Relative clauses and commas (was: Re: "certain" inThe First Noel)

[Karl Hagen]

The printed versions of this carol aren't _that_ old, and the comma
appears to be a relatively recent insertion, probably the result of
misanalyzing the verse.

In the mid-19th century, there would not usually be a comma between the
relative and its antecedent if the clause was restrictive. However,
commas often appeared between the subject and the verb if the subject
had subordinate-clause adjuncts.

The following rules come from Goold Brown's _Grammar of English
Grammars_ (1851) [e-text from Project Gutenberg]:

"When the nominative in a long simple sentence is accompanied by
inseparable adjuncts, or when several words together are used in stead of a
nominative, a comma should be placed immediately before the verb; as,
'Confession of sin without amendment, obtains no pardon.'--_Dillwyn's
Reflections_, p. 6. 'To be totally indifferent to praise or censure, is a
real defect in character.'--_Murray's Gram._, p. 268.

....

"When a relative immediately follows its antecedent, and is taken in a
restrictive sense, the comma should not be introduced _before_ it; as,
For the things _which_ are seen, are temporal; but the things _which_
are not seen, are eternal.'--_2 Cor._, iv, 18. "A letter is a character
_that_ expresses a sound without any meaning."--_St. Quentin's General
Gram._, p. 3."

By those rules, the comma is misplaced and should appear at the end of
the first line:

"The First Noel the Angels did say, / Was to certain poor shepherds..."

The first version appears in 1823 and actually contains a 'that', which
precludes the misreading. There are also no commas at all, assuming the
transcription is accurate:

"The first Nowel that the Angel did say
Was to certain poor Shepherds in fields where they lay;"

source:
http://www.hymnsandcarolsofchristmas.com/Hymns_and_Carols/first_nowel1.htm

Complicating matters, there are different versions of the carol. This
same site gives four other versions:

1833 (Beckley): "The first Nowell the Angel1 did say / Was to three poor
Shepherds in fields as they lay."

1916 (Hutchins 643): "The first Noel, the angels say / To Bethlehem's
shepherds as they lay."

1916 (Hutchins 266): "The first Nowel that the Angel did say, / Was to
certain poor Shepherds in fields as they lay,"

1929 (Dunstan): "O well, O well, the Angels did say / To shepherds there
in the fields did lay;"

So the 1833 version merely deletes 'that', with no change of punctuation.

Hutchins 643 does have a comma, but here "The first Noel" is a fronted
direct object of "say." It's possible that the familiar version adopted
this punctuation without realizing that the syntax was significantly
different.

Hutchins 266 punctuates according to Goold Brown's rules above.

The last version looks on the surface like an eggcorn, although I
suspect there's something more going on. It's a Cornish version.

Karl

David Borowitz wrote:
> ---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       David Borowitz <borowitz at STANFORD.EDU>
> Subject:      Relative clauses and commas (was: Re: "certain" inThe First Noel)
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Does anyone know the history of the use of commas to set off relative
> clauses in English? My hunch is it has a storied history (maybe back to
> Latin or Greek?), as some languages (e.g. Spanish) seem to have rules
> similar to English, whereas others (e.g. Russian) have far more obligatory
> commas.
>
>
> On 8/2/07, Arnold M. Zwicky <zwicky at csli.stanford.edu> wrote:
>> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
>> -----------------------
>> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
>> Poster:       "Arnold M. Zwicky" <zwicky at CSLI.STANFORD.EDU>
>> Subject:      Re: "certain" inThe First Noel
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
> ------
>> On Aug 2, 2007, at 9:59 AM, Larry Horn wrote:
>>
>>> At 12:43 PM -0400 8/2/07, Mark Mandel wrote:
>>>> Yup. It's a garden path sentence. The catch is that the obvious
>>>> interpretation of "The first Noel", as referring to the first
>>>> Christmas,
>>>> doesn't work. Instead, I take it as referring to the greeting: The
>>>> angels'
>>>> first Christmas greeting was uttered to certain poor shepherds.
>>> Ah, so you and dInIs are taking it as "The first
>>> No=EBl that the angels did say..."!  I always
>>> assumed the parenthetical reading as you describe
>>> it below, although as you convincingly argue this
>>> is indeed hard to sustain semantically.
>> well, the punctuation indicates a parenthetical.  unfortunately, the
>> carol is old enough to have a restrictive relative ("(that) the
>> angels did say") set off by commas, something we (mostly) don't do
>> any more.
>>
>> arnold
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>>
>
>
>
> --=20
> It is better to be quotable than to be honest.
>     -Tom Stoppard
>
> Borowitz
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>
>

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org