Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!sri-unix!sri-spam!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!decvax!mcnc!ecsvax!unbent From: unbent@ecsvax.UUCP (Jay F. Rosenberg) Newsgroups: sci.lang Subject: Re: which vs. that Message-ID: <2363@ecsvax.UUCP> Date: Tue, 18-Nov-86 08:22:08 EST Article-I.D.: ecsvax.2363 Posted: Tue Nov 18 08:22:08 1986 Date-Received: Wed, 19-Nov-86 22:06:27 EST References: <16381@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <217@mind.UUCP> Organization: UNC Chapel Hill Lines: 25 Summary: Rules are for pedants, analphabets, ... and EDITORS In article <217@mind.UUCP>, harnad@mind.UUCP (Stevan Harnad) writes: > > Rules are for pedants and analphabets; stylists will always adapt them > to the uncodifiable higher purposes literary language is really meant > for. Would that it were so! I have spent uncounted hours restoring 'which's that had dutifully been altered to 'that's by presumably-well- educated copy editors obeisant to the restrictive/non-restrictive clause rule. Since 'that' does journeyman work as a demonstrative pronoun and as a subordinating conjunction, I (a philosopher, whose professional interests often require special attention to those grammatical roles) have developed a style in which 'which' tends, fairly generally, to replace 'that' in its additional relative pronoun role. By "developed a style" I mean that I write in such a way that the sentences not only convey what I wish them to convey but also *sound* right. Such considerations, however, are simply lost on copy editors, whose horizons, as far as I can determine, characteristically extend no further than Webster's, Fowler's, and their own publishers' style sheets. JAY ROSENBERG Dept. of Philosophy UNC Chapel Hill, NC 27514 ========================================================================= ...{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!unbent unbent@ecsvax.UUCP ...tucc!tuccvm!ecsvax!unbent unbent@ecsvax.BITNET =========================================================================