time, it is true, the generalization will not hold; ‘which’ can, and sometimes must, be used, and ‘who’ commonly is used, in defining clauses. But that is explained partly by the obvious inconvenience sometimes attending the use of ‘that’, and partly by the general tendency to exclude it from regular use, which has already resulted in making it seem archaic when used of persons, except in certain formulae.

The rules given below are a modification of this principle, that ‘that’ is the defining, ‘who’ or ‘which’ the non-defining relative; the reason for each modification is given in its place. We must here remind the reader of the distinction drawn in a. between defining and non-defining clauses: a defining clause limits the application of the antecedent, enabling us to select from the whole class to which the antecedent is applicable the particular individual or individuals meant.

1. ‘That’ should never be used to introduce a non-defining clause; it is therefore improperly used in all the following examples:

But by her side was kneeling her better angel, that hid his face with wings: that wept and pleaded for her: that prayed when she could not: that fought with Heaven by tears for her deliverance.--DE QUINCEY.

Rendering thanks to God in the highest--that, having hid his face through one generation behind thick clouds of war, once again was ascending.--DE QUINCEY.

And with my own little stock of money besides, that Mrs. Hoggarty’s card-parties had lessened by a good five-and-twenty shillings, I calculated....--THACKERAY.

How to keep the proper balance between these two testy old wranglers, that rarely pull the right way together, is as much....--MEREDITH.

Nataly promised amendment, with a steely smile, that his lips mimicked fondly.--MEREDITH.

It is opposed to our Constitution, that only allows the Crown to remove a Norwegian Civil servant.--NANSEN.

I cannot but feel that in my person and over my head you desire to pay an unexampled honour to the great country that I represent, to its Bench and Bar, that daily share your labours and keep step with your progress.--CHOATE.

‘That I represent’ is right: ‘that daily share’ is wrong.

As to dictionaries of the present day, that swell every few years by the thousand items, the presence of a word in one of them shows merely....--R. G. WHITE.

The sandy strip along the coast is fed only by a few scanty streams, that furnish a remarkable contrast to the vast volumes of water which roll down the Eastern sides.--PRESCOTT.

‘That’ and ‘which’ should change places.

The social and economic sciences, that now specially interest me, have no considerable place in such a reform.--_Times._

If this is a defining clause, excluding ‘the social and economic sciences that’ do _not_ interest the writer, the comma after ‘sciences’ should be removed.

2. ‘Who’ or ‘which’ should not be used in defining clauses except when custom, euphony, or convenience is decidedly against the use of ‘that’. The principal exceptions will be noted below; but we shall first give instances in which ‘that’ is rightly used, and others in which it might have been used with advantage.

In those highly impressionable years that lie between six and ten....--_Spectator._

The obstacles that hedge in children from Nature....--_Spectator._

The whole producing an effect that is not without a certain poetry.--_Times._

He will do anything that he deems convenient.--BORROW.

The well-staffed and well-equipped ‘High Schools’ that are now at work ... had not yet sprung into being.--_Times._

Then, Sir, you keep up revenue laws which are mischievous, in order to preserve trade laws that are useless.--BURKE.

‘That’ should have been used in both clauses.

The struggle that lay before him.--J. R. GREEN.

There goes another sort of animal that is differentiating from my species....--H. G. WELLS.

There are other powers, too, that could perform this grateful but onerous duty.--_Times._

In the following examples, ‘that’ is to be preferred to ‘which’; especially with antecedent ‘it’, and after a superlative or other word of exclusive or comprehensive meaning, such as ‘all’, ‘only’, ‘any’.

The opportunities which London has given them.--_Times._

The principles which underlay the agreement.--_Times._

One cause which surely contributes to this effect has its root in early childhood.--_Spectator._

A meeting which was held yesterday, which consisted in the main of a bitter personal attack.--ROSEBERY.

‘Which consisted’ is right: but we should have ‘that was held’; the clause defines.

The first thing which the person who desires to be amiable must determine to do is....--_Spectator._

The most abominable din and confusion which it is possible for a reasonable person to conceive.--POE.

Reverential objections, composed of all which his unstained family could protest.--MEREDITH.

He required all the solace which he could derive from literary success.--MACAULAY.

All the evidence which we have ever seen tends to prove....--MACAULAY.

A battle more bloody than any which Europe saw in the long interval between Malplaquet and Eylau.--MACAULAY.

The only other biography which counts for much is....--_Times._

The French Government are anxious to avoid anything which might be regarded as a breach of neutrality.--_Times._

It was the ecclesiastical synods which by their example led the way to our national parliaments.--J. R. GREEN.

It is the little threads of which the inner substance of the nerves is composed which subserve sensation.--HUXLEY.

‘Of which’ in a defining clause is one of the recognized exceptions; but we ought to have ‘that subserve’.

It is not wages and costs of handling which fall, but profits and rents.--_Times._

It has been French ports which have been chosen for the beginning and for the end of his cruise.--_Times._

Who is it who talks about moral geography?--E. F. BENSON.

