THE RELATIVE PRONOUN “THAT.”
This word is a demonstrative pronoun and a conjunction; and in some idiomatic phrases it is also a relative pronoun. By idiomatic phrases, we mean that use has constructed certain forms of expression which are wholes, though consisting of several words. All that we know is an idiomatic phrase; use and habit have welded the words together. In the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, there grew a habit of using that very freely as a relative pronoun. The Bible of 1611 is full of illustrations of this habit. During the present century this use of that has been by the best writers gradually restricted, and at present the rule for that as a relative pronoun, probably, is about as stated above—the word is used, as a relative, only in idiomatic expressions. The history of this word would make a very interesting chapter. We have in the foregoing statement merely suggested one line of change in its use, and we call attention to this change for a particular reason. Among the excellent books published by Appleton & Co. is a reprint Cobbett’s English Grammar, and in this reprint Mr. Ayres, the editor of it for this republication, lays down in his introduction, and illustrates by significant bracketing in Cobbett’s text, a new rule for the use of the relative that. This new rule is, in substance, that the restrictive relative is that—who and which being coördinating relatives. This proposed reform is unfortunately timed. By a progress in use which has been unobtrusive, and unaided by dogmatism, the number of thats on a printed page has been reduced to tolerable proportion. If we accept the new rule we shall not only go back to excessive use of that, but we may even increase the evil of too much thating. The word fills two important functions in present good use; to add the office of expressing all the restrictive uses of the relative pronouns, would probably increase thating so as to render an English page unsightly. Take a sentence: “He said that that man that that boy said that he saw was not that man that that boy thought that he saw.” Mr. Ayres tries to show that certain sentences which contain who and which as relatives are ambiguous in meaning, and that the substitution of that would make the meaning clear. As to such sentences, we may say that if they are really ambiguous in sense, the remedy is to reconstruct them. It is not necessary to use that to pull them out of their obscurity. It is easy, however, to show that a detached sentence might mean something which it does not mean. The meaning of a text is helped out by the context. Aphorisms usually have not context auxiliaries, and usually are ambiguous; but the ordinary use of language is to express our meaning by paragraphs rather than by single sentences. Every ellipsis furnishes an opening for the entrance of small criticism; and ellipsis is one of the large facts of English writing.
In short, the critic of ambiguous sentences will have abundant employment on the best writers, if he is allowed to break off any sentence from its yoke-fellows in the paragraph. We advise our readers not to make haste to adopt the rule of Mr. Ayres. The important question is: How do good writers employ the word that in their books? The answer is that good English writers employ the word as a conjunction and as a demonstrative; and as a relative only when phrase idiom compels such use. In this country, the practice is to use that a good deal as a relative; but there has been a great decline in this use of it, especially during the last thirty years. At the present time our best writers seem to be following the English practice. We hope that Mr. Ayres will not succeed in turning reform backward. With who and which to employ as relative pronouns—and occasional help from that, what, and as, in idioms—the English language is not poor. We need not recall the restrictive that from its honorable retirement.