or _as_ can be proper; because _orations_ are not _a
style_. Expunge _same_; and say--"in the style _of_ orations."

OBS. 25.--Few writers are sufficiently careful in their choice and
management of relatives. In the following instance, Murray and others
violate a special rule of their own grammars, by using _whom_ for _that_
"after an adjective of the superlative degree:" "Modifying them according
to the genius of that tongue, and the established practice of _the best_
speakers and writers _by whom_ it is used."--_Octavo Gram._, p. 1;
_Fisk's_, p. 11; _et al._ According to Priestley and himself, the great
Compiler is here in an error. The rule is perhaps too stringent; but
whoever teaches it, should keep it. If he did not like to say, "_the best_
speakers and writers _that_ it is used _by_;" he ought to have said, "_the
best_ speakers and writers _that use it_." Or, rather, he ought to have
said _nothing_ after the word "writers;" because the whole relative clause
is here weak and useless. Yet how many of the amenders of this grammar have
not had perspicacity enough, either to omit the expression, or to correct
it according to the author's own rule!

OBS. 26.--Relative pronouns are capable of being taken in two very
different senses: the one, restrictive of the general idea suggested by the
antecedent; the other, _resumptive_ of that idea, in the full import of the
term--or, in whatever extent the previous definitives allow. The
distinction between these two senses, important as it is, is frequently
made to depend solely upon the insertion or the omission of _a comma_.
Thus, if I say, "Men who grasp after riches, are never satisfied;" the
relative _who_ is taken restrictively, and I am understood to speak _only
of the avaricious_. But, if I say, "Men, who grasp after riches, are never
satisfied;" by separating the terms _men_ and _who_, I declare _all men_ to
be covetous and unsatisfied. For the former sense, the relative _that_ is
preferable to _who_; and I shall presently show why. This example, in the
latter form, is found in Sanborn's Grammar, page 142d; but whether the
author meant what he says, or not, I doubt. Like many other unskillful
writers, he has paid little regard to the above-mentioned distinction; and,
in some instances, his meaning cannot have been what his words declare: as,
"A prism is a solid, whose sides are all parallelograms."--_Analytical
Gram._, p. 142. This, as it stands, is no definition of a p