ATTN: Copyeditors and Grammar Fiends

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Pr36CANB04

Friend sez: which after a comma. Simple rule.

But commas are not a reliable feature -- editors often remove commas from my own copy.

Reading posts here, I note that people tend to use terms which, or that, are standard to them, but are unknown technical terms to me, so I unfortunately glaze over again.

eg:

"that" being used in restrictive clauses and "which" in nonrestrictive

Have never heard of such clauses.

Ditto

"which" has a subordinating function, "that" is kind of a determiner

I don't know these either.

I could look them up but would get lost and would not remember it.

The second example you give was me flailing but the first seems to be using real terms.

Restrictive clause introduces essential information.

This is American usage though. I just saw something that says for British usage “that” and “which” are “equally acceptable” in restrictive clauses.

https://link.medium.com/ZCncpIUOCmb

Precisely. It's not observed in the UK.

It's extremely important to a small (and ever-diminishing) number of US pedants. I only care about it when the person signing my paycheck cares.

The terms "restrictive" and "nonrestrictive" are the correct technical terms, and I wish I could explain it without using them but it's tough.

Maybe try something like "the second house on the block, which has blue shutters, is my house" vs. "the second house on the block that has blue shutters is my house."

In the first example I live in the third house on the block. The shutter color is just extra information about it (nonrestrictive, set off with a comma).

In the second example, I might live in the fourth or fifth house on the block (because the other ones have different-colored shutters). It's essential information (restrictive, not set off with a comma).

But that feels really artificial because you would almost always find a better way to convey the information - like giving the address.

One of these days I'll find a way to explain this that doesn't feel so abstract and forced.

Crud even that is botched - in the first example I live in the SECOND house. Dangit. Again, some day I'll explain this clearly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Z4LNBq3WxE

I was tempted to ask my high school English teacher this question on Facepalm but then I thought better of it. Although yesterday I did ask a question about James Joyce to which I already knew the answer and he took the bait. Tempted to ask the pinefox while he is here as well, but don’t want to make the thread a busman’s holiday.

Agree with Ye Mad Puffin: "that" is technically correct, but it's not an important distinction in casual speech or writing. And if you're phrasing your thread title "Old-timey pictures of the sphinx ____ are terrible" rather than "terrible old-timey pictures of the sphinx," you're clearly going for a stylistic flourish that I would leave as-is.

Yeah and I also think the "which is a building which is on fire" is deliberately stylized. Some folks use which because it sounds loftier even when it's wrong. I suspect FDR was just under the influence of British writers (including Churchill, a rampant whicher).

As noted, I have almost no strong personal feelings but I sometimes work for people who do. Because I like paying the mortgage and feeding my children, I generally just adopt the preferences of whoever is approving my timesheet and/or signing my check.

If I may, isn't it also a matter of knowing what the rules are and knowing when to break or ignore them? In your case, at least.

YMP, what kind of editing do you do? I only really got a grasp on that vs which when I learned AMA style.

yeah the editing I do these days is almost all academic writing, so I am something of a stickler about this, as it's gradually felt more "natural" for me to differentiate. Also academic writing tends to be larded with thats and whichs so it's just easier if I'm more or less systematic about it; like mark s I also enjoy deleting thats wherever possible

I appreciate Ye Mad Puffin's efforts in giving the example, though I don't find the terms (restrictive & non) very intuitive here.

Lily Dale's observation - 'you're clearly going for a stylistic flourish' - was a shrewd reminder of a point easily forgotten from the original prompt.

I think there is a distinction here between cases where it's clear and intuitive which, yes, *which* word of the two to use (that would be one, as would YMP's example) -- and ... others when it isn't. I begin to think that in those specific cases where either feels or sounds correct, either is correct. But perhaps not.

I wonder what James Redd's James Joyce question was, though it may be perilous to do so.

"Restrictive" as in it is being used to restrict what is being discussed, from a larger set to a singleton, usually or maybe at least a smaller subset.

My question was a softball and was relevant to the calendar date, which I don't think anybody got. I pretended not to recall the literary device Joyce said he used for each story in Dubliners, where each person had expenienced some kind of awareness, some moment of clarity etc, what was it again? *scratches head*

I looked in the Chicago Manual's word usage section and Garner's argument for the distinction isn't that it's correct but that it's useful. He also notes that British English doesn't recognize the distinction, so yes there's no "rule" like subject-verb agreement at play.

