ATTN: Copyeditors and Grammar Fiends

Yes, it’s evolved like the noun version of embed in that regard. I’m at peace with both. In fact I don’t really see why people get het up about verbs becoming nouns.

Fuck an "invite". I'm not going.

ive probably said this before in this thread but the way words can cheekily step out of their parsed category is one of the excellent things about the english language (and it isn't just nouns and verbs)

my off-the-cuff theory is that it's bcz english doesn't really deploy word-endings as declensions or conjugations but the why of it matters less than the fact that it happens and it's poetry

also poetry: the shift of the accent in invite and invite

Naw, “invitation” is way too associated with things you want to attend, and has a valence of being something extended in honour and attended as a privilege.

The “INvite” to the cross-functional alignment meeting, OTOH, is extended in the spirit of mutual suffering and perfunctory ritual obligation, and I feel like the word reflects that.

See also: pre-sént (v) and prés-ent (n).

There way seems to be a tendency to stress the first syllable on the noun version of verb/noun words

Present, invite, embed and record all follow this, at least.

I think some people do 'access' that way too, and I quite like it, but most of us just stress the first syllable regardless.

Lots more here, in fact:
https://www.english-at-home.com/pronunciation/noun-and-verb-syllable-stress/

When they begin the beguine

When they present the present

https://moteefe.com/store/science11/48527977-YAll-Sucker-Need-Science-T-Shirt?color=black&product=men-s-t-shirt

Why will no-one correct “a myriad of” in any book, ever, anymore? Is “myriad” no longer an adjective?

*weeps*

Well, googling tells me that the noun form is fine & actually predates the adjective.

*tears of pedantry*

A myriad originally denoted the specific numeric quantity 'ten thousand'. Over time, it acquired a much less specific meaning, denoting 'an unspecified large number or quantity'. In this usage the whole amount being described is treated as a unit, and it is analogous to other unitary measures such as a bushel of peas, a handful of dust, a cup of water, or a lot of people. Used in this way it has a myriad of applications.

Apparently.

old-timey pictures of the sphinx which are terrible

^^^or shd it have been "old-timey pictures of the sphinix that are terrible"

when my if…. book came out martin skidmore said (among nicer things) that it was full of me getting the which/that choice wrong -- basically (ppl who hire proofing editors close yr eyes NOW) i go more by feel and sound and not some dumb rule (but what even is the rule lol): here i was likely just bodyswerving the repeated "th" and i'd do it again copper

I'm sure there is a proper rule, but without checking I can't quite articulate what I think it is. I'd say the thread title should be "that".

I slightly prefer “that” there but lol mark’s post otm.

Also sphinix another typo uo can use

Spinix from the ashes

Fat finger salute

Oh yeah I had a question the other day, how do people feel about the word “distaff”?

I think 18c English novelists were right about "that" and "which" and "the which" and "but that" all being essentially musical choices and that the post 18c copyeditor standardization of the rules on this question has been bad for prose. attend ye to the music which causeth your numbers to sing mark s

Asking for a friend because I just remembered a long ago somewhat amusing incident of someone we know being asked to remove it by a newspaper of record.
(xp)

The rule I know comes from Harry Fieldhouse's Everyman's Good English Guide:

The need or lack of need for a comma is a convenient test of whether the sense requires that or which.

He goes on to say:

If the pronoun can be left out altogether the matter is clinched in favour of that (though that cannot always be omitted) - There's the shop window (that) I told you about.

strongly prefer "there's the shop window, the one I was telling you about, not sure if you remember"

This is looser in the UK, I think. I had restrictive/nonrestrictive drilled into my head in journalism school but I am not doctrinaire about it in casual speech and informal writing.

"A date which will live in infamy" violates the rule, but I don't much care.

which is a building

which is on fire

I don't use "distaff" and don't think it works well anymore because its root sense is about women's proper role being domestic (specifically spinning/weaving)

the person who introduced me to distaff was a canadian cyberpunk feminist who entirely used it not to be taken seriously so

I don't think, after all this time, that I grasp the which / that distinction.

Somewhat happily it appears that other people aren't bothered about it either.

Meanwhile, separately: Guardian style, almost always omitting 'that' as a conjunction, often creates inelegance and confusion. I would never do this myself, given a choice. (If I wrote for the Guardian presumably they would muck up my writing, but I don't have that honour.)

oh i take "that" out of my own copy like crazy, it saves a word in tight word-counts!

and other ppl's also lol

Feel like "which" has a subordinating function, "that" is kind of a determiner that (do u see?) can often be omitted.

Much of 20th century newspaper style decisions had to do with space, and almost always erred on the side of omission / conciseness when there was a choice to be made.

Hence the AP rejection of serial commas, hence the rule forbidding forms of "to be in headlines," hence a preference for closed compounds.

By 1995 or 2000, there really was no reason for this. Even if the internet had not been emerging, DTP software and inexpensive paper would still have allowed print outlets to use all the space they needed.

The old listserv COPYEDITING-L had an injoke about being a HARPy ("hyphens are readers' pals"). HARPies tended to resist concision for concision's sake, and advocated for using more ink when doing so aided clarity.

My own style tends toward more words, rather than fewer. I leave in a lot of "thats" that a more terse stylist would delete.

Like that one ^

So Peter Seller's-almost mother-in-law Judy Garland sang about "The Man I Love," which (do u see?) could have been "The Man That I Love" if George and Ira had wanted another syllable, but not "The Man, Which I Love" or even "The Manwhich, I Love," which (do u see?) of course would be "The Man, Who(m) I Love." In the first case, she is narrowing it down to which (uh oh, so confusing) man she loves, in the second case, we presumably already know who this man is, and she is giving us the extra info that she loves him.

Not to be confused with "The Magwitch" as in
"The Magwitch," that new viral dance hit from Sir Carol Reed's cult film adaptation of "Pip!," playing every other Saturday at midnight, alternating with "The Rocky Horror Picture Show"...

or
"The Magwitch," which was not even in the original theatrical version....

Except in this case the first "that" could have been "the." Ugh, the confusion is coming from inside the "that!"

This one goes out to the one which I love

Meanwhile, separately: Guardian style, almost always omitting 'that' as a conjunction, often creates inelegance and confusion. I would never do this myself, given a choice.

"Which girl?"
"That girl!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zoh1LGADKI8

This seems useful:
https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/formandstyle/writing/grammarmechanics/that
https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/formandstyle/writing/scholarlyvoice/that

And another link to the same site seems to indicate "that" being used in restrictive clauses and "which" in nonrestrictive, which (Out, damned "which!") I think is what I was trying to get at before.

https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/formandstyle/writing/grammarmechanics/clauses#s-lg-box-18085140

Anyway, good posts all around, from YMP and others.

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.