Forum: Author Hangout

LOL

Seriously, there is a big difference between using the 'N' word in conversation these days and including it in a historical story where its use was both common and unquestioned.

There's also a BIG difference between the "N" word we're all thinking about and the acceptable racial distinction common at the time, which was "negro" (taken from "negroid", which itself was coined when Europe and Americas both thought that blacks were so intellectually deficient, that abject slavery was the best think whites could do for them!).

At the time (1600s all the way to the 1970s) is was THE official designation, however it wasn't during the 1980s, where it was widely recognized just how insulting and demeaning both terms had become.

But in earlier times, and for many who retained what they were taught as children in later years, using "Negro" was perfectly acceptable and normal, and usually carried no animosity.

Aussies aren't renowned for their couthiness, certainly not me, and the only words I really baulk at using are the n-word and the N-word.

"no" and "NYET!"? "nine" and "Ninny"? "nonconformist" and "NOXIOUS!!!"?

When used in context, it is perfectly acceptable. It is when the word is used to denigrate or purposely insult (the reader) that it becomes an issue.

To me, in context includes historical use or events, if used because it's correct for the time frame, why censor it? That is as idiotic as airbrushing out Churchill's cigar to fit the anti smoking ethos.

What you're suggesting makes sense, but I'm guessing that the context that Michael Loucks is using it is derogatory, and is usage is historically accurate, since that's what white's traditionally shouted at blacks at the time (I lived in the south at the time (late 60s & 70s, though I visited throughout the period you're writing about), so I speak from experience).

Yet, if that is his intent, then his usage of the phrase makes it more powerful (i.e. effective), because it highlights the abuse and hatreds of the time.

Thus I'd say, yes, the warnings are beneficial, though I'd also add in a few lines at the start of the story talking about the times just to set the stage.

And Michael, if I'm reading more into your statement than you intended, I apologize. It just felt like that was the direction you were heading in.

You seem to have missed the part I put in brackets. What I said was;

When used in context, it is perfectly acceptable. It is when the word is used to denigrate or purposely insult (the reader) that it becomes an issue.

Yes it is possible the term is being used by one character to insult another character, so what? They are both fictional. If that word was used at that point in history, it's factual, in context and therefore correct.

I recognized what you had in brackets, but it seemed you were missing the main point (that the usage was intended to insult).

As for setting the stage etc. Why? Is the reader presumed to be ignorant of recent history? Why blow it up out of all proportion?

That's why I changed my stance, suggesting they include a note about 'using language in use at the time' rather than a note about the specific word. That just seems like a better route to take, while it also warns readers they may take offense to the use of the word (again, it's a squick warning for when there are to tags you can use).

So basically pussyfoot around, warning about something unstated, that's not a million miles from news at eleven putting out warnings just so everybody tunes in to watch.

Alternatively why not just airbrush the whole issue out, ignore it, censor it, and leave younger people wondering exactly why it was important that some old guy 'had a dream" ??

I'm sorry, but I'm confused. Are we arguing different things, or the same thing? At this point, you're essentially shouting at the choir while ignoring the congregation, who you're trying to convert.

Ok, let's try once more, could you please answer the question I asked that you skipped over with biblical aplomb.

You stated:

I recognized what you had in brackets, but it seemed you were missing the main point (that the usage was intended to insult).

And I asked:

Intended to insult who? The fictional character or the reader?

Sorry. Looking over that post, I'd clearly meant to respond, but I'm assuming the response to that post got erased before it posted.

I'd meant that the usage in the story was supposedly an insulting reference (ex: "You camn N***!", rather than "The Negro has many admirable traits").

And what I meant by 'you don't get my point' was that I wasn't trying for political correctness or tiptoeing around issues, but that the more direct reference spoiled the entire purpose of using the reference in the story, robbing it of it's impact, while including the language warning simply alerts readers that it may be a personal squick.

Even then, the warning is more of a license to unload on the reader if they choose to ignore it and then bitch and moan about it afterwards.

Anyone who uses the word 'that' in bold font deserves all that they get.

Ha-ha. I agree. Michael should keep his use of the "N" word (whichever it might be), but delete the majority of his uses of "that"! 'D

Ha-ha. I agree. Michael should keep his use of the "N" word (whichever it might be), but delete the majority of his uses of "that"! 'D

I am a ruthless deleter of 'that' from the English language, whether written or spoken. It is almost never needed! 😛

I am a ruthless deleter of 'that' from the English language, whether written or spoken. It is almost never needed! 😛

That hatred of the word that is a hatred that is well deserved, as that "that" usage is that which shall not be spoken! 😛

I don't care, I just wanted to see steam coming out of Michael's ears...

