Forum: Author Hangout

My rule of thumb is, ALWAYS use "which" whenever you can get away with it

I give that one my THUMBS UP! ;)

Which reminds me of most politically-incorrect and gross line I have ever managed to write. It answers the question of how to decide whether children who are too young to understand language are old enough for sex: ... it is always best to apply the General Rule of Thumb: does your thumb fit? :(

The words are totally interchangeable in the sentence above, but most English professors marking and essay would insist on you using the word that in the sentence.

I know I will come to regret having dived into this one. :)

If they are totally interchangeable in the vernacular (and obviously this would not apply to dialogue), I see no reason for not preferring what the professors consider "correct". Yes, choices like that may only be mandatory in formal writing, but why would you choose something that you know will be jarring to some readers when the choice does not matter to you?

I will amend my original question to: Does anyone know what anal academics prefer for choices between: that, which, it, and this?

If you can use "which", use it, as it's always better simply because it's not as overused.

I agree it always best to do almost anything consistently.
As an objective, minimising the overuse of 'that' is certainly a laudable one.
The dictionary.com listing of 'that' provides 6 meanings as a pronoun, 3 as an adverb, 3 as an adjective, and 2 as a conjunction.
Even if you find and delete all the times your computer has slipped extra ones while you weren't watching, it still has very many legitimate and necessary uses.

Thanks for the constructive suggestions.

You should use the one that is appropriate.

You should use the one which is appropriate.

The words are totally interchangeable in the sentence above, but most English professors marking and essay would insist on you using the word that in the sentence.

In my (totally ignorant) view the sentence implies that there is a choice to be made. When you are choosing one of several alternatives "which" appears more appropriate.

I do wonder about professors in ivory towers, especially as ivory is banned

In my (totally ignorant) view the sentence implies that there is a choice to be made. When you are choosing one of several alternatives "which" appears more appropriate.

That suggests what anal academics "know" is correct is the direct opposite of what 'appears more appropriate' to others.
'Choosing one of several alternatives' is precisely how academics define "restrictive" use, and they insist 'that' is correct when use is restrictive, and "which" for anything else.

If it made no difference to non-academic readers, my inclination would be to do what the academics do. If non-academic readers favour the opposite interpretation to academics it's probably wise to not make decisions based on whether or not it is restrictive (a choice).
Which suggests what CW does makes good sense, i.e. preferring any alternative to 'that' which does not sound wrong.

You should use the one which is appropriate.
I think 'which' sounds more natural in this case.

That's another voter who says they do the opposite thing to academics.

I just noticed that "which is" cannot reasonably be contracted, while "this is" in the same sentence can be.

Formal writing is for business letters, technical works, text books. Stories written in formal English don't flow, sound stilted, and aren't as enjoyable as stories written in the vernacular.

I know that. You know I know that.
I'm asking about a simple word choice here, this word or that word, maybe which words? Whatever it is.
There's no reason to assume I've been converted by the Dark Side just because I'm asking what they would do in specific situations.

It's basically: "If everyone does it wrong, we'll say it's correct so they are no longer wrong."

And perhaps 50 years later, CMOS will say, "It's still wrong, but we will no longer send out a team to hunt you down and castrate you if you do it."

English is a moving target (or evolving) not because something new is discovered, but because people use grammar incorrectly and when enough people do that the rules change to accommodate the incorrect use (so it's now acceptable).

It's basically: "If everyone does it wrong, we'll say it's correct so they are no longer wrong."

Treason never prospers, for if it does prosper, none dare call it treason.

every young adult (from 14 to 28) insists of speaking so they're 'old folks' can't understand them

So how did you speak approximately 32 to 46 years ago?

At one point she said she didn't mean to dis him. He jumped all over her until she showed it to him in the dictionary.

My dictionary 'as 'dis' too, but it donna 'ave dat. 'Ow do Cajuns cope wid dat?

My dictionary 'as 'dis' too, but it donna 'ave dat. 'Ow do Cajuns cope wid dat?

My understanding is that Cajun stems from the so-called French which Canadian residents took with them when they were chucked out of Canada. Of course it has been mixed up with other languages but perhaps it is a separate language deserving of a separate dictionary just as Texas Spanish should have its own dictionary or International Drive should have a Portuguese dictionary?

In this context my son-in-law showed me his dictionary of Yorkshire to English. One third of the words were mispronounced English but the couple of pages I checked every non-"English" word was in my Norwegian dictionary with the same meaning. Therefore is "Yorkshire" English, Norwegian or Yorkshire? Similarly Cajun?

Therefore is "Yorkshire" English, Norwegian or Yorkshire?

I was just 'at Play', and have no facts to justify my post. I just looked up "dis 'n' dat" and found "Cajuns" ... the rest is pure crap I invented.

You have real history in your post. Danish Vikings ruled and procreated across Yorkshire for roughly the entire tenth century. Was the language of Danish Vikings similar to Norwegian now? Probably. Fwom wo' I've 'eard, wun bludy Viking's da same as d'udder blud-dursty wun.

A (now deceased) friend of mine was captured during WWII and placed in a POW camp. He escaped and reached Denmark. Although he couldn't understand the written language, he didn't have too much problem with the spoken side due to the fact it was so close to his native Yorkshire accent.
(Yorkshiremen are also known as tykes, which is another word for mongrel. Is that possibly connected to the Viking settlements and interbreeding?)
Which makes me wonder if Geordies would be understood in Denmark or Norway, because sure as hell the English find them difficult to understand even when they are sober.

Yorkshiremen are also known as tykes, which is another word for mongrel.

According to dictionary.com, the origin was an Old Norse word, tik, meaning bitch.

Curiously, Australians adopted the word during WWII as a derogatory term for Roman Catholics - as if we didn't have enough derogatory terms for them already.

... because sure as hell the English find (Geordies) difficult to understand even when they are sober.

How long did it take you to find one who was sober to test that theory?

About half as long as it took him to find a geordie female over 11 who was still a virgin

Like!
And your methodology for that search was ... ?

(Yorkshiremen are also known as tykes, which is another word for mongrel. Is that possibly connected to the Viking settlements and interbreeding?)

Tyke in Norwegian means thick or dense. It had this same meaning in South Devon when referring to a youth.

Tyke in Norwegian means thick or dense. It had this same meaning in South Devon when referring to a youth.

My son just became a teen and has definitely started acting like a Tyke (Tykish?). ;)

My Yorkshire born-and-bred relatives use tyke to mean a young child.

Now that has been mentioned, it seems a very familiar use to me in Australia. Perhaps a teenager among adults, but always young.

You have real history in your post. Danish Vikings ruled and procreated across Yorkshire for roughly the entire tenth century. Was the language of Danish Vikings similar to Norwegian now? Probably. Fwom wo' I've 'eard, wun bludy Viking's da same as d'udder blud-dursty wun.

I learned Norwegian up in the north where they used an old form **. Later I attended a wedding in Denmark close to the German border. Apart from making them slow down the Danish bride's family and friends and I could understand each other with no problem.

**That form was in use before the changes to remove Danish and Swedish influences. .

Cajun stems from the so-called French which Canadian residents took with them when they were chucked out of Canada

But Louisiana was originally a French territory. Surely French would have been spoken there before the French lost Canada.

AJ

Cajun stems from the so-called French which Canadian residents took with them when they were chucked out of Canada

But Louisiana was originally a French territory. Surely French would have been spoken there before the French lost Canada.

Quite a bit more complicated than that.

I started off with a smattering of info from a Cajun transplanted elsewhere in the USA who is an SOL author.

A few important dates:

1682 - 1762 Louisiana was French

1762 - 1802 Louisiana was Spanish

1802 Spain returned Louisiana to France

1803 the Louisiana Purchase (by the fledgling USA)

1789 the start of the French Revolution.

Up to the French Revolution France had two language systems, each with multiple local dialects. They were known by the word for yes: Oc and Oïl. **

Canada was populated by people from the north west of France and spoke a variant of Oïl; I don't know about the Louisiana settlers but they were there before the Revolution (which is critical).

With the Revolution an old idea of a standard language was enforced - it was an amalgam of five patois from the Paris area. This was/is French (Français). Thus French as we know it would not have been spoken in Louisiana.

** For those who speak/read French here is a page in an Oïl patois called Jerrais which is still an official national language (maintained by an OB I was at school with!)

http://members.societe-jersiaise.org/geraint/jerriais.html

For those who speak/read Spanish here is a sample of one of the nine major patois of Oc which is still the national language of Andorre and Cataluña and is still used in southern France

http://www.iec.cat/activitats/entrada.asp

edited for more clarity

Don't get me started on "it".

Any suggestions on how you choose when you're stuck in between a lion (that) and a tiger (it)?

What am I missing? "That" and "it" aren't the same. Both a lion and tiger are "it."

They are indeed not the same. What you are "missing" is it's not clear to me what the distinction between them is.
It is simple that 'it' is preferred for physical objects, but it is not as simple as that! If you know what I mean? I really don;t know.

Choosing the Right Pronoun: I prefer SHIT, S[He]/IT. 'D

Or the Third-Person Impersonal Pronouns: pee, spew or spit.