Re: elongated double space

Tech Tip: Click here to run a free scan for Windows Errors and optimize PC performance

No, I can't provide an example where "which" would clarify an ambiguity. It just avoids commitment! In a situation where there is already a comma (for other reasons), so that it's not clear whether it's punctuated as restrictive or nonrestrictive, I can avoid coming down on one side or the other. Cowardly, I admit. <g>

It's not just German, of course, that uses commas everywhere. You see this in eighteenth-century English as well. And not just with relative clauses. Were it not for the comma in the absolute construction "A well-regulated militia, being necessary...," there would be a lot less quibbling about "the right to bear arms."

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
http://word.mvps.org

"Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:510ee30e-d308-4761-8228-390a1648005a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Sep 7, 12:37 pm, "Suzanne S. Barnhill" <sbarnh...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Okay, I guess I'm not seeing what we disagree on here. I prefer to use
"which" for nonrestrictive clauses and "that" for restrictive. Herb
evidently has the same preference and so is changing "which" to "that" in
restrictive clauses. You say that "which" is equally correct. I'm not
disputing that, merely saying that I personally prefer "that" and think
"which" sounds stilted. What I don't understand about your initial reply is
what you consider "backward" about changing "which" to "that."

Oh, wait, I think I see what you mean. What you were saying was "backward"
was this statement: "The only time I'll use 'which' is when there's
ambiguity about whether the clause is restrictive or not." In the context, I

Yes

thought it was clear that what I meant was something like: "The only time
I'll use 'which' [instead of 'that' in a restrictive clause] is when there's
ambiguity about whether the clause is restrictive or not."

In other words, I invariably use "which" for nonrestrictive clauses and
ordinarily use "that" for restrictive clauses but may use "which" in a
restrictive clause if there is some ambiguity about it or (additionally)

Do you have an example where "restrictive 'which'" could clarify an
ambiguity?

when there is another "that" in the sentence so close that the compounding
of "thats" is awkward (and of course "that which" is an exception as well).

Yes, the compounding of "that"s is the most usual reason for using
"which." But also a preponderance of th-sounds, or even too many short-
a sounds in the paragraph.

As for ambiguity, sometimes an editor is faced with a situation in which an
author has used "which" without a preceding comma. From previous experience
with the author's prose and punctuation, the editor knows that the writer is
not good with commas, so the absence of a comma doesn't necessary mean that
the clause is restrictive, nor does the use of "which" guarantee that it's
nonrestrictive. Often it's difficult to determine the writer's intent.

One of my professors (a native speaker of Hungarian who had lived in
the US for 20 years when we first met, and in Paris for ten years
before that), who was an excellent English stylist, said that the one
thing she absolutely could not fathom was the restrictive/
nonrestrictive distinction. (In German, they put commas around both
kinds. In French they far more often use participial phrases instead
of relative clauses generally.)
--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USAhttp://word.mvps.org

"Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in messagenews:9a5ed4c3-e6a9-4c8f-b365-3a464c7313c7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
What Herb said is he "change[s] incorrect whiches to thats," and that
can only mean changing restrictive relatives introduced by "which."
You said you'd only use "which" when there's potential ambiguity as to
whether it's restrictive or not -- but introducing a restrictive with
"which" _could_ make it read as a non-restrictive (since "that" can't
be used with a non-restrictive).

Fowler would _prefer_ the distinction to be always observed, but he
says (2nd ed. top of p. 626; repeated from the 1st ed.), "Some there
are who follow this principle now; but it would be idle to pretend
that it is the practice either of most or of the best writers."

On Sep 7, 9:26 am, "Suzanne S. Barnhill" <sbarnh...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:



> Yes, the commas should be an indicator, but often there are commas > anyway
> because of some intervening parenthetical phrase/clause. The ambiguity
> rarely surfaces in my own writing, but when I'm editing someone else's
> writing and am not confident of the writer's intent...

> And I don't see how that's backward, since I would not ever use "that" > in
> a
> nonrestrictive clause.

> --
> Suzanne S. Barnhill
> Microsoft MVP (Word)
> Words into Type
> Fairhope, Alabama USAhttp://word.mvps.org

> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
> messagenews:1e11d69b-0ea3-49a3-8d5e-f99de37d6a5a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> I think that's backwards ... anyway non-restrictive relatives have
> commas around them, restrictive relatives don't.

> On Sep 7, 8:09 am, "Suzanne S. Barnhill" <sbarnh...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > I confess I'm with Herb on this one, though. UK English tends to favor
> > "which" even for restrictive clauses, but it always sounds very > > stilted
> > to
> > me. The only time I'll use "which" is when there's ambiguity about
> > whether
> > the clause is restrictive or not.

> > --
> > Suzanne S. Barnhill
> > Microsoft MVP (Word)
> > Words into Type
> > Fairhope, Alabama USAhttp://word.mvps.org

> > "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
> > messagenews:8045a2df-eb71-4667-ae2e-5369c20cfbfc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > If I found you changing my "which"es to "that"s, I wouldn't hire you a
> > second time!

> > The "rule" that restrictive relatives must have "that" is a completely
> > fabricated invention.

> > On Sep 6, 9:00 pm, "Herb Tyson [MVP]" <h...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > > My clients trust my advice, but they don't always follow it--and
> > > drafts
> > > often go through a dozen or more contributors. So, when I receive
> > > drafts,
> > > I
> > > change "<space><space>" into "<space>", change incorrect whiches to
> > > thats,
> > > and fix other stuff they might be inclined to ignore or change back.
> > > And
> > > THEN I turn tracking on. ;-)

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: that or which?
    ... which-clauses are set off by commas. ... reader to know what leaf you're talking about, the clause is restrictive. ... The training is free except for books and supplies. ...
    (alt.usage.english)
  • Re: elongated double space
    ... ambiguity about whether the clause is restrictive or not." ... I'll use 'which' [instead of 'that' in a restrictive clause] is when there's ... they put commas around both ... commas around them, restrictive relatives don't. ...
    (microsoft.public.word.docmanagement)
  • Re: How long before Marrone makes a coherent post?
    ... out bitch like you. ... Appositive elements should be set off by commas. ... This error also means your first clause itself is reduced to ... The verb you need here is "are," allowing for the use of the ...
    (alt.fan.howard-stern)
  • Re: Insert and Update
    ... Separation of the values in the SELECT clause with commas is done ... Nikos ... > sorry for asking stupid questions, i have changed the column arguments back ...
    (microsoft.public.access.forms)
  • Re: as we know / as we know it / as is known to us
    ... they're grammatically incorrect without the commas. ... but this means that the clause is modifying the whole sentence ... IN THE FORM THAT WE NOW KNOW IT was the invention of AGB. ... This is a restrictive clause (it restricts what sort of ...
    (alt.usage.english)