Actually I'll settle for his 'deleter' catching fire due to friction.

Not gonna happen! I'm quite capable of taking a joke and making fun of myself. Or letting others do the same. LIfe is much more enjoyable when you just let things go and can find humor directed at you funny.

In fact, the only things I can't tolerate are ignorance, stupidity, or being a 'snowflake'.

Oh, I don't mind snowflakes as long as they're falling from the sky.

I don't know, the polar bears don't seem to like it for shit unless they want a snack. lol

I don't know now. What flavor would whiner be?

When was the last time you saw a polar bear turn down an easy snack?

Hell, I was at the zoo in Indianapolis with my kids many, many years ago. They have a polar bear enclosure with part of it below the water level and about 12" thick glass so you can watch the polar bears swim. A little girl walked up to the glass to see the bears. One of them jumped from an overhanging rock into the water and bounced off the glass, hard. The little girls mother said, "Oh, look, he wants to play with you!" Smart ass that I am, I said, "Nope, he wants to eat you." Mom was NOT happy with me.

Lol, a gorilla did the same thing to my daughter. she wouldn't go to the monkey house for several years. She was traumatized. She knew the big bad Gorilla wanted to kick her ass. lol

In fact, the only things I can't tolerate are ignorance, stupidity, or being a 'snowflake'.

And when someone is an ignorant, stupid snowflake, then all bets are off! 'D

And when someone is an ignorant, stupid snowflake, then all bets are off! 'D

Oh no, just read AWLL and you'll see. But you'll need to slog through about 3.5 million words of the MC being stupid to get to the point where he can reasonably go off on OTHER people being stupid!

I don't care, I just wanted to see steam coming out of Michael's ears...

Usually I put them in, an approach that would have been popular with the story writers of old who got paid by the word. However my reasoning is based on science (boooo, hissss, dirty word, science has no place in creative writing etc.)

AJ

However my reasoning is based on science (boooo, hissss, dirty word, science has no place in creative writing etc.)

Sorry, but you lost me. You put "that"s in because of science?

Most recent writing suggests that the word is mostly a filler word, adding extra words (as you suggest) but not changing the meaning of the sentence at all. Or do you mean by 'science' that you include them to clarify, rather than function alone?

But talk about picking nits (from earlier), what always drives me up a wall is when authors use "that" when they actually meant either "who", "what" or "which", depending on what they're referring to. If you're going to use a generic filler word, at least use the correct one, so readers don't have to parse what you intended * * * Flame Off * * *

what always drives me up a wall is when authors use "that" when they actually meant either "who", "what" or "which", depending on what they're referring to. If you're going to use a generic filler word, at least use the correct one, so readers don't have to parse what you intended

Even grammarians concede that they're largely interchangeable, but the crux of the issue is whether the subsequent clause is restrictive (that) or non-restrictive (which etc, requiring a preceding comma in US English). How many authors, or editors come to that, know the difference between restrictive and non-restrictive clauses?

AJ

Even grammarians concede that they're largely interchangeable, but the crux of the issue is whether the subsequent clause is restrictive (that) or non-restrictive (which etc, requiring a preceding comma in US English). How many authors, or editors come to that, know the difference between restrictive and non-restrictive clauses?

Even less restrictive/confusing are "who", when you're referring to a person, or "which", when you're referring to an item or animal (which requires no comma). Even more common is when authors actually mean "it" when they instead refer to "that". Once again, the majority of the uses are not only unnecessary, but are often flat out wrong. (Though I'll be the first to admit, I never knew any of this until I started to notice just how much I was over using it, and started researching it.)

Oh, and don't forget when people use "that" when they mean "when". In each case, during editing I try to clarify which I mean, and it makes eliminating many of the unnecessary uses much easier.

It's never going to be easy.

'That' exists as a pronoun, adverb, determiner, and conjunction.

That's understood. I'm not talking about eliminating any necessary references to that (including references to that which was just stated in an earlier sentence or sentence segment. But I've found that I can generally eliminate around 60 to 70% of my uses of that, and then by switching out "who", "which" and "when" I can generally eliminate another 10%. That's a LOT of unnecessary bloat (and those figures are based on my already knowing what not to include during the creative process.

But even after checking that each use is necessary, my editors often insist that I need to add more back in, say when a pronoun isn't clear. But it's better to trim as much as you can, and then if your editors have trouble following the sentences, then you add them back in.

