ATTN: Copyeditors and Grammar Fiends

The comma before 'which' makes it a non-defining relative clause which refers to the whole previous clause, not just the noun. Compare:
Old Trafford is a stadium which can seat more than 70,000 spectators ('which' = stadium)
She said she found my cooking disgusting, which really took the edge off my evening ('which' = the fact that she said she found my cooking disgusting)

So "Ethanol is a depressant, which lowers heart rate." is a bizarre sentence - it doesn't mean that depressants lower heart rate, nor that ethanol lowers heart rate. It means that the existence of the fact that ethanol is a depressant somehow lowers heart rate.

Ethanol is a depressant and lowers heart rate.

The comma before 'which' makes it a non-defining relative clause which refers to the whole previous clause, not just the noun. Compare:
Old Trafford is a stadium which can seat more than 70,000 spectators ('which' = stadium)
She said she found my cooking disgusting, which really took the edge off my evening ('which' = the fact that she said she found my cooking disgusting)

In the Old Trafford example, "which" should be "that" according to the more strict US usage, which I tend to follow cos it leads to less hassle.

In the second example, you could change it to "She was disgusted by my cooking, which to be fair is bloody awful" - "which" obviously referring to "my cooking". But then again, you could have "She was disgusted by my cooking, which really pissed me off" - "which" referring to her being disgusted by my cooking. It's tricky with this stuff - it's context-led in a way that makes it difficult to explain why something feels off.

Perhaps you will enjoy this language log post about which clauses http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4165

also one of those is an adj clause and one is an adv clause afaict

The comma before 'which' makes it a non-defining relative clause which refers to the whole previous clause, not just the noun.

Weird, I have never heard of this (presumably UK) rule!

Weird, I have never heard of this (presumably UK) rule!

In the UK, you can use "which" where in the US it would be "that" (as in nasty, brutish & short's "Old Trafford is a stadium which can seat more than 70,000 spectators"). A comma indicates whether it is restrictive or non-restrictive. It works and makes sense, but it's a use that will be wiped out shortly mainly due to Word highlighting it as an error every time.

(It will take longer to wipe out the UK acceptance of dividing subject and verb by comma. For example, I could have put a comma after "It works" in the UK, but it'd be wiped out by US copy editors.)

alla these sound like bad SAT answers tbh

"alcohol, it lowers the heart rate, being that it is a depressant"

the original is fine except there is some plurality disagreement.

imo the best wording would be

"ethanol, a depressant, lowers the heart rate" or "depressants like ethanol lower the heart rate"

this thing, it is called ethanol, what does it do it is a depressant, what lowers the rate of your heart if you ingest it, and such

K3vin's first one is best, and adds the needed definite article.

What is meant by the expression "Whither (something)?" e.g. "Whither Socialism?"

Does it mean, "Where is Socialism headed?" "Where is Socialism?" or rhetorically "Is Socialism on the decline?"

I've always been confused by this phrase.

all of em

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/db/Withers.jpg/315px-Withers.jpg

Funnily enough I just looked that up recently: whither means Where is it going?, like, physically, but also the meaning of What is the point of this thing?

i feel like sometimes it also suggests "whatever happened to?" in the where-are-they-now sense -- but this might be a strange bit of cruft from a lifetime of understanding it from context.

Weird. I thought it meant "Let us consider _____" and would then generally be followed by an opinion about the topic.

Traditionally, it is 'Where is it going?' - whither = to where, whence = from where. Whence came you? Whither go you?

Obvs these forms are obsolete/archaic outside certain expressions.

whither/whence, thither/thence, hither/hence form a nice set, I think. We should've kept them.

But then I am a fetishist for "thon" and "thonder", which are the northern/Scottish equivalents of "yon" and "yonder" and still get used in Scotland (I assume) and Northern Ireland.

And "whither" does mean "to where (is it going)?" but rhetorically does have that "où sont les ___s d'antan?" vibe to it.

(whoa I did not know that "yesteryear" was coined specifically to translate that, thought it was much older: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=yesteryear )

woof otm. Whence and whither are companions to when, why, where, how, and their ilk, but they have fallen into desuetude.

Is there a difference between "befitting" and "befitting of"? Is the latter formulation wrong?

The sentence I wrote was something like "a premise befitting of contemporary horror cinema," but the copy dept. took out the "of." It not only looks weird to me, but I feel like it changes the meaning -- I'm talking about a film that ultimately does not fit within contemporary horror cinema despite a premise that makes it seem like it would.

I guess I could just change it to "evocative of." Originally I had just plain "out of," but my editor advised against it.

Copy dept otm.

In the sense that "befitting of" is always incorrect? And does my intended meaning still work? I've been staring too long at this.

I think befitting of is an incorrect formulation but I can't prove that with science I mean grammar.

Although it does have a lot of google hits so what do I know.

"befitting of" is to "befitting" as "irregardless" is to "regardless"

Ouch, man.

this will only just sting a little (he jabs jaymc with 8 inch hatpin)

Actually, you know what *doesn't* sound weird is "a premise befitting A WORK OF contemporary horror cinema." Huh.

yeah. that works fine.

befitting is such a weird word

why wouldn't you say an appropriate premise or suitable premise?

98% of the be- prefixed verb constructions sound weird these days. The only ones that don't are fossilized inside common phrases.

yeah that's what I mean! it sounds too fancy

Actually, I'm changing it to "evocative of."

why wouldn't you say an appropriate premise or suitable premise?

B/c it's not what I mean.

unbeknownst to us, jaymc changed his mind

befitting, appropriate and suitable are all synonyms

98% of the be- prefixed verb constructions sound weird these days. The only ones that don't are fossilized inside common phrases.

― Aimless, Friday, October 5, 2012 8:54 PM (24 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yeah i miss befriend now friend is a verb

lots of be- verbs in german

Susan Beanthony.

Why do both "drugs servies" and "drug services" sound OK when "drug debate" sounds so wrong?

"drugs servies services"

"drug debate" induces ear wobble?

re: befitting, it's simple. it's a transitive verb and needs a direct object. a better analogy might be advocate vs advocate for

befitting is an adjective

it's also an adjective which is confusing

xp

not so simple then, i suppose

anyway jaymc's example should be the verb so no "of"

just don't say 'smacks of'