Subject: That and which
From: LR Pearson, Arts 99 (lp9616@bristol.ac.uk)
Date: Tue Jan 25 2000 - 13:48:18 EST
Thaks, Tim.
Confusion of "that" and "which" is one of my particular grammatical
sins. In fact, I have many grammatical sins, most of which stem from
being taught by teachers who trained in the "go easy" sixties, when
free expression was rated aove all else. 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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Mon Feb 28 2000 - 08:38:03 EST