I would push back a little on the idea that intuitiveness should matter (in terms of application; I appreciate that non/restrictive isn't super easy to graps) here--intuition can easily lead you astray in grammar.

lol *grasp

https://www2.bfi.org.uk/sites/bfi.org.uk/files/styles/full/public/image/dr-strangelove-1963-024-custard-pie-fight-00n-6w7.jpg?itok=q2-v8I8b
Gentlemen, please! No fighting typos in the War RoomGrammar Fiend thread!

joke's on you, this was supposed to be the Grammar Friends thread

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwQJC_hk_xs

Altough what I was actually looking for
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lae8FewbnuU

table, these days I work mostly in technical proposal writing. In past lives I have grazed through the worlds of newspapers, trade newsletters, association and nonprofit communications, PR / advertising, sales, marketing. The only constant is needing to pay the bills.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaU1J8KMWbY

This discussion has accumulated so many responses I'll need to load the entire thread to find out exactly that which is being discussed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uI2cwfluyNo

Oops, sorry, wrong thread. Meant that for COVID-19.

All which I want for Christmas is you

Ha exactly!

James Redd: I can, at least, perceive the answer to your Joyce question.

I like the old-school, polite and precise sense of humour currently to be found on this particular thread.

On that/which, someone once gave me a pretty simple way to work it out: if you could add a “by the way” after “which”, without changing the sense of the sentence, then it’s right. Sometimes when I’m editing it’s not clear whether the author means to be restrictive or not. In those cases I sometimes fudge it by making an exception to the “comma before which” rule.

Excellent!

Why "at least, perceive," pinefox? Only connect!

Here is the entry from the AMA, fwiw:

Relative pronouns may be used in subordinate clauses to refer to previous nouns. The word "that" introduces a restrictive clause, one that is essential to the meaning of the noun it describes. The word "which" introduces a nonrestrictive clause, one that adds more information but is not essential to the meaning. Clauses that begin with which are preceded by commas.

YMP, interesting. I've only been doing this for about a year, all pharma ads and such. Some of the writers at my last gig were abysmal, so it could get a little fun and spicy in the comments, but for the most part, pretty blah. Definitely one of those jobs where I objectively work less and make more doing so than any other job I've had, which feels okay since I'm 37 and have been a gravedigger for a living, only a few years ago.

table, I don't wish to get too financial up in here but in terms of the relative lucrativeness of wordmongering jobs this is what I have observed directly:

I started in conventional journalism in 1993ish for wages that were decidedly low but seemed fine at the time
I approximately doubled my pay in 1994ish by shifting to the trade press (newsletters and association publications aimed at a niche audience)
Approximately doubled it again in 1998ish by shifting to PR/communications/marketing (including pharma PR)
Approximately doubled it yet again in 2004ish by shifting to proposal writing/tech writing

The level of work has remained constant. I still write like a college student - in the two or three hours before each deadline, full of coffee (or something)

Old-timey pictures of the Sphinx which, by the way, are terrible

Old-timey pictures of the Sphinx that, by the way, are terrible

I think we need to establish whether all old-timey pictures of the Sphinx are terrible.

i found one from the thutmosid dynasty which i think is quite good so but posting it actually messes up the purpose of the thread! so i don't think this "by the way" device helps me! (this issei’s may be an artefact of the thread being a kind of imperative?)

old-timey pictures of the sphinx which are terrible -- plz to post terrible old-timey pix of the sphx
old-timey pictures of the sphinx that are terrible — ditto (but i dislike the alliteration )

old-timey pictures of the sphinx which (by the way) are terrible — seems off bz it’s not "by the way"! it’s the purpose of the thread!
old-timey pictures of the sphinx that (by the way) are terrible — ditto (plus alliteration grrr)

old-timey pictures of the sphinx, which (by the way) are terrible = *all* OTPotS are terrible (proved to be untrue, also not the point of the thread)
old-timey pictures of the sphinx, that (by the way) are terrible = absolutely certainly a solecism in the entire english-speaking world

oops s/b (this issue may be an artefact of the thread being a kind of imperative?)

Yes, the point of the “by the way” trick is to see whether it works with “which”, not whether it works better with “which” or “that”. In this case, as you say, it doesn’t work with “which”, which tells you it should be “that” instead.

is "works with which" = "means what you meant"?

Yeah. Like, if I had a sentence that was “Elephants, which are the world’s largest land animals, are fun to ride on”, adding “by the way” after “which” would make the sentence more long-winded but it would pretty much mean the same, so “which” is right.

Whereas if it was “Elephants which have no tusks are unlikely to be poached” then adding “by the way” would change it completely.

That/which feels like one of those artificial distinctions that has some use in theory but I’m not sure how much confusion it really avoids, even if everyone were on board with the rule. I mean, there’s no equivalent for “who” and we seem to get by.

yes i think what's subliminally throwing me a bit here is that the threadname has a kind of "fuck around and find out" element to it = "post roughly this kind of picture until we can decide if inserting "by the way" changes the meaning, or (you know) not?"

dear grammar friends,

the commas in the second bullet point are wrong, right? like super wrong? (mark i know your answer already)

https://i.imgur.com/nWTlFfn.jpg

the first one is? but the 2nd ain't too badly