Re: that/which--an exception to majority opinion

Subject: Re: that/which--an exception to majority opinion
From: Carter Hansen <chansen -at- CWIS -dot- UNOMAHA -dot- EDU>
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 1994 20:23:03 GMT

"Segal, Betty S." writes:
> My point, which I supported with two rather lengthy quotations, was that
> usage which is at variance with the that/which "rule" is NOT incorrect.

> So that I am not completely misunderstood, let me hasten to say that I do
> frequently change _which_ to _that_ based on sound, because to my ear _
> that_ sounds better in most instances than _which_ . It fits the simple,
> direct style I try to edit into our publications. I do not, however, use the
> that/which "rule" to justify these changes to the writers that I edit--nor
> do I consider whether the phrases being edited are restrictive or
> non-restrictive.

> Good writing to you.

> Betty Segal -- BSS3 -at- PHPMTS1 -dot- EM -dot- CDC -dot- GOV
> Sr. Training Development Specialist (Instructional Editor)

Your writers don't complain about your "ear" being the arbiter of proper
usage?! I find it hard to believe! When I was editor for a group of 9
professional writers, I had to be able to defend every edit I made. Looking
back, I think that is only fair. Otherwise, how will writers ever be able
to produce something that they are confident will be acceptable to the
editor? I think we undercut the professional image of writers when we
do not support our decisions with an objective rule.

Happy Holidays!
Carter Hansen
(CARTERCH -at- AOL -dot- COM)

BTW - I was the one who cited the restrictive/non-restrictive issue earlier
in this thread.

Previous by Author: Re: scanned images
Next by Author: Re: Information needed
Previous by Thread: Re: that/which--an exception to majority opinion
Next by Thread: Re: that/which--an exception to majority opinion

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

Sponsored Ads