I also like your 'verbal vomit' phrase. I'll have to steal it (so expect me to repeat it here on the Author's Forum a LOT! 'D) Again, this elimination process is easier for me, because I've got a handy tool flat flags each use of these and several other 'filler' words, so I can check each use by jumping from one to the next quickly. Without that, it's much more tedious wading through them all!

Even less restrictive/confusing are "who", when you're referring to a person, or "which", when you're referring to an item or animal (which requires no comma)

Brits are more likely to use 'who', including when referring to animals and occasionally when personifying inanimate objects. Americans are more likely to use 'that' - I don't think you can condemn it as wrong because it's common usage.

AJ

I checked ngrams and the differences between BrE and AmE are negligible.

I seriously doubt the difference (in the overall uses of "that" would even show as more than a minor blip in an ngram, even if you limited the search for purely fictional uses (say literary fiction written by dragons). 'D

Actually I only looked at the use of 'who'. I checked 'who' and 'Who', all books vs fiction, American vs British.

I did not bother looking at uses of 'that'. It is so ubiquitous that ngrams couldn't possibly tell you anything.

My point was, I doubt that the uses of "who" vs "that" between British English and American English likely wouldn't even be a blip on the radar for either word. It's just NOT a common enough usage to be meaningfully tracked. Besides, like you, I'm not at all convinced that there IS any significant difference in who uses "who" vs. "that". From everything I've observed, EVERYONE uses "that" way too much, so it's a common affliction.

I just don't believe that. Lol

Do you have anything which supports that?

I read it on a grammar website - no idea which one, there are so many. But previous forum discussions and different usage in stories by British and American authors on SOL seem confirmatory.

I checked ngrams

That's not necessarily helpful when trying to find differences between contemporary British and American literature.

AJ

Actually the usage seems to be rather an about-face by the Brits because, although now deprecated, 'that' was once the preferred usage rather than 'who'.

(Yet another factoid from a grammar website.)

AJ

Americans are more likely to use 'that' - I don't think you can condemn it as wrong because it's common usage.

No, it's not wrong, it's just imprecise. In normal speaking, or for normal missives, there's no sense being that specific. But when you spend as long editing something as most authors do, you can afford to be a bit more precise. Again, while it's a style choice, it isn't wrong to include it either. And once again, once you learn (train yourself) to recognize the differences, they're pretty easy to spot.

As an author, your first responsibility is to be true to your muse. I wouldn't allow my muse to get me imprisoned or kicked off of here. But I will allow her to hurt people's feelings all day long. If they don't like my work they are free not to read it.

That's a valid point, but Michael was asking whether there was a tag he could mark the story with. The initial disclaimer is simply a warning that the word is used, so that readers who might find it offensive can avoid it as a possible squick.

But reconsidering my initial stance, I'c rephrase the initial warning so that you don't mention the word at all, and simply state that "this story contains language appropriate during this time", and let readers make of that what they will, as that covers "ain't", "yous guys" and "all yous guys" too, but without calling attention to the use of the word in question so it'll still have it's full impact when you do employ it.

"this story contains language appropriate during this time"

Like damnyankee as one word and referring to The War Of Northern Aggression (from 1861 to 1865).

Precisely, or more directly appropriate, like Huck Finn using the term to describe the person he depended on to survive during their trip down the river.

The 'snowflakes' who get offended by that aren't objecting to the literary merit of the story, they're merely hoping to avoid discussing the issue with their kids until they're well into their 30s or 40s! In short, it's outright cowardice rather than 'political correctness'.

By the way, Richard, is there any other way to spell "damnyankee"? 'D

Like damnyankee as one word and referring to The War Of Northern Aggression (from 1861 to 1865).

In AWLL, there is a character, Stephie Grant (yes, on purpose) who is from Dawsonville, GA. And you can tell from her speech. She is full-on Southern, and doesn't apologize for it in any way. She first appears in AWLL in Book 6 - Kara I, and she's a lot of fun. She's good friends with, among other people, Bill Elliott, the NASCAR driver, so there's a full dose of "Good Ol' Boy" stuff in the story! Here's one passage:

"You're pretty smart for a Damnyankee, you know that?" she grinned.

"That sounds like one word when you say it," I teased.

"It is. I didn't know it was two words 'til I growed up. Our little town don't get too many Northerners, an' the ones we do are into racing. They got the money our boys need to run their cars so we put up with 'em. Otherwise, they can take their carpetbags and go home!"

"You do realize that it's been a hundred years since Reconstruction?" I asked.

