Re: [boost] [function types] New tag type logic

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-07-01 08:10:29

Jonathan Wakely <cow_at_[hidden]> writes:

> On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 10:57:57PM -0400, David Abrahams wrote:
>
>> Jonathan Wakely <cow_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> 
>> > On Wed, Jun 29, 2005 at 10:46:47AM -0400, David Abrahams wrote:
>> >
>> >> Lovely!  "which" should be "that," though, at least by U.S. English
>>                                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> >> rules" Normally, "which" should only follow a comma in a fragment that
>> >> could be removed without altering the meaning of a sentence, as in "I
>> >> felt lousy, which might have been good since I didn't want to go
>> >> anyway."
>> >
>> > That seems wrong to me.  A style-guide which requires that is being a
>> > bit picky IMHO.
>> 
>> Tell that to my publisher.
>
> :-)  fair enough
>
>
>> > c.f. Chambers:
>> > http://www.chambersharrap.co.uk/chambers/chref/chref.py/main?title=21st&query=which
>> > Your rule seems only to apply to the 3rd definition, which is not the
>> > sense in which Tobias is using "which".
>> 
>> British English has it's own, different, rules.
>
> Yes, that's true, although isn't Merriam-Webster American? Rob's quote
> supported my position.  

FWIW, my publisher's rule comes from The Chicago Manual of Style.
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/cmosfaq/cmosfaq.WhichvsThat.html

And here you can read both sides of the argument, with the author landing
squarely on the other side:

  http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002124.html

This guy obviously finds Merriam Webster convincing and other
authorities, not.  And this

  http://www.worldwidewords.org/articles/which.htm

gives the "British perspective," which posits even more complicated
rules.
 
Personally, once I learned the rule nothing else sounds right to me.
It's a curse, I suppose, because about 1/4 of the uses of "which" that
I read jangle in my ear.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com