Bug#227762: Typo / Language in section 3.10
On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 12:48:52AM -0500, Hubert Chan wrote:
> From _The Elements of Style_ (Strunk and White, 4th ed) p. 59
> "/That/ is the defining, or restrictive, pronoun, /which/ the
> nondefining, or nonrestrictive."
S&W is an excellent resource for a beginning writer, but it should be
taken with a grain of salt, and is a poor tool to use for criticising
the prose of others. Many of its "rules" are arbitrary -- not wrong,
just arbitrary. And it is increasingly out-of-date.
The _Chicago Manual of Style_ is much more highly regarded among
professional editors and writers today. And in its online FAQ, at
<http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/cmosfaq/cmosfaq.WhichvsThat.html>,
It agrees that the rule in S&W is a good *general* rule, but adds:
"Some people use `which' restrictively, which is more or less okay
(and popular among writers of British English) as long as no commas
are involved."
So, I feel that the current wording, which does not use commas, is
"more or less okay," but do not object to the proposed change.
Those who are bored by historical perspectives should stop reading now.
The M-W Dictionary of English Usage offers a historical perspective.
"That" is the older word, and was used both restrictively and
non-restrictively. More recently, however, "that" died off
completely, and "which" was used in both cases. When "that"
reappeared in common English (and now I'm reading between the lines),
it was used only in the restrictive case. But it has not (and may
never) _completely_ supplanted "which" in that role.
--
Chris Waters | Pneumonoultra- osis is too long
xtifr@debian.org | microscopicsilico- to fit into a single
or xtifr@speakeasy.net | volcaniconi- standalone haiku
Reply to: