|
Post by goofy on Jul 17, 2008 14:03:19 GMT
Do not follow the rule sometimes; at other times they do follow it, I expect. And maybe other writers follow the rule always. Where does any of that get us? If someone had alleged that famous writers always follow the rule, the example would disprove that. But no-one has alleged it! I know. My point is that there is no justification for the rule. It seems to have been invented because someone, most likely Fowler, thought that the rule would aid clarity ( but this is debatable). Fowler 1926: I'm claiming that the rule was invented after the fact. But writers follow a different rule entirely, as I already said. And as one usage commentator wrote (Evans 1957): "What is not the practice of most, or of the best, is not part of our common language."
|
|
|
Post by SusanB on Jul 17, 2008 15:46:03 GMT
I really appreciate a 'quick guide' to how to properly use 'which' and 'that'. Benners, It looks like you're not going to get the 'quick guide' you were after! Perhaps if you follow the rule, it won't stand out to people as strange or incorrect; whereas if you do not follow the rule, there might be some who notice it.
|
|
|
Post by Dave M on Jul 17, 2008 16:14:55 GMT
> What is not the practice of most, or of the best, is not part of our common language < It's interesting to paraphrase that: That which is not the practice of most, or of the best, is not part of our common languageThose who insist on "the rule" will presumably want me to put that as That that is not ... - a pattern I've NEVER come across
|
|
|
Post by Tone on Jul 17, 2008 20:40:19 GMT
Goofy,
This searching for citations of "good" writers who have "broken the rule", as justification for not following it would seem to be temporally distanced.
I'm quite sure that some very "good" writers used Old English -- would that justify its use in today's authorship?
And, were the comparisons geographically distanced, instead of temporally, it would seem to justify the use of American spellings in writing English English!
Forsooth, I really don't think that would apply!
Tone
|
|
|
Post by goofy on Jul 17, 2008 21:05:51 GMT
Tone, if no writers used restrictive which anymore, you might have a point. However, writers used restrictive which before the rule was invented and they have continued to use restrictive which up to the present day. I could find many examples from modern novels if you like. One of the rule's strongest proponents was E.B. White, and he didn't follow it:
...the premature expiration of a pig is, I soon discovered, a departure which the community marks solemnly on its calendar - E.B. White, "Death of a Pig"
Virgina McDavid's 1977 study, mentioned in MWDEU, found that 75% of the whiches in edited prose introduced restrictive clauses.
|
|
|
Post by Tone on Jul 17, 2008 21:09:40 GMT
So more and more people are erring in using it.
Time to blame the education system again (it made them read the old books for guidance) -- or have they just been misled by you?
Tone
|
|
|
Post by goofy on Jul 17, 2008 21:15:50 GMT
So more and more people are erring in using it. That's one point of view. I prefer to think that if good writers don't follow a rule, then something's wrong with the rule. After all, if we can't determine good English usage by going by how good English writers use English, then we don't have anything to go by. And hold on... the old uses were irrelevant because they were too old, and the new uses are irrelevant... because they're too new?
|
|
|
Post by Geoff on Jul 17, 2008 21:30:42 GMT
It's not which that signals the nonrestrictive clause, it's the comma. I agree, goofy. I'm sure the missing opening, and closing, commas is why I had trouble fitting your examples into what I wrote in response to benners' original question.
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Jul 17, 2008 22:05:52 GMT
[...] I prefer to think that if good writers don't follow a rule, then something's wrong with the rule. Perhaps a writer breaks a "rule" for effect - a common enough technique, surely - and one that cannot consciously (and likely effectively) be employed by writers ignorant of "rules". And the definition of "good writers" is ... ?
|
|
|
Post by goofy on Jul 17, 2008 22:25:32 GMT
Perhaps a writer breaks a "rule" for effect - a common enough technique, surely - and one that cannot consciously (and likely effectively) be employed by writers ignorant of "rules". But this rule we're talking about - "don't use which with restrictive clauses" - was explicitly invented because it was felt to aid clarity. I don't think it aids clarity, the reasons are here. Writers used which with restrictive clauses before the rule was invented, and they used it after the rule was invented, and who can say whether they were consciously breaking the rule or not? They would have to have been taught the rule, then decided that they should break it. Maybe some do. But it seems more sensible to conclude that they are actually following a different rule altogether (use that with restrictive clauses, and use which with restrictive and nonrestrictive clauses). I'm going by the writers I cited earlier, and many of my favourite modern authors. If you want to choose other writers to emulate, that's fine.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Jul 17, 2008 22:30:56 GMT
Reminder: this topic is about which and that; it is in danger of discussing rules in general.
|
|
|
Post by Geoff on Jul 18, 2008 10:49:50 GMT
goofy,
I read the text for which you provided the link. This solution to this problem, it seems to me, rests with the writer. The writer needs to recognise subordinate material and defining material and ensure that the distinction is clear in what he/she writes, in other words, what is written conveys the intended message ... and I don't mean that the writer be able to analyse his/her writing in quite those terms, either. Just starting a clause with the relative pronoun that or the relative pronoun which will not necessarily achieve that, nor will inappropriate punctuation.
Stating the 'rule' for defining/restrictive and non-defining/non-restrictive clauses, as I did for Benners, will hopefully clarify the confusion that existed for him. He obviously had some idea that a rule of some sort existed. Anyone who understands the rule, as I described it, and who can apply the rule, will surely stand a better chance of having his/her intended message conveyed to the reader. In the end, isn't that what it's all about? It's not important whether or not we all agree to the rule.
I suppose, also, that it really doesn't matter if the defining clause does start with which. The important thing, again, is that the writer's intended meaning is correctly conveyed.
I'm not even sure that I have expressed here what my immediate reaction to goofy's link was.
|
|
|
Post by goofy on Jul 18, 2008 16:20:31 GMT
I agree, it's about understanding defining/restrictive and non-defining/non-restrictive clauses. But there are rules about them that we should agree on. For instance, you probably shouldn't use that to head a nonrestrictive clause.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Jul 18, 2008 17:01:38 GMT
Locked for length on a note of agreement.
|
|