3. We come now to the exceptions. The reader will have noticed that of all the instances given in (2) there is only one--the last--in which we recommend the substitution of ‘that’ for ‘who’; in all the others, it is a question between ‘that’ and ‘which’. ‘That’, used of persons, has in fact come to look archaic: the only cases in which it is now to be preferred to ‘who’ are those mentioned above as particularly requiring ‘that’ instead of ‘which’; those, namely, in which the antecedent is ‘it’, or has attached to it a superlative or other word of exclusive meaning. We should not, therefore, in the _Spectator_ instance above, substitute ‘the person that desires’ for ‘who desires’; but we should say

The most impartial critic that could be found.
The only man that I know of.
Any one that knows anything knows this.
It was you that said so.
Who is it that talks about moral geography?

Outside these special types, ‘that’ used of persons is apt to sound archaic.

4. It will also have been noticed that all the relatives in (2) were either in the subjective case, or in the objective without a preposition. ‘That’ has no possessive case, and cannot take a preposition before it. Accordingly ‘the man that I found the hat of’ will of course give place to ‘the man whose hat I found’; and ‘the house in which this happened’ will generally be preferred to ‘the house that this happened in’. The latter tendency is modified in the spoken language by the convenient omission of ‘that’; for always in a defining clause, though never in a non-defining, a relative in the objective case, with or without a preposition, can be dropped. But few writers like, as a general rule, either to drop their relatives or to put prepositions at the end. ‘The friends I was travelling with’, ‘the book I got it from’, ‘the place I found it in’, will therefore usually appear as

The friends with whom I was travelling.
The book from which I got it.
The place in which I found it.

5. Euphony demands that ‘that that’ should become ‘that which’, even when the words are separated; and many writers, from a feeling that ‘which’ is the natural correlative of the demonstrative ‘that’, prefer the plural ‘those which’; but the first example quoted in (2) seems to show that ‘those ... that’ can be quite unobjectionable.

6. A certain awkwardness seems to attend the use of ‘that’ when the relative is widely separated from its antecedent. When, for instance, two relative clauses are coordinate, some writers use ‘that’ in the first, ‘which’ in the second clause, though both define. This point will be illustrated in c., where we shall notice that inconsistency in this respect sometimes obscures the sense.

It may seem to the reader that a rule with so many exceptions to it is not worth observing. We would remind him (i) that it is based upon those palpable misuses of the relatives about which every one is agreed; (ii) that of the exceptions the first and last result from, and might disappear with, the encroachment of ‘who’ and the general vagueness about the relatives; while the other two, being obvious and clearly defined, do not interfere with the remaining uses of ‘that’; (iii) that if we are to be at the expense of maintaining two different relatives, we may as well give each of them definite work to do.

In the following subsections we shall not often allude to the distinction here laid down. The reader will find that our rules are quite as often violated as observed; and may perhaps conclude that if the vital difference between a defining and a non-defining clause were consistently marked, wherever it is possible, by a discriminating use of ‘that’ and ‘which’, false coordination and other mishandlings of the relatives would be less common than they are.

=c. ‘And who’; ‘and which’.=

The various possibilities of relative coordination, right and wrong, may be thus stated: (i) a relative clause may be rightly or wrongly coordinated with another relative clause; this we shall call ‘open’ coordination; (ii) it may be rightly or wrongly coordinated with words that are equivalent to a relative clause, and for which a relative clause can be substituted; ‘latent’ coordination; (iii) a clause that has obviously no coordinate, open or latent, may yet be introduced by ‘and’ or other word implying coordination; for such offenders, which cannot be coordinate and will not be subordinate, ‘insubordination’ is not too harsh a term.

The following are ordinary types of the three classes:

(i) Men who are ambitious, and whose ambition has never been thwarted, ....

Pitt, who was ambitious, but whose ambition was qualified by....

(ii) Ambitious men, and whose ambition has never been thwarted, ....

An evil now, alas! beyond our power to remedy, and for which we have to thank the folly of our predecessors.

(iii) Being thus pressed, he grudgingly consented at last to a redistribution, and which, I need not say, it was his duty to have offered in the first instance.

A coordination in which ‘and’ is the natural conjunction may also be indicated simply by a comma; there is safety in this course, since the clause following the comma may be either coordinate or subordinate. But we have to deal only with clauses that are committed to coordination.

‘Insubordination’ will not detain us long; it is always due either to negligence or to gross ignorance; we shall illustrate it in its place with a few examples, but shall not discuss it. With regard, however, to open and latent coordination opinions differ; there is an optimist view of open coordination, and a pessimist view of latent, both of which seem to us incorrect. It is held by some that open coordination (provided that the relatives have the same antecedent) is never wrong, and by some--not necessarily others--that latent coordination is never right: we shall endeavour to show that the former is often wrong, and the latter, however ungainly, often right.