lengthy and uninteresting, the Third Person is preferable.* Thus, where Essex is asking Sir Robert Cecil that Francis Bacon may be appointed Attorney-General, the dialogue is (as it almost always is in Lord Macaulay's writings) in the First Person, except where it becomes tedious and uninteresting so as to require condensation, and then it drops into the Third Person:
"Sir Robert had nothing to say but that he thought his own abilities equal to the place which he hoped to obtain, and that his father's long services deserved such a mark of gratitude from the Queen."
*6 b. Omission of "that" in a speech reported in the Third Person.*—Even when a speech is reported in the third person, "that" need not always be inserted before the dependent verb. Thus, instead of "He said that he took it ill that his promises were not believed," we may write, "'He took it ill,' he said, 'that &c.'" This gives a little more life, and sometimes more clearness also.
*7. When you use a Participle, as "walking," implying "when," "while," "though," "that," make it clear by the context what is implied.*
"Republics, in the first instance, are never desired for their own sakes. I do not think they will finally be desired at all, unaccompanied by courtly graces and good breeding."
Here there is a little doubt whether the meaning is "since they are, or, if they are, unaccompanied."
*That or when.*—"Men walking (that walk, or when they walk) on ice sometimes fall."
It is better to use "men walking" to mean "men when they walk." If the relative is meant, use "men that walk," instead of the participle.
(1) "While he was } Walking on { (1) the road, } he fell." (2) "Because he was } { (2) the ice, }
When the participle precedes the subject, it generally implies a cause: "Seeing this, he retired." Otherwise it generally has its proper participial meaning, e.g. "He retired, keeping his face towards us." If there is any ambiguity, write "on seeing,"—"at the same time, or while, keeping."
(1) "Though he was} {(1) he nevertheless stood } { his ground."
(2) "Since he was } Struck with terror, {(2) he rapidly retreated."
(3) "If he is } {(3) he will soon retreat."
*8. When using the Relative Pronoun, use "who" and "which" where the meaning is "and he, it, &c.," "for he, it, &c." In other cases use "that," if euphony allows.*
"I heard this from the inspector, who (and he) heard it from the guard that travelled with the train."
"Fetch me (all) the books that lie on the table, and also the pamphlets, which (and these) you will find on the floor."
An adherence to this rule would remove much ambiguity. Thus: "There was a public-house next door, which was a great nuisance," means "and this (i.e. the fact of its being next door) was a great nuisance;" whereas that would have meant "Next door was a public-house that (i.e. the public-house) was a great nuisance." *"Who," "which," &c. introduce a new fact about the antecedent, whereas "that" introduces something without which the antecedent is incomplete or undefined.* Thus, in the first example above, "inspector" is complete in itself, and "who" introduces a new fact about him; "guard" is incomplete, and requires "that travelled with the train" to complete the meaning.
It is not, and cannot be, maintained that this rule, though observed in Elizabethan English, is observed by our best modern authors. (Probably a general impression that "that" cannot be used to refer to persons has assisted "who" in supplanting "that" as a relative.) But the convenience of the rule is so great that beginners in composition may with advantage adhere to the rule. The following are some of the cases where who and which are mostly used, contrary to the rule, instead of that.
*Exceptions:*—
(a) When the antecedent is defined, e.g. by a possessive case, modern English uses who instead of that. It is rare, though it would be useful,7 to say "His English friends that had not seen him" for "the English friends, or those of his English friends, that had not seen him."
(b) That sounds ill when separated from its verb and from its antecedents, and emphasized by isolation: "There are many persons that, though unscrupulous, are commonly good-tempered, and that, if not strongly incited by self-interest, are ready for the most part to think of the interest of their neighbours." Shakespeare frequently uses who after that when the relative is repeated. See "Shakespearian Grammar," par. 260.
(c) If the antecedent is qualified by that, the relative must not be that. Besides other considerations, the repetition is disagreeable. Addison ridicules such language as "That remark that I made yesterday is not that that I said that I regretted that I had made."
(d) That cannot be preceded by a preposition, and hence throws the preposition to the end. "This is the rule that I adhere to." This is perfectly good English, though sometimes unnecessarily avoided. But, with some prepositions, the construction is harsh and objectionable, e.g. "This is the mark that I jumped beyond," "Such were the prejudices that he rose above." The reason is that some of these disyllabic prepositions are used as adverbs, and, when separated from their nouns, give one the impression that they are used as adverbs.
(e) After pronominal adjectives used for personal pronouns, modern English prefers who. "There are many, others, several, those, who can testify &c."
(f) After that used as a conjunction there is sometimes a dislike to use that as a relative. See (c).
*9. Do not use redundant "and" before "which."8*
"I gave him a very interesting book for a present, and which cost me five shillings."
In short sentences the absurdity is evident, but in long sentences it is less evident, and very common.
"A petition was presented for rescinding that portion of the bye-laws which permits application of public money to support sectarian schools over which ratepayers have no control, this being a violation of the principle of civil and religious liberty, and which the memorialists believe would provoke a determined and conscientious resistance."
Here which ought grammatically to refer to "portion" or "schools." But it seems intended to refer to "violation." Omit "and," or repeat "a violation" before "which," or turn the sentence otherwise.
*10. Equivalents for Relative.*
*(a) Participle.*—"Men thirsting (for 'men that thirst') for revenge are not indifferent to plunder." The objection to the participle is that here, as often, it creates a little ambiguity. The above sentence may mean, "men, when they thirst," or "though they thirst," as well as "men that thirst." Often however there is no ambiguity: "I have documents proving this conclusively."
*(b) Infinitive.*—Instead of "He was the first that entered" you can write "to enter;" for "He is not a man who will act dishonestly," "to act." This equivalent cannot often be used.
*(c) Whereby, wherein, &c.,* can sometimes be used for "by which," "in which," so as to avoid a harsh repetition
So useful that, on mature consideration, I am disposed to adopt "that" here and in several of the following exceptional cases.
Of course "and which" may be used where "which" precedes.