"Yeah, but you Damnyankees still won't leave us alone!"

Of course, Steve objects to being called a Yankee because he was born in California...but you'll have to read to get her response to THAT! :-)

damnyankee

I resemble that remark.

And we didn't have racial tensions in my hometown or even in the entire county in Indiana when I was growing up. We also didn't have any black people living there. I think the first black family moved into the county in 1983 or so. We had Japanese-Americans - lots of guys brought home war brides.

Of course, I also suspect that having one of the highest Klan memberships outside of the deep south may have had something to do with it. A county near where I'm from was called White County for a reason - they had sundown signs up until the early '70's.

(Sundown signs, if you're not familiar with those, were signs posted at the borders of towns or counties. They would basically say that if you were an itinerant worker, gypsy, or black, that when the sun went down, you better not be in that town or county.)

I've seen those. Also, when I was doing industrial hog farming.some places didn't like us and had anti hoggy community signs. We had to stay in armed groups for our own safety because the locals would shoot at us day or night. It was fun times. The weird thing is I mean that.

Total side comment:

I was raised in the deep south from the time I was nine years old among elderly people whose grandparents had their farms burned and their women raped by those "Damned Yankees" during the war of Northern aggression. I knew people who spat on the ground if Lincoln's name was said.

I went native and am Southern through and through even though my ancestors wore blue because that is how I was raised.

So who's despicable, my northern people who ravaged my southern folk or my southern folk who were 57 years behind the times on the slavery issue when that wasn't even the main issue of the war?

All groups of people hate other groups for some reason or the other, just as at some time or another every individual experience hate for another person at least once in their life.

Just because I hate an individual or a group does not devalue me as a person. It is more a matter of If I hate the socially approved target of hatred or a socially disapproved target of hate that devalues me in a given society's sight or gives me social brownie points.

The thing is what society approves and disapproves changes if you live awhile. It's nothing to build a life on. That's why I laugh at it. I know what I believe and why.

I do not go out of my way to offend people, normally. I also give no consideration as to whether I am offending someone when I know by their actions or words they do not care if they are offending me. They have their right of expression and I have mine. Which is how it should be.

I was raised in the deep south from the time

I mentioned in the warning that today's Southerners weren't the way they were depicted in the story. But when you watch movies like "Mississippi Burning" and "A Time to Kill" there is a history there.

They shouldn't spit when they hear the name Lincoln. His plan was to bring the two sides together after the war. He was going to rebuild the South. But after he was assassinated, his successor decided to punish the Southerners for the war. So if Lincoln hadn't been killed, what they experienced might not have happened.

Umm Lincoln was alive and well as president when It happened. When I was child you could still find cannonball in the forest and dig bullets out of the trees. So yeah maybe they should have still spit. The bastards leveled the place.

They shouldn't spit when they hear the name Lincoln. His plan was to bring the two sides together after the war. He was going to rebuild the South. But after he was assassinated, his successor decided to punish the Southerners for the war. So if Lincoln hadn't been killed, what they experienced might not have happened.

It's worse than that. Yes, Lincoln did plan to reunite the two sides and rebuild the devastated south, but after Johnson (the first Pres. Johnson)rushed in to 'punish' the South, he later 'changed his mind', and rather than continue Lincoln's plan, he simply abandoned the South altogether as a 'lost cause', and never attempted to set things right, or reform the continuing racial bias that still exists today.

The blame on both fronts rests entirely on Johnson. Lincoln had the right idea, but never bothered spelling it out before he was shot!

@awnlee:

Note - Negro is a brand of blackwater extract, used by aquarists keeping fish from a peaty environment. In the language of the manufacturer it simply means black, devoid of pejorative connotations.

At this point, "Negro" is a brand name for a whole range of currently selling products, mostly in reference to the product's dark color, rather than their consumers'.

the slavery issue when that wasn't even the main issue of the war?

"The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. . . . Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth." - Alexander Stephens, vice-president of the Confederates, March 21, 1861.

----

"The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States." -- Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union

----

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. " - Mississippi Declaration of Secession

---

"The servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator." -Texas Declaration of Secession

---
The traitors made it quite clear: slavery was why they committed treason.

The traitors made it quite clear: slavery was why they committed treason.

"Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason?
Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason."

While slavery was mentioned in all the declarations of secession, ultimately the reason it was there was due to the 10th Amendment of the Constitution.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

At the time of the start of the Civil War ... indeed, up until 1865 ... slavery was LEGAL in the United States. So while slavery was the issue, the actual CAUSE of the Civil War was States Rights versus the Federal Government.

