#10109
11/10/2000 7:48 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981 |
I'm getting really fed up with the automatic grammar checker which is part of Microsoft Word. I know I could turn it off but it does spot all those those repeated words that I'm so fond of. It is always telling me to replace "which" with "that".
It's driving me mad! Is it really so bad to say "which" in a sentence? Is it a local variation or some kind of Bill Gates house rule? Do us Brits say which more often than US English speakers or am I on my own here?
I think I may need some advice from Mr Bingley. Any thoughts?
|
|
|
#10110
11/10/2000 8:00 PM
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
while we wait for Mr. B, here is what alt.usage.english has to say on the matter:
In "The family that prays together stays together", the clause
"that prays together" is called a RESTRICTIVE CLAUSE because it
restricts the main statement to a limited class of family. In
"The family, which is the basic unit of human society, is
weakening", "which ... society" is called a NONRESTRICTIVE CLAUSE
because it makes an additional assertion about the family without
restricting the main statement.
It is generally agreed that nonrestrictive clauses should be
set off by commas; restrictive clauses, not. Nonrestrictive
clauses are now nearly always introduced by "which" or "who"
(although "that" was common in earlier centuries). Fowler
encourages us to introduce restrictive clauses with "that"; but this
is not a binding rule (although some copy-editors do go on "which
hunts"), and indeed is not possible if a preposition is to precede
the relative pronoun. "Which" seem to have more "weight" than
"that"; the weight often just adds starch, but it can be of use
when the relative pronoun is separated from the antecedent: "This
is the only book in my personal library which I haven't read."
Often, too, euphony favours one or the other.
Object relative pronouns can be omitted altogether ("the book
that I read" or "the book I read"); in standard English, subject
relative pronouns cannot be omitted, although in some varieties
of informal spoken English, they are ("There's a man came into
the office the other day").
|
|
|
#10111
11/12/2000 6:45 AM
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,788
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,788 |
Well said, tsuwm, and your reference to Saint Fowler most appropriate. I turned the bloody grammar checker off, as it has a different sense (or no sense) of euphony.
|
|
|
#10112
11/12/2000 9:47 AM
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 18
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 18 |
Thank you for your very useful comments. I still feel that there must be more to it. It seems more natural for me to say "This is the book which I told you about" instead of "This is the book that I told you about" and "Here is the house which we looked at yesterday" instead of "Here is the house that we looked at yesterday". Could there be a formal/informal distinction here as well? These few examples and some others I have thought of lead me to guess that (in American English at least) "which" is freely used in restrictive clauses in informal speech.
|
|
|
#10113
11/12/2000 4:35 PM
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
ammelah,
given your two examples, I would say "that", which is of no help whatsoever in answering your question but merely points out the subjectiveness of it all.
|
|
|
#10114
11/13/2000 11:21 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,004
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,004 |
Jo
Your post is full of 'saying' and 'speaking' words. The Microsoft grammar checker, on the other hand, is working to relatively 'strict' written English rules - though you are able, allegedly, to vary the rigidity with which it applies them. Herein, IMO, lies a crucial difference. If you use the word 'which' in speech a lot, instead of 'that', you are probably committing no solecism. In writing, however, In the interest of being inoffensive to readers of business correspondence, the Microsoft thingy probably becomes a touch obsessive/compulsive about these matters.
For what it's worth, I tend to ignore the grammar checker.
cheer
the sunshine warrior
|
|
|
#10115
11/14/2000 4:48 AM
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 3,065
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 3,065 |
I don't have anything to add to tsuwm's admirable exposition, but I do think it illustrates a general point. Somebody makes a recommendation for stylistic improvement or points out a difference in formal written prose and more casual writing or speaking and it suddenly becomes a dreaded solecism to be avoided on all occasions, the linguistic equivalent of farting loudly in church. I would say if whatever style or usage guide you consult goes against your own gut feeling, ignore it. As for Microsoft's, I turned it off long ago. I suppose Bill Gates's employees must know something about computer languages, but they seem to know nothing about human ones.
Bingley
Bingley
|
|
|
#10116
11/14/2000 7:15 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981 |
>alt.usage.english
Thanks tsuwm. I think this does relate to my usage of the word. I'm not so bothered about informal writing but I do like to know why the wretched machine is trying to alter my careful prose.
I ran your post through the grammar checker and it did not try to replace the "which" in "The family, which is the basic unit of human society, is weakening." I suspect that all it does is look to see if the clause is set off with commas, if not, it recommends that the user considers replacing "which" with "that".
|
|
|
#10117
11/14/2000 7:56 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981 |
>Jo, Your post is full of 'saying' and 'speaking' words.
