Jonathan Wakely <cow@compsoc.man.ac.uk> writes:
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.
FWIW, my publisher's rule comes from The Chicago Manual of Style. http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/cmosfaq/cmosfaq.WhichvsThat.html And here you can read both sides of the argument, with the author landing squarely on the other side: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002124.html This guy obviously finds Merriam Webster convincing and other authorities, not. And this http://www.worldwidewords.org/articles/which.htm gives the "British perspective," which posits even more complicated rules. Personally, once I learned the rule nothing else sounds right to me. It's a curse, I suppose, because about 1/4 of the uses of "which" that I read jangle in my ear. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com