The facts are most Southerners didn't own slaves. They were expensive to buy and to upkeep. While beatings and rape did occur it wasn't anywhere near as common as people made out for several reasons.

1. Most folks were serious about their Christian faith and did not go about being cruel to others, even Negroes.

2. Negroes were seen as an investment. One does not beat or upset your equipment. You want them as happy and content as you can reasonably get them. As a matter of point, records show most slaves had a better material life(food, clothing, housing) than Northern inner city Whites. They could also own side businesses and save money to buy their freedom. They were often given the equivalent status of extended family members. One of my great grandfathers owned a slave named Uncle Joe. Once, when times got hard. My great grandfather considered selling him. Uncle Joe begged not to be sold. He liked it right where he was. Many slaves stayed on where they were when they could after emancipation. They didn't WANT to leave. They just started getting a payday and not much of one either. Their former owners couldn't afford it. They had to work together to survive after the Damned Yankees were done.

3. Sleeping with a Negro would all, but damn you in the sight of your White neighbors. It just wasn't done. Even as a child I knew if I dated outside my race it was to the bottom of the White Trash heap for me. It was a stigma that never washed off either. It was the late 1980's before that started to change. I don't even want to think about before 1860.

Several Northern States had threatened to secede from the Union over various grievances, yet no one was calling them traitors. Doesn't matter much to me as my clan arrived here in the 1600's anyway. Our philosophy has been Clan before King since way before then. The point is The CSA felt the USA was not keeping it's part of the deal and therfore were betraying THEM. They felt they had no other choice than to physically defend their freedom. I'll not fault them. If it was 1861 and I was still me. I'd fight for them. Besides it'd be kinda hard to join a Yankee regiment with a Southern accent LOL. That would be a short enlistment at the end of a shorter rope. lol

The CSA felt the USA was not keeping it's part of the deal and therfore were betraying THEM.

Do not forget the Tariff of Abominations, which was the root cause of much Southern ire at the North. That led directly to the Nullification Crisis, when South Carolina (where else have we seen this?) decided they'd had enough.

That led to the Gag Rule crisis, and things spiraled out of control from there.

In the end, it was more economics and regional power than anything which caused the Civil War.

Michael,

A lot of my historical knowledge has went away, but in college, I had a wonderful teacher. He made it come alive for us. I wouldn't swear that he couldn't tell us what color Gen. Washington's drawers were the night he crossed the Delaware. One of the stories he told us was of the Confederate Angel. Are you familiar with him?

I have also been privileged to visit the grave of the youngest Confederate General.

Darian,

I had a similar teacher in High School. He appears, by reference, as 'Mr. Black' in my story 'Good Medicine' which will be posted starting Dec 1. The knowledge that man had of American history (and general trivia) was encyclopedic!

If you are referring to the Angel of Marye's Heights, then I do indeed know to whom you are referring.

That's him though I had to check Wikipedia to make sure. Im sure the Yanks had their angels too.

I have also been privileged to visit the grave of the youngest Confederate General.

Alas, he's not so young anymore!

The point is The CSA felt the USA was not keeping it's part of the deal and therfore were betraying THEM. They felt they had no other choice than to physically defend their freedom. I'll not fault them. If it was 1861 and I was still me. I'd fight for them.

Not going to find an argument from me with you about this. Actually, I pretty much agree with you. History is written by the winners. But if you have actually learned how to learn, instead of simply following the Pavlovian education system of parroting what is fed to you, then you'll find things a bit different.

When I was growing up, every year my parents would go visit relatives in Florida and sometimes we'd go to Texas as well. (Foot note to history - my grandfather was the head of maintenance, and thus, the head of security at Parkland Hospital in November of 1963. I have his Dallas Special Police badge. One of my cousins has his handkerchief that he dipped in JFK's blood.) Anyway, since this was a LONG trip, we'd stop somewhere along the way. And we'd do odd trips, with relatives also in Virginia.

So I've been to Shiloh, Gettysburg, along the Natchez Trace, Chickamauga, Chattanooga, and walked the rows at Arlington. I completely understand why it's called the War of Northern Aggression - and I agree with that description. Even though he disagreed with slavery, Lincoln himself said, "Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears.
The South would be in no more danger in this respect than it was in the days of Washington. I suppose, however, this does not meet the case. You think slavery is right and should be extended; while we think slavery is wrong and ought to be restricted. That I suppose is the rub. It certainly is the only substantial difference between us."