Don't I know it! I wouldn't dream of letting a grammar checker near my e-mails to friends, family and y'all. I don't even go near Aenigma these days!
|
|
|
#10118
12/18/2000 3:06 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 393
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 393 |
You can customize it. Roughly: Tools, Options, Grammar tab, Settings, Relative Clauses checkbox. Turn that off and it stops pissing about with that and which. You can probably amuse yourself turning off lots of other things too.
|
|
|
#10119
12/18/2000 6:08 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,146
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,146 |
NicholasW quoth: You can customize it. Roughly: Tools, Options, Grammar tab, Settings, Relative Clauses checkbox. Turn that off and it stops pissing about with that and which. You can probably amuse yourself turning off lots of other things too.
Yes, and you'll find that your computer runs considerably faster. The grammar checker uses a varying amount of RAM, but seems to sit around 5Mb. Getting rid of it makes Word run more like molasses than a glacier.
You should also be aware that Microsoft bought the grammar checker from someone, can't remember who. Most people at Microsoft don't seem to be able to speak what I consider to be English at all. Read any of their technical papers for confirmation of this.
The idiot also known as Capfka ...
|
|
|
#10120
12/18/2000 7:10 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,788
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,788 |
Dear Saint Nick ~
Could it be because I have Word for Windows 97 that my grammar tab doesn't include the option which you suggest? I just turned the whole damn thing off.
Father Steve
|
|
|
#10121
12/18/2000 7:30 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,439
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,439 |
Capital Kiwi said : Most people at Microsoft don't seem to be able to speak what I consider to be English at all. Read any of their technical papers for confirmation of this.How true! How True! I am able to read and understand an insurance policy's fine print, and deciphering court decisions was my lot in the newsroom as I had a facility for translating legalese into plain english.  However ... I have yet to learn any shortcut or system by reading and or following a Microsoft manual. It's a Magical Mystery Tour! I have a scanner I cannot use because the directions, even when followed closely, do not produce the desired result i.e. a photo I can put in an Email! I thought it was me until the Computer Guru/Owner at a nearby city's computer store admitted it took him three day, at home, in secret, to figure it out before he tried it at the office! And he was a programer and a hacker in the days when you had to know all that strange voodoo-hoodoo stuff to use a computer. Harumph! Just a chunter but I feel better! wow
|
|
|
#10122
12/18/2000 8:39 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 1,289
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 1,289 |
In reply to:
which and that
How lucky we are that the language has evolved since 1611. As Father Steve could tell you, at least we don't have to deal with 'which' vs. 'who' any more. In older English, the Lord's Prayer starts, "our Father which art in Heaven ...". I still hear this every year on Christmas Eve when I listen to the service of lessons and carols from Kings College, Cambridge.
|
|
|
#10123
12/19/2000 2:45 AM
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 724
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 724 |
>("There's a man came into the office the other day").
My question is :
Does the rule of that and which also apply for that and who?
"The man, who came into the office the other day, is here again."
And
"The man that came into the office the other day is here again."
Is any of the above two sentences written wrong?
|
|
|
#10124
12/19/2000 5:07 AM
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
>"The man, who came into the office the other day, is here again."
And
>"The man that came into the office the other day is here again."
the clause 'came into the office the other day' is needed; i.e., is restrictive, so the second version is more correct -- leaving out the clause leaves "The man is here again." (which man?)
|
|
|
#10125
12/19/2000 6:45 AM
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 724
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 724 |
> the clause 'came into the office the other day' is needed;
Thanks. That made it easier - just like his, hers, its.
|
|
|
#10126
12/19/2000 12:52 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467 |
>"The man, who came into the office the other day, is here again."
And
"The man that came into the office the other day is here again."
Is any of the above two sentences written wrong?
Avy:
These sentences are quite different; they vary because of what the speaker intends.
In the first, the speaker makes an assumption that the listener knows who the man is, and is adding some additional information. Compare to "George, who came into the office the other day, is here again." The speaker has, for some reason, decided you need to know that George was in the office the other day. Otherwise, he would just say, "George is here again."
In the second sentence the speaker is assuming that the listener needs the information about when the person came in the office the other day in order to identify him. Compare to: "The George that came into the office the other day is here again." There is an implication that the listener knows several Georges and the speaker wants to make sure the listener has the correct one in mind.
TEd
TEd
|
|
|
#10127
12/19/2000 9:10 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 347
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 347 |
> the clause came into the office the other day...
..., said "Ho! Ho! Ho!" and pulled some presents out of his sack.
|
|
|
|
|
