Subject: Re: That and which
From: William Hochman (wh14@is9.nyu.edu)
Date: Tue Jan 25 2000 - 14:18:18 EST
LR, I don't mind about typos/mispellings but I question your notion that
teaching grammar is simple. I think many students don't learn
English grammar well until they learn to speak another language and see
how grammar really works, and I know many don't learn grammar well despite
observing different approaches to teaching grammar over 20 years of
teaching. Right now I've settled on teaching grammar by attuning
students to question it and be close to a good handbook. If you have a
simple and effective method of teaching and learning grammar, I'd like to
know.
will
On Tue, 25 Jan 2000, LR Pearson, Arts 99 wrote:
> Personally, I think that
> no one can teach free expression, while traching grammar is relatively
> simple (even English grammar!) and provides the tools for free
> expression.
>
> Love, Lucy-Ruth
>
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2000 15:04:01 -0500 Tim O'Connor <tim@roughdraft.org>
> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 01:50:05PM -0500, Paul Kennedy wrote:
> >
> > > Well, I was going to chide Tim for choosing Fowler over Strunk & White....
> >
> > Oh, I tried to make it plain a while back that the Strunk & White is
> > virtually glued to my computer. (I even have an original copy of the
> > Strunk "little book" that was privately printed and used at Cornell,
> > bought from a bookseller who had no idea of the value of the gem.)
> >
> > I just happened to be reading Fowler's (I love to pick a spot and read
> > it, just for fun; strange, I know. Even the introduction to the second
> > edition indicates that some passages have to be read as closely as
> > Finance Law statutes!)
> >
> > > and then Cecilia chipped in with her paean of praise.
> >
> > Yes, thanks, Cecilia!
> >
> > > respect words. The first paragraph of CATCHER is a masterful example of a
> > > literary genius stretching the language to incorporate the diction of a
> > > mid-20th century teenager. But it's literate from top to tail. If it had
> > > ignored punctuation (as seems to be sadly becoming the norm) nobody would be
> > > reading the novel today.
> >
> > That frames the beginning of the book in about as crystalline a form as
> > I could ever imagine.
> >
> > > PS--But if ANYBODY can explain Fowler's convoluted explication of "which"
> > > and "that", I'd be grateful....
> >
> > Oh, dear ... that is one of my favorite essays in the book. I think he
> > was pun-mad when writing it. It's droll to the nth degree.
> >
> > For "that" and "which," I have a five-year-old's approach, like counting
> > on my fingers, which I also, to my great chagrin, do, even sometimes if
> > only in my head.
> >
> > That / Which. Here's my thinking about it -- how I came up with a quick
> > solution to remembering them without getting entangled in Fowler's
> > definition.
> >
> > "That" is alphabetically before "which." So I, with my five-year-old
> > head, envision the words, "essential" and "non-essential."
> >
> > To use "that," what follows is essential to the meaning of the
> > sentence: "Everybody shot something. I shot the dog that was foaming at
> > the mouth." One specific dog is the subject of that sentence; other
> > dogs, those not foaming at the mouth, might be present but are
> > eliminated from consideration.
> >
> > To use "which," you can eliminate the subordinate clause and still have
> > a working sentence that makes logical sense: "Everybody shot something.
> > I shot the dog, which was foaming at the mouth." In this case, we're
> > only talking about one dog, and tacking on an explanation for why we
> > shot him; there's usually but not always a comma in front of "which."
> >
> > (I'm not saying you need help remembering it, Paul. <*grin*> Just
> > digressing about how I solved the "that/which" issue. I find this kind
> > of linguistic play endlessly fascinating.)
> >
> > So, my silly memory trick is alphabetical order:
> >
> > that = essential to meaning of sentence
> > ^ ^
> > which = non-essential to meaning of sentence
> > ^ ^
> >
> > Sorry for the incessantly long digression. Such is what comes from
> > falling asleep with a copy of Seymour: An Introduction splayed open on
> > your chest one sleepy weekend evening....
> >
> > --tim
> >
> > -
> > * Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
> > * UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
>
> ----------------------
> LR Pearson, Arts 99
> lp9616@bristol.ac.uk
>
> -
> * Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
> * UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
>
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Mon Feb 28 2000 - 08:38:03 EST