But that difference was based upon having a strong central government, versus the states allowing the government to have only that power given to it. Which is pretty much the same situation we find ourselves in today.

There is, in fact, a technical term for that kind of injustice: democracy.

Which is exactly why the Founders didn't set up a pure democracy. If a small majority may impose its unbound will unilaterally on a minority, that is tyranny.

Pure democracy is nothing but mob rule and the tyranny of the majority.

I have no idea what you mean by 'pure democracy' - I care even less.

A straight, one-person, one-vote system where 50%+1 can do anything they wish, with no restrictions.

A straight, one-person, one-vote system where 50%+1 can do anything they wish, with no restrictions.

Not necessarily. American has never been a 'pure' democracy, despite having plentiful protections for the rights of individuals.

Instead, the difference between pure and impure democracies rest on whether the people vote on the issues themselves, or whether they simply vote for the people who WILL make the final decision.

Which is exactly why the Founders didn't set up a pure democracy. If a small majority may impose its unbound will unilaterally on a minority, that is tyranny.

Except, we're talking two different approaches. 1) America has never been a democracy, but a Representational Democracy (everyone votes for who represents them, while the Senate (2 senators, regardless of the population in the state) was a compromise with slave states to get them to accept the early Constitution, and thus was intended to protect them as the expense of the blacks they were enslaving at the time. That's hardly a decent argument for the 'rule of law' argument.

Except, we're talking two different approaches. 1) America has never been a democracy, but a Representational Democracy (everyone votes for who represents them, while the Senate (2 senators, regardless of the population in the state) was a compromise with slave states to get them to accept the early Constitution, and thus was intended to protect them as the expense of the blacks they were enslaving at the time. That's hardly a decent argument for the 'rule of law' argument.

Absolutely not the case. It was set up so that VA and MA couldn't dominate the entire country in the short term. A purely representational system was rejected by states such as CT, DE, RI, PA and others.

The Senate was NOT about slavery, no matter what modern revisionists try to say. At the time of the convention, the South was growing far more quickly than the North. SC, NC, and GA were small in the 1780s, but they expected growth, and thus favored proportional representation.

The House, on the other hand, WAS manipulated by slavery (i.e. 3/5 of 'other persons').

The Senate was NOT about slavery, no matter what modern revisionists try to say.

You're mincing words. The Constitution would NEVER have been passed in the first place if NOT for the Great (or Connecticut) Compromise of 1787, and the ENTIRE states rights vs. Federal rights argument rests squarely on it's shoulders (i.e. if NOT for that one compromise, the Southern slave holding States (or the more recent openly racist alt-right sites) wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on).

But, as always, it's utterly pointless to argue over these issues, because one side always insists that their arguments have nothing to do with slavery/race, while the other keeps pointing out that, somehow, it's always involved in the cases it figures the most prominently in.

But I'm done. I just got timed of seeing the two of you arguing over historical trivia, while glossing over the obvious exceptions to your arguments. But it's clear I'm never going to change anyone's mind here. (Besides, why does EVERYONE keep bringing up these discussions in the midst of unrelated topics? Why not dedicate an ENTIRE thread to JUST this one issue, so you can leave the REST of us alone as you argue it to death amongst yourselves?)

You're mincing words. The Constitution would NEVER have been passed in the first place if NOT for the Great (or Connecticut) Compromise of 1787, and the ENTIRE states rights vs. Federal rights argument rests squarely on it's shoulders (i.e. if NOT for that one compromise, the Southern slave holding States (or the more recent openly racist alt-right sites) wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on).

A perverse reading BACK into history. A common error. Read the facts.

The slave holding states didn't want the Senate any more than the small northern states.

But, as you say, it's impossible to convince someone who has made up their mind, even when you present facts.

There is, in fact, a technical term for that kind of injustice: democracy.

My objections, but more succinctly (and less obnoxiously) stated. Kudos!

Either way, the individual is losing.

The perverse implementation of Human Rights laws in some countries means the boot is on the other foot.

AJ

The perverse implementation of Human Rights laws in some countries means the boot is on the other foot.

Maybe, but the jackboot is always heaviest when compared to the weak protections imposed after the fact by the courts.

Either way, the individual is losing.

It all depends on how you define 'individual'. If you mean 'the majority of people', then the states rights argument wins, since it represents the rights of most of the individuals, but if you mean the rights of individuals (i.e. the right to not be oppressed by the majority), then the federal arguments reign supreme, as the phrasing protects against specific abuses, rather than conveying rights to specific groups.

