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

[Mark Mandel]

But the prosody of the line allows or encourages a pause there, regardless
of the written form.

Note also that all of these versions are consistent with "Nowell" as
greeting/interjection, not 'Christmas'.

m a m

On 8/2/07, Karl Hagen <karl at polysyllabic.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>
>

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