Michael:
I'm fairly sure that the use of commas to mark nonrestrictive status
wasn't established by that time -- certainly, most of the texts I've
read from the early to mid 19th century use commas in a way that would
strike modern readers as profligate (e.g. putting commas regularly after
any subject phrase that was more than a few words long, etc.). I also
have not seen any reference to a rule connecting punctuation to
nonrestrictive status in any of the early/mid 19th-century grammars I've
examined, although, to cough up a hackneyed line, absence of evidence
isn't evidence of absence.
Bill Spruiell
Dept. of English
Central Michigan University
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Edmond Wright
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 10:47 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: interpretation of a relative clause
>Michael,
The clause in question is undoubtedly restrictive; otherwise, the
sentence
would effectively read as follows: 'a review from a man, if fair and
moderately favourable, is in all respects the best kind of review' --
which
has the unlikely implication that Darwin was a misogynist!
Edmond
Dr. Edmond Wright
3 Boathouse Court
Trafalgar Road
Cambridge
CB4 1DU
England
Email: [log in to unmask]
Website: http://people.pwf.cam.ac.uk/elw33/
Phone [00 44] (0)1223 350256
I was recently re-examining a short letter written by Charles Darwin in
> 1860 to Asa Gray, since I had used an excerpt of it to discuss speech
acts
> and text type with my students. I began looking at the clause
structures
> and became puzzled by the relative clause in the passage quoted below
> which is punctuated as a non-restrictive relative. I began to wonder
> whether this clause "who is not a convert" really has a restrictive
force
> to it and has been punctuated by Darwin in a way that would be
> unconventional today. There is a clearly restrictive relative at the
end
> of the passage, so we see that Darwin does seem to make the
distinction in
> his punctuation.
>
> "What you say about my book gratifies me most deeply, and I wish I
could
> feel all was deserved by me. I quite think a review from a man, who is
not
> an entire convert, if fair and moderately favourable, is in all
respects
> the best kind of review.... It is the highest possible gratification
to me
> to think that you have found my book worth reading and reflection; for
you
> and three others I put down in my own mind as the judges whose
opinions I
> should value most of all."
>
> (1) How do you read "who is not a convert"? Can you read it
> non-restrictively?
> (2) Were punctuation rules for restrictive vs. non-restrictive
relative
> clauses established by the mid-19th century? Were/are there
differences
> between British and American punctuation of non-restrictive clauses?
> (3) Could this instance be merely a Darwinian eccentricity?
>
> I might add that I just went back to the Gutenberg Project page where
I
> originally read this letter,
> <http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext00/2llcd10.txt> and I searched the
> text for occurrences of "which" and found that the punctuation in
Darwin's
> correspondence is pretty regular, though there are a couple of
relative
> clauses set off by commas that I find difficult to read as
> non-restrictive.
>
> R. Michael Medley, Director
> Intensive English Program
> Professor of English
> Eastern Mennonite University, Harrisonburg, VA 22802
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
interface at:
> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
|
