How to Write Clearly | Page 6

"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.