Pedants' Paradise

[kernelbogey]

American in origin as we all know. But the first relevant quotation is probably....
Many thanks for effort, FF!

[oddoneout]

From a jointly written Guardian article.

The milk producer, who has chosen to remain nameless,

I think they meant anonymous? Surprised that between them it wasn't picked up.

[Old Grumpy]

Just tried the advanced search facility, without success...


... message at the bottom read we cannot find anything that met this criteria

[Bryn]

Just tried the advanced search facility, without success...


... message at the bottom read we cannot find anything that met this criteria

Ouch! I did not know that "criteria" was singular in American English.

[french frank]

'That' or 'which'? I'm sure there's a rule which I don't know but I do sometimes find myself replacing one with the other because is sort of sounds better, not sure why. Then I might change it back again as I'm not sure.

An article in The Guardian today had this passage: "So far at least, there has been no sign of a dramatic feint or major deception. In modern warfare that involves extensive aerial and electronic surveillance, it is almost impossible to spring a surprise."

When I first read it, I took 'that' to be demonstrative pronoun referring back to 'a dramatic feint or major deception', so shouldn't there be a full stop or semi colon after 'surveillance' since the meaning is now complete? Replace 'that' with 'which' and the connection becomes clear: 'that' is a relative. Is there a rule which avoids the ambiguity?

[Serial_Apologist]

'That' or 'which'? I'm sure there's a rule which I don't know but I do sometimes find myself replacing one with the other because is sort of sounds better, not sure why. Then I might change it back again as I'm not sure.

An article in The Guardian today had this passage: "So far at least, there has been no sign of a dramatic feint or major deception. In modern warfare that involves extensive aerial and electronic surveillance, it is almost impossible to spring a surprise."

When I first read it, I took 'that' to be demonstrative pronoun referring back to 'a dramatic feint or major deception', so shouldn't there be a full stop or semi colon after 'surveillance' since the meaning is now complete? Replace 'that' with 'which' and the connection becomes clear: 'that' is a relative. Is there a rule which avoids the ambiguity?

In that particular instance, were a comma to be inserted after "in modern warfare" it would clarify the ambiguity you refer to, but at the same time render the "that" clumsy, so that "which" would flow better. But that is peculiar to this instance; where I have difficulties in deciding whether to use "that" or "which" is in sentances where one or the other, or both, are used repeatedly. I tend to alternate between each in such cases.

Another solution might be to re-word the sentence as "In modern warfare involving extensive aerial and electronic surveillance... " etc. etc.

[smittims]

Ha! You beat me to it, S-A. I was just about to type '...involving,...'

I would ask myself 'what does "that" really mean here?' If that's not clear, chose another construction.

[french frank]

In that particular instance, were a comma to be inserted after "in modern warfare" it would clarify the ambiguity you refer to...

I don't think it would clarify it though. The 'that' could still be a demonstrative pronoun rather than a relative. It isn't until you get to ', it is almost impossible' that you realise that it wasn't a demonstrative. If anything, the comma seems to reinforce the demonstrative idea, doesn't it? Or am I getting muddled?

[Serial_Apologist]

I don't think it would clarify it though. The 'that' could still be a demonstrative pronoun rather than a relative. It isn't until you get to ', it is almost impossible' that you realise that it wasn't a demonstrative. If anything, the comma seems to reinforce the demonstrative idea, doesn't it? Or am I getting muddled?

The "that" certainly doesn't help, does it! I am now thinking that substituting "which" could lead to two different interpretations, dependent on preceding it with a comma or not. E.g. "In modern warfare of the kind that involves extensive aerial and electronic surveillance" as opposed to, "In modern warfare, which by its nature involves extensive aerial and electronic surveillance". That puts the emphasis of the ambiguity on the presence or otherwise of the comma. Possibly that is why the use of "that" at that juncture comes across as inappropriate?

[french frank]

Really. My living has not been in vain. The BBC has now changed its headline in the story about Judge Chutkan. I always notice now because I could never remember whether it was Chuktan or Chutkan and I have to think of chut-ney not chuk-ney. Pedantically, I posted links to Wikipedia, MSNBC and CNN in case they thought that they were right and I was wrong (which has happened in the past). Some of my corrections they just ignore, hence Result!!! . [Moral: don't let them get away with anything]

[Pulcinella]

Isn't which descriptive and that prescriptive (is that the term?)? And the 'which' bit often has parenthetical commas to help the sense.

The house that Jack built has a tiled roof.
The house, which Jack built, has a tiled roof.

[french frank]

Isn't which descriptive and that prescriptive (is that the term?)? And the 'which' bit often has parenthetical commas to help the sense.

The house that Jack built has a tiled roof.
The house, which Jack built, has a tiled roof.

I suppose the confusion stems from the fact that the difference in meaning between the two seems unimportant. The difference in emphasis can be explained but that doesn't change the meaning in a way that is significant. That, of course, refers to the example you give. In another example the distinction may perhaps be crucial.

[french frank]

I'm not wishing to make a political point here, you understand, but today my attention was caught by:

"I fully expect you to hold my government and I to account on delivering those goals." Why does it not instantly (w)ring the bells of wrongness and provoke a correction? ("I'm so sorry, what I meant to say was … ME")

[Serial_Apologist]

I'm not wishing to make a political point here, you understand, but today my attention was caught by:

"I fully expect you to hold my government and I to account on delivering those goals." Why does it not instantly (w)ring the bells of wrongness and provoke a correction? ("I'm so sorry, what I meant to say was … ME")

As a good Rastafarian he used "I" as an alibi for his own, er, accusative.

[gurnemanz]

I'm not wishing to make a political point here, you understand, but today my attention was caught by:

"I fully expect you to hold my government and I to account on delivering those goals." Why does it not instantly (w)ring the bells of wrongness and provoke a correction? ("I'm so sorry, what I meant to say was … ME")

It might be because this usage is a case of someone realising that "Me and my wife went to the pub last night" is wrong and that "my wife and I" is not only grammatically correct but also sounds more educated. This person then over-corrects in assuming that "my wife and I" is always correct (even when it is the direct object or comes after a preposition).