At the link in the OP, it is stated:
"The student must avoid the common mistake of saying that but is a 'negative relative.' It is simply an Adversative conjunction with some Demonstrative pronoun understood after it."
Not every grammarian regards said mistake as a mistake. The question I personally find interesting is not so much whether
but can be said to function as a relative pronoun in a sentence like
There was no one present but saw the deed, but whether
but can introduce a relative clause as if it were a relative pronoun.
Walter Smart looked at both parsings: "
But, when used as in [
There is not a city but is affected by this law] is sometimes regarded as a relative pronoun, equivalent to
that--not,
which--not, or who--not . . . Some grammarians call
but in this construction a conjunction introducing a clause whose subject is not expressed" (
English Review Grammar, 1937).
Paul Roberts went ahead and parsed it as a relative pronoun: "The words
but and
as may serve as relative pronouns: 'There was not a man among them
but hoped to get out alive.' (
But refers to the noun
man and connects it to the subordinate clause; in the subordinate clause
but is subject of the verb
hoped.)" (
Understanding English Grammar, 1954).
Even the great Otto Jespersen does not seem to have considered said mistake a mistake: "
But is a negative relative connective meaning 'that (who or which) . . not', but only used after a negative expression" (
A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles, Volume 3, 1927).
To my thinking, what would resolve the matter is a clear verdict on whether
but can introduce such a clause when it is not the subject that is missing but, rather, the direct object or the object of a preposition. Is that possible? Very few examples seem to exist, though Jesperson does have a baby section with the following examples:
- 9.7(2) A preposition is placed at the end of the clause: Godsm 672 there's not a pond within five miles of the place but they can tell the taste of / Ruskin Sel. 1.261 there is not a touch of Vandyck's penciil but he seems to have revelled on.
To my modern native-speaking sensibilities, those examples seem very strange, and I'm having trouble finding any examples of a clause introduced by but with a missing (relativized) direct object. I could continue searching through grammar books, but I'm curious: do native speakers here find examples like these grammatical, if rather outdated?
No dessert was served but they devoured.
I have never met a man but somebody disliked.
I saw no light but that somebody had turned off.
I colored them red because each of them grammatically repulses me. Thus, I guess I tend to lean toward sitifan's source's judgment after all! But I still find the question interesting. My third example is a variation on a line from Robert Frost's "
Good Hours" (1916), which contains the
but construction, with
that: "I saw no window but that was black."
Please note that I am not addressing the related but gapless
but-construction found in "It never rains but it pours," which clearly does not contain a relative clause. And we needn't always turn to that common saying. It's also found, incidentally, in "And the stars never rise, but I feel the bright eyes / Of the beautiful Annabel Lee" (
source).