(i.e. the 'Federal' standard hurt the rights of the whites (or Christians) to impose their views on everyone else, but it protects the rights of the oppressed to object in court).

I put a note at the top of my story "Death of a Hero."

Not to be overly critical, but I'd reconsider that warning too. For many readers, the very 'need' to make your bad guys as 'despicable' as possible is the source of the problem, rather than the solution to it.

Again, I'd use a more generic disclaimer about using the appropriate language for the setting and leave it at that. If questioned, you can always say "I kept the character's language appropriate for the story's context, as you were warning in my disclaimer."

bad guys as 'despicable' as possible

It's necessary to justify the vigilante killing and torture. Same as the Russian gang members in the novel "Steele Justice."

It's necessary to justify the vigilante killing and torture. Same as the Russian gang members in the novel "Steele Justice."

Oh, I understand. But once again, I believe in anticipating trouble so you can soften it's blow. Since many dislike such 'revenge' killing stories (everyone seems to like Batman, but dislikes the whole "Death Wish" franchise), I'd just soften the warning a bit. But just enough so readers know they'd want to go elsewhere.

But then again, your readers are unlikely to object, since you don't choose those types of stories if you already have a problem with them. But again, it's more a matter of not spoiling the surprises with an overly specific warning when a more general one should accomplish the same thing.

but dislikes the whole "Death Wish"

I loved "Death Wish." Loved "V for Vendetta." "John Wick?" So-so. A little over the top. Loved "The Count of Monte Crisco" although that was more revenge than vigilante.

The theme of my novel "Sexual Awakening" is revenge. It also has a vigilante cop in it. My novel "Steele Justice" is sort of vigilante in that he has no problem killing bad guys. That's what this short story with the same character is. Also the novel I'm writing.

It's not for everyone, hence the warning.

In your situation I'd probably put 'Uses the n-word' in the story description so readers don't even have to download the story to know it might offend them.

Another option is to cross post to Finestories (which automatically sensors particular words). In that case, you can simply suggest that anyone upset over 'the appropriate language of the time' can visit the more sanitized version of the story.

That way, you're not 'santizing' your story, but if readers do visit the FS version, they'll know precisely what's being referred to when they encounter it.

By the way, kudos to Lazeez, because his 'sanitizing' routine does an excellent job of changing the words in questions while also making it clear which words they were!

In case no one noticed, Negro is also an N word.

So is necrophilia. Try getting a necrophilic romance past Amazon ;)

(Note - Negro is a brand of blackwater extract, used by aquarists keeping fish from a peaty environment. In the language of the manufacturer it simply means black, devoid of pejorative connotations.)

AJ

I doubt I can support my theory, but I first heard this verse (?) in Hampton, Virginia, and I assumed the Institute was Hampton Institute, a college for what at that time were colored people."

That time was in the late 1950s and early 1960s. NAACP where CP is colored people. In case no one noticed, Negro is also an N word.

Ah, I remember both well, though I arrived there (Virginia Beach) in '64 at the tender age of seven. Apparently the song lived long after, as I'd occasionally hear it repeated.

There's the "caution" tag.

I had considered that, but for two uses in 450,000 words, that seems, well, overkill. I think I'll simply note that there is 'era-appropriate' language (as suggested by several people in the thread) and leave it at that.

I'm also enough of a cranky old bastard to tell off anyone who comes crying about their dainty ears and offended sensibilities. Bitch about lousy storytelling or bad character development, and I'll listen. Go 'snowflake' and you get both barrels of the over-and-under. And it ain't rock salt.

Lol I saw a teenager get an ass full of rock salt one night. He was trespassing on my neighbors place. It was awesome.

Lol I saw a teenager get an ass full of rock salt one night. He was trespassing on my neighbors place. It was awesome.

That was a common occurrence when I was young. In any school I attended in the South, there were always several kids who'd been shot in the ass with rock salt.

By the way, the Southerns generally saved their precious steel shot for blacks.

I learned from their example. When somebody said leave. I left. No scars on my bottom. lol.

Now, in my town in my time, we didn't have a lot of serious interracial violence. That's not counting ass beatings. but you were liable to get those anyways. Anyhow, one day the Klan marched through town in broad daylight and stirred some shit.

A buddy of mine was down there on some business and a bunch of black young men was angry. They decided to kick his ass because they were mad at the Klan. He pulled a chainsaw out of the back of his pickup and fired it up and all of a sudden they didn't want any. He said he was mighty scared those first three pulls when it didn't crank. lol

I'm also enough of a cranky old bastard to tell off anyone who comes crying about their dainty ears and offended sensibilities.

