About

I'm Mike Pope. I live in the Seattle area. I've been a technical writer and editor for over 30 years. I'm interested in software, language, music, movies, books, motorcycles, travel, and ... well, lots of stuff.

Read more ...

Blog Search


(Supports AND)

Google Ads

Feed

Subscribe to the RSS feed for this blog.

See this post for info on full versus truncated feeds.

Quote

You have what you have not lost;
you have not lost horns;
ergo, you have horns.


— Anon.



Navigation





<October 2014>
SMTWTFS
2829301234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930311
2345678

Categories

  RSS  
  RSS  
  RSS  
  RSS  
  RSS  
  RSS  
  RSS  
  RSS  
  RSS  
  RSS  
  RSS  
  RSS  
  RSS  
  RSS  
  RSS  
  RSS  
  RSS  
  RSS  
  RSS  
  RSS  
  RSS  
  RSS  
  RSS  
  RSS  
  RSS  
  RSS  

Contact

Email me

Blog Statistics

Dates
First entry - 6/27/2003
Most recent entry - 10/16/2014

Totals
Posts - 2312
Comments - 2502
Hits - 1,677,956

Averages
Entries/day - 0.56
Comments/entry - 1.08
Hits/day - 405

Updated every 30 minutes. Last: 10:43 PM Pacific


  09:38 AM

It is a non-truth all too often acknowledged, that a clause in possession of a restrictive relationship must be in want of a that. Any conservative-leaning guide to grammar will insist that you introduce "restrictive" clauses with that, and "non-restrictive" ones with which. Our corporate style guide is no exception; here's our guidance on the matter:

Correct
You will need to supply information about applications that you want to run with Windows.

Incorrect
You will need to supply information about applications which you want to run with Windows.

Correct
Your package contains the subsidiary information card, which you can use to obtain device drivers or local technical support.

No professional linguist takes this seriously. There's no evidence from actual English usage, contemporary or historical, that which is not suitable for introducing restrictive clauses. (You can find recent talk about this on the Langauge Log here.)

Why am I blathering on this? Because I have yet again found something amusing on Facebook. This time it's a description of one of the innumerable games that you can play via Facebook. (As if FB just by itself were not already a yawning time suck.) This particular game appears to be a typing type of game, which is described thusly:
Typing maniac is a game which measures the typing skills and the ability to think fast that features multiple power ups!
There is editorial gold here, including a capitalization error (Typing Maniac). But more to the point, it's a rare instance where that and which appear in the same sentence and either both introduce restrictive clauses or (perhaps arguable) are used "backward" per the style-guide rule. Examine:
Typing maniac is a game which measures the typing skills and the ability to think fast that features multiple power ups!
It seems clear to me that which is restrictive -- you would not write this:
*Typing maniac is a game, which measures the typing skills.
The that, in turn, could be either of these:
Typing maniac is a game which measures the typing skills and the ability to think fast and that features multiple power ups!

Typing maniac is a game which measures the typing skills and the ability to think fast, which features multiple power ups!
The larger point, as noted, is that whatever the style guides say, actual people who speak (or write) English have no notion of this artificial distinction between that and which. (Of course, actual people who write English also need editors, but altho that is amply shown here, we'll leave that discussion till later.)

And we'll not even talk about what multiple power ups could possibly mean, or whether you can pluralize a preposition (ups).

[categories]   ,

[7] |