On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 10:57:57PM -0400, David Abrahams wrote:
Jonathan Wakely <cow@compsoc.man.ac.uk> writes:
On Wed, Jun 29, 2005 at 10:46:47AM -0400, David Abrahams wrote:
Lovely! "which" should be "that," though, at least by U.S. English ^^^^^^^^^^^^ rules" Normally, "which" should only follow a comma in a fragment that could be removed without altering the meaning of a sentence, as in "I felt lousy, which might have been good since I didn't want to go anyway."
That seems wrong to me. A style-guide which requires that is being a bit picky IMHO.
Tell that to my publisher.
:-) fair enough
c.f. Chambers: http://www.chambersharrap.co.uk/chambers/chref/chref.py/main?title=21st&query=which Your rule seems only to apply to the 3rd definition, which is not the sense in which Tobias is using "which".
British English has it's own, different, rules.
Yes, that's true, although isn't Merriam-Webster American? Rob's quote supported my position. I'm not concerned either way, seems as though you guys are doing a fine job of re-working the docs without my pedantry (I was an English "language lawyer" long before I'd heard of C++ ;) jon