he falls into errors, both of doctrine and of practice? But, if no such difference exists, or none that is worthy of a critic's notice; then the error is mine, and it is vain to distinguish between the restrictive and the resumptive sense of relative pronouns. For example: "The boy that desires to assist his companions, deserves respect."--G. Brown. "That boy, who desires to assist his companions, deserves respect."--D. H. Sanborn. According to my notion, these two sentences clearly convey two very different meanings; the relative, in the former, being restrictive, but, in the latter, resumptive of the sense of the antecedent. But of the latter example this author says, "The clause, 'who desires to assist his companions,' with the relative who at its head, explains or tells what boy deserves respect; and, like a conjunction, connects this clause to the noun boy."--Analytical Gram., p. 69. He therefore takes it in a restrictive sense, as if this sentence were exactly equivalent to the former. But he adds, "A relative pronoun is resolvable into a personal pronoun and a conjunction. The sentence would then read, 'That boy desires to assist his companions, and he deserves respect.' The relative pronoun governs the nearer verb, and the antecedent the more distant one."--Ib., p. 69. Now, concerning the restrictive relative, this doctrine of equivalence does not hold good; and, besides, the explanation here given, not only contradicts his former declaration of the sense he intended, but, with other seeming contradiction, joins the antecedent to the nearer verb, and the substituted pronoun to the more distant.
OBS. 28.--Again, the following principles of this author's punctuation are no less indicative of his false views of this matter: "RULE xiv.--Relative pronouns in the nominative or [the] objective case, are preceded by commas, when the clause which the relative connects [,] ends a sentence; as, 'Sweetness of temper is a quality, which reflects a lustre on every accomplishment'--B. Greenleaf.' Self [-] denial is the sacrifice [,] which virtue must make.' [--L. Murray.] The comma is omitted before the relative, when the verb which the antecedent governs, follows the relative clause; as, 'He that suffers by imposture, has too often his virtue more impaired than his fortune.'--Johnson." See Sanborn's Analytical Gram., p. 269. Such are some of our author's principles--"the essence of modern improvements." His practice, though often wrong, is none the worse for contradicting these doctrines. Nay, his proudest boast is ungrammatical, though peradventure not the less believed: "No [other] grammar in the language 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 upo
