Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site ihlpg.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!bellcore!petrus!sabre!zeta!epsilon!gamma!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
From: tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum)
Newsgroups: net.med
Subject: Re: Kaopectate retraction
Message-ID: <1479@ihlpg.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 14-Dec-85 01:30:08 EST
Article-I.D.: ihlpg.1479
Posted: Sat Dec 14 01:30:08 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 14-Dec-85 16:37:14 EST
References: <2127@aecom.UUCP>
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 25

> [Craig Werner]
> 	Yes, John Gurian was right about Kaopectate, and Steve Dyer was correct
> in predicting the source of my error.   The actual pathophysiology of the error
> was as follows:
> 	The spoken sentence:
> "Kaopectate formulations which contain weak opiates inhibit gut mobility"
> 	became
> "Kaopectate formulations, which contain weak opiates, inhibit gut mobility"
> 	in my notes. (Actually the above are paraphrases)
> 
> Note how the extra commas change the meaning of the sentence.
------
Actually, they don't.  The first form of the sentence just uses improper
punctuation.  In either case, the sentence implies that all Kaopectate
contains weak opiates and inhibits gut mobility.  The conjunction "which"
can only introduce nonrestrictive clauses.

On the other hand, the following:
"Kaopectate formulations THAT contain weak opiates inhibit gut mobility"
implies that some Kaopectate, namely that containing weak opiates, inhibits
gut mobility.  The conjunction "that" introduces restrictive clauses.

Let's try to keep our whichs which and our thats that.
-- 
Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL  ihnp4!ihlpg!tan