RE: reduced relative clause: -ing form vs. which

Subject: RE: reduced relative clause: -ing form vs. which
From: "McLauchlan, Kevin" <Kevin -dot- McLauchlan -at- safenet-inc -dot- com>
To: Phil Snow Leopard <philstokes03 -at- googlemail -dot- com>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 11:05:34 -0400

That'd be my choice.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phil Snow Leopard [mailto:philstokes03 -at- googlemail -dot- com]
> Sent: March-29-12 10:53 AM
> To: McLauchlan, Kevin
> Cc: B.J. Smith; techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
> Subject: Re: reduced relative clause: -ing form vs. which
>
> On 29 Mar 2012, at 21:39, McLauchlan, Kevin wrote:
> > Item [b], by the use of "which", _defines_ what a ZIP file is (in
> this case, a ZIP file is defined as containing whatever items are
> listed after "...the following..."). That's wrong.
> > Either a ZIP file is a compressed archive of any of a vast assortment
> of possible file contents, OR a ZIP file is now redefined to be "a
> thing containing exactly what a 'custom map' would contain"
>
> If the writer is defining 'a custom map' and not a Zip file, then [a],
> [b] or [c] are all incorrect. The 'zip file' part should be in a non-
> defining clause:
>
> "A custom map, which is a Zip file, contains..."
>
>
> Phil
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: techwr-l-bounces+kevin.mclauchlan=safenet-
> inc -dot- com -at- lists -dot- techwr-
> >> l.com [mailto:techwr-l-bounces+kevin.mclauchlan=safenet-
> >> inc -dot- com -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com] On Behalf Of Phil Snow Leopard
> >> Sent: March-29-12 10:26 AM
> >> To: B.J. Smith
> >> Cc: techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
> >> Subject: Re: reduced relative clause: -ing form vs. which
> >>
> >> All of the following are grammatically correct and all mean the same
> >> thing:
> >>
> >> [a] A custom map is a ZIP file containing the following...
> >>
> >> [b] A custom map is a ZIP file which contains the following...
> >>
> >> [c] A custom map is a Zip file that contains the following...
> >>
> >> Both [b] and [c] are defining relative clauses. I wouldn't call [a]
> a
> >> clause at all (though some grammar books do) because for me a clause
> by
> >> definition has to have a subject and a tensed verb.
> >>
> >> I'd call [a] (or at least this part of it "containing the
> >> following...") either an adjective phrase or a participle phrase.
> >>
> >> As for usage, personally I prefer to use the least verbiage to get
> the
> >> message across clearly, so I'd plump for [a] other things being
> equal.
> >> Those "other things" might include:
> >>
> >> -In some genres and styles of writing, its better to be verbose
> >> -in some genres you may want to vary sentence patterns (e.g., if you
> >> had a couple of sentences with defining relative clauses one after
> the
> >> other, you might want to use the adjective phrase to avoid a
> repetitive
> >> style).
> >>
> >> The short answer is there is no 'correct' or 'more correct' pattern
> to
> >> use in any absolute sense. Like so many things with writing (and
> what
> >> makes it an art), It's a matter of style, context and purpose.
> >>
> >> Best
> >>
> >> Phil
> >>
> >> On 29 Mar 20 12, at 21:14, B.J. Smith wrote:
> >>
> >>> I'm not sure about the "reduced relative clause" question, but I
> >> would prefer [b] after replacing "which" with "that."
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 3/29/2012 7:46 AM, Yves Barbion wrote:
> >>>> Hi again group
> >>>>
> >>>> Which do you prefer and why:
> >>>>
> >>>> [a] A custom map is a ZIP file containing the following...
> >>>>
> >>>> [b] A custom map is a ZIP file which contains the following...
> >>>>
> >>>> Am I right in thinking that "a" is a "reduced relative clause",
> >> which is
> >>>> incorrect in this particular example?
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >>> Create and publish documentation through multiple channels with
> Doc-
> >> To-Help. Choose your authoring formats and get any output you may
> need.
> >>>
> >>> Try Doc-To-Help, now with MS SharePoint integration, free for 30-
> >> days.
> >>>
> >>> http://bit.ly/doc-to-help
> >>>
> >>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >>>
> >>> You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as
> >> philstokes03 -at- googlemail -dot- com -dot-
> >>>
> >>> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> >>> techwr-l-leave -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Send administrative questions to admin -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit
> >>> http://www.techwhirl.com/email-discussion-groups/ for more
> resources
> >> and info.
> >>>
> >>> Looking for articles on Technical Communications? Head over to our
> >> online magazine at http://techwhirl.com
> >>>
> >>> Looking for the archived Techwr-l email discussions? Search our
> >> public email archives @ http://techwr-l.com/archives
> >>
> >>
> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> Create and publish documentation through multiple channels with Doc-
> To-
> >> Help. Choose your authoring formats and get any output you may need.
> >>
> >> Try Doc-To-Help, now with MS SharePoint integration, free for 30-
> days.
> >>
> >> http://bit.ly/doc-to-help
> >>
> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >>
> >> You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as
> kevin -dot- mclauchlan -at- safenet-
> >> inc.com.
> >>
> >> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> >> techwr-l-leave -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
> >>
> >>
> >> Send administrative questions to admin -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit
> >> http://www.techwhirl.com/email-discussion-groups/ for more resources
> >> and info.
> >>
> >> Looking for articles on Technical Communications? Head over to our
> >> online magazine at http://techwhirl.com
> >>
> >> Looking for the archived Techwr-l email discussions? Search our
> public
> >> email archives @ http://techwr-l.com/archives
> > The information contained in this electronic mail transmission
> > may be privileged and confidential, and therefore, protected
> > from disclosure. If you have received this communication in
> > error, please notify us immediately by replying to this
> > message and deleting it from your computer without copying
> > or disclosing it.
> >
> >

The information contained in this electronic mail transmission
may be privileged and confidential, and therefore, protected
from disclosure. If you have received this communication in
error, please notify us immediately by replying to this
message and deleting it from your computer without copying
or disclosing it.



^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Create and publish documentation through multiple channels with Doc-To-Help. Choose your authoring formats and get any output you may need.

Try Doc-To-Help, now with MS SharePoint integration, free for 30-days.

http://bit.ly/doc-to-help

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- web -dot- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
techwr-l-leave -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com


Send administrative questions to admin -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit
http://www.techwhirl.com/email-discussion-groups/ for more resources and info.

Looking for articles on Technical Communications? Head over to our online magazine at http://techwhirl.com

Looking for the archived Techwr-l email discussions? Search our public email archives @ http://techwr-l.com/archives


References:
reduced relative clause: -ing form vs. which: From: Yves Barbion
Re: reduced relative clause: -ing form vs. which: From: B.J. Smith
Re: reduced relative clause: -ing form vs. which: From: Phil Snow Leopard
RE: reduced relative clause: -ing form vs. which: From: McLauchlan, Kevin
Re: reduced relative clause: -ing form vs. which: From: Phil Snow Leopard

Previous by Author: RE: reduced relative clause: -ing form vs. which
Next by Author: Apologies to the list
Previous by Thread: Re: reduced relative clause: -ing form vs. which
Next by Thread: Re: reduced relative clause: -ing form vs. which


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads