ATTN: Copyeditors and Grammar Fiends

i'm just glad there are still high school newspapers, much less ones with good teacher/editors. listen to her, she knows what she's talking about.

(generally, yes...but I think you need to know a little more background before you can say listen to her)

I am intrigued.

I thought the expression was "by the same token". In any case it doesn't mean much. Why not drop it?

You could say that custodians mop the dirty halls. (Or just "halls" -- presumably if they were clean, no mopping would be required!) Do you really know that they were "diligent"? They might have been smoking and cracking jokes half the time. If you DO know that they were diligent, write how you know this, rather than that they were diligent.

Things burrowing into minds recalls a particularly uncomfortable scene in Star Trek II - The Wrath of Khan.

Re: #3, I wasn't attempting to make some statement about the students' interest level. Rather, through imagery, I was trying to show how, when you're in a learning environment, information tends to seep into your brain without you ever realizing it...

Well, use "information" rather than "education" (if you must use personification, at least use the thing you actually mean).

"Inf0rmation continues to burr0w its way into the m1nds of students, bearing light artillery, wool blankets and supplies for several months."

Education burrowing it's way... -> I was trying to show how information tends to seep into your brain...

Say that then - "Information continues to seep/drip into/be absorbed by the minds of students..."

What is a custodian?

A janitor

AHhhhhhhh I was just in a work meeting that was really well run and informative, but unfortunately the presenter has the habit of saying "just simply" this and "just simply" that. Arrrrlghghg redundancy.

Heh, I thought you were writing an article for

http://www.letssubscribe.com/dynamic/eshop/product_images/thumbnail_cache/600x400/7141.jpg

Can someone help me with these two ongoing conundrums:

1. While/whilst, among/amongst
(I almost always avoid the 'st' versions, but is there a rule?)

2. which/that
("my socks, which/that are hanging up to dry over there" for example) Word seems to moan if I use "which" in many contexts, but I read it in print all the time. Again, what is the rule?)

1. chiefly Brit

2. It has to do with whether you're clarifying which pair of socks you're talking about, or whether you're just adding an extraneous details. For example: "I shouldn't wear the socks that are hanging up to dry, but I'll wear the socks that are in my drawer." Versus: "The socks, which are hanging up to dry, are still a little damp."

1. While and among are generally thought preferable. The -st versions are a bit fusty, though I don't really dislike them myself.
2. According to the (poorly followed) rule:

"My socks that are hanging up over there" is about defining the socks you're talking about (ie the socks that are hanging up over there, rather than those other ones)
"My socks, which are hanging up over there" is about adding additional information about the socks, the identity of which is not in question.

"That" defines, "which" informs.

x-post

Imagining pausing (or putting a comma) before the that/which gives you a pointer. If a comma/pause works, then it should be "which", if not then "that".

That's true, although I should note that a comma doesn't just work in front of "which": it's required. Similarly, there shouldn't be a comma before "that."

Additionally, to remember which one is which, you could try the old trick of putting “by the way” after that/which. If it sounds all right, it should be “which.”

E.g.

“My socks, which (by the way) are hanging up over there.” (works)
“My socks that (by the way) are hanging up over there.” (doesn’t work)

hmm. try living in glasgow for a bit. "by the way" works after absolutely everything, byrraway.

This is all making it more clear-cut than it sometimes is. I quite often come across examples where it's kind of a grey area whether one is defining or informing. And am sometimes tempted in those cases to get across that greyness by putting a which without a comma before.

If you want an example of someone who flouts the that/which rule as a matter of course, download and listen to Kate Adie introduce From Our Own Correspondent each week on Radio 4. I know most people don't even know the rule, but they must instinctively have a bit of an ear for it, because Adie sticks out so much. I think someone must have once told her "that" was common or something.

I'm kinda endlessly surprised by how mixed people get on that/which when writing, since folks follow it pretty decently (when necessary) in speech. (The main problem seems to be that when writing, people try to use "which" for "that" on the grounds that it sounds classier, something they'd NEVER do when speaking.)

Folks don't much talk classy.

The situation in which I'm most likely to accidentally deviate from the rule is in a sentence with a compound "that." The second one often turns into a "which." Viz.:

"This is the kind of rule that I usually follow but which gets me into trouble sometimes."

I feel like proper usage dictates that it should be "but that gets me into trouble," but for some reason "which" just sounds better after a conjunction: it seems more solid, I guess.

We had this whole 'which' / 'that' debate at great length upthread. It is true that you can't use 'that' in non-defining relative clauses (only which), but it's not true that you can't use 'which' in defining relative clauses (you can use 'which' or 'that').

I think that's right nabisco. When I was writing papers, my first editing step was to just do a find on 'which' and 9 times out of 10, I'd realise it should've been a 'that'. Instinct leads you to type 'which' when trying to sound scholarly.

Wikipedia says: "(re:which or that)....Of the two, only which is at all common in non-restrictive clauses. Problems arise in restrictive clauses, where traditionally either that or which could be used. This is still the case in normal speech and in British English, but in formal American English it is generally recommended to use only that for restrictive clauses." So this is obviously just a British v American thing.

You wrote that wikipedia entry!

No, I didn't. I'm not sure what a restrictive clause is, for a start.

I have never disputed that which is true.
I have never disputed which which is true.
I have never disputed that that is true.

What about which that?

“It’s even easier when you don’t care whom you kill.”

Doesn’t this passage look really odd? The one below looks better, IMO, but is the one above even acceptable?

“It’s even easier when you don’t care about whom you kill.”

Eh, sentence, even.

"It's even easier when you don't care who you kill."

Fixed!

Isn't "caring about" ambiguous here, because it could mean not having feelings for the victim rather than not caring about their identity?

I think we're seeing a breakdown of the who/whom distinction. There are cases in which the use of 'whom', although tradionally correct, now looks a bit odd and you should use 'who' instead.

Thanks. I found it in this Slate piece, which is why I was a bit puzzled. =)

Isn't "caring about" ambiguous here, because it could mean not having feelings for the victim rather than not caring about their identity?

isn't "who you kill" a subject/predicate on its own? So who is acceptable over whom? It's been a while since I studied this stuff. I'm rusty and mostly operating by feel.

I think I only use "whom" when it's part of a prepositional phrase. "Around whom did you fanny" for instance.

MS Office tells me this is wrong, is it?

"...this task could take an additional three or four man-hours to sort out..."

It says that I should delete the word "an." WTF?

MS Office is full of shit half of the time.

Man, just do CTRL-A, DELETE... problem solved.

WTF I JUST DID THAT YOU ASSHOLE

HOW DO I MAKE IT GO BACK OH GOD IT WAS 18 PAGES LONG

I GUESS THAT'S 3-4 LESS MAN-HOURS

Funny guy.

"Treatment for asthma and pulmonary disease are not identical"

the prob I see with using "treatments" is it no longer reads like a 1-to-1 comparison.

Add a "the" to the start?

I'd keep treatment singular, but add another 'for' for clarity:
"Treatment for asthma and for pulmonary disease are not identical"