relative "that" again

[Randy Alexander]

On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 1:19 AM, Herb Stahlke <hfwstahlke at gmail.com> wrote:
> This topic is peripheral to the interests of this list, but I'm hoping
> it'll catch the interest of another grammarian or two.

(And maybe someone else with a choral music background.)

> 3  He will not let thy foot be moved,
>        nor slumber; that thee keeps.
>
> I have and still do maintain firmly that there is no grammatical
> evidence to support the claim that "that" used at the beginning of a
> relative clause is a pronoun and not simply a subordinating
> conjunction.  Combine a grammarian with a choir director, however, and
> the thought interrupts maintaining the beat that this instance of
> relative "that" feels very pronominal, and not just in the
> impressionistic sense that others have expressed.  This is the only
> instance of relative "that" I have encountered where "that" must be
> stressed.  We rarely stress "that" as a subordinating conjunction,
> whether in a relative or a content clause.  Here, however, the meter,
> so slavishly followed by the writers, requires us to stress "that."
> It's an iambic line, and "that" bears the ictus of the second foot.

I'm not convinced that's a strong argument.  Looking at some of the
other words in that position, we have "not" and "now".

Comparing the verse treatment to translations, we can see that "that
thee keeps" means "He that thee keeps".

Wilson: regarding "The guy that's sister married your cousin", what if
it were "The girl that's sister married your cousin"?

I'm not with my CGEL (until after 6 more hours), so I can't check
that, but so far I think the psalm text is just breaking the grammar
to fit the meter.

Have you searched for other similar instances of "that" in the BPB, or
other psalter?

--
Randy Alexander
Jilin City, China
My Manchu studies blog:
http://www.bjshengr.com/manchu

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