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/