That's the main benefit to the first chapter 'notice'. When they complain, you're justified in going full bore. But you're right, flagging the entire story as a squick, when the word is only used twice, and in a non-sexual context (the tag actually relates to sexual stereotypes, like BBM stories) is overkill, while focusing on the specific word is a story spoiler.

While you want to warn readers, you don't want to start apologizing for your story before anyone has even read it yet.

Yes. Others have been using words like 'caution' and 'warning' in this discussion. I agree that the right word to use is 'disclaimer'.

The difference in terminology is because there are distinct SOL caution, notice and warning tags, which each do slightly different things (though I'm unsure on the last of those). Some of the references are just the author's preferred visual choices.

If people are offended by reading a word in an appropriate context, they need to stop reading.

Hence the non-specific warning about 'language'.

Be true to your art.

That should always be your creed, but it doesn't hurt warning said snowflakes that they probably don't want to read the story in the first place.

After all, a whiner diverted is another pointless battle averted.

Both clauses? I can only see one: the entire text of their example.

I noticed that, but I assumed the blogger was trying (and failed) to simplify matters.

You seem obsessed with the term 'noun phrase'. A clause contains a minimum of a subject and a predicate (which itself contains a minimum of a verb) and it is not a phrase.

AJ

There's nothing I can do if you can't cope with me describing something like 'she was satisfied' as a direct object, a clause, and a noun phrase when considering different components of the same sentence. It is all three of those things in that example sentence.

A noun phrase is a group of words serving the function of a noun. I'm finding it very difficult to think of a context where 'she was satisfied' functions as a noun.

Perhaps you could supply some examples?

AJ

Sure. 'She said she was satisfied.'

Very good, 'she was satisfied' does function as a noun constituting the direct object of a verb.

The direct object of a verb must be (functioning as) a noun (phrase).

No, the direct object of a transitive verb must function as a noun. 'she was satisfied' is a clause which functions as a noun, it does not function as a noun phrase.

AJ

In my terminology, 'noun phrase' means one or more words which function as if a noun.

I just hate the concept of a noun clause functioning as a noun phrase functioning as a noun. It seems like trying too hard to structure English like a designed language, plus some grammarians don't seem to accept that clauses can be phrases.

AJ

Well, your tree structure probably gives a better chance of a decent grammar checker than Microsoft's current offering. Of course, you'll probably have to live to at least a thousand to finish it and program in a respectable number of exceptions :(

AJ

I kind of hope that nothing is ever found which provides a more suitable way of understanding natural languages: the computers would have no need for us humans anymore.

Or authors have any need of editors? 'D

I sometimes write 'noun' for simplicity, but in my mind they are all 'noun phrases'.

Including, in certain circumstances, single words (ex: "That is preposterous!", where 'that' serves as a noun phrase, where the 'phrase' is 'whatever we were just discussing').

You seem obsessed with the term 'noun phrase'. A clause contains a minimum of a subject and a predicate (which itself contains a minimum of a verb) and it is not a phrase.

'noun phrase' simply means that the word acts as a noun. So in "That was unnecessary!", 'that' serves as the noun in the sentence, which pairs with the verb ('is'), making it a complete sentence.

'noun phrase' simply means that the word acts as a noun. So in "That was unnecessary!", 'that' serves as the noun in the sentence, which pairs with the verb ('is'), making it a complete sentence.

In that context, 'That' is a pronoun so it is most definitely not doing any acting.

AJ

Granted, this is unnecessary, but 'that' is the subject of that sentence.

And 'this' is the subject of that sentence ;)

How about a thread of incomprehensible grammarian in-jokes? ;)

AJ

An oxymoron walked into a bar. The silence was deafening.

AJ

A hyperbole walked into a bar with all the cares of the world on its shoulders.

AJ

A simile walked into a bar with a face like thunder.

AJ

"Get out," he said, "neither of you has anything original to say, but he has an official stamp of approval to be here."

Observation 1:

That looks like an example of a hidden comma splice. Move the 'he said' to the front and you get: He said, "Get out, neither of you has anything original to say, but he has an official stamp of approval to be here."
Better (IMO) would be: "Get out," he said. "Neither of you has anything original to say, but he has an official stamp of approval to be here."

Observation 2:

'Neither' is the subject and singular, but the verb takes the cardinality of the nearest noun which in this case is the plural 'you', so even better (IMO) would be : "Get out," he said. "Neither of you have anything original to say, but he has an official stamp of approval to be here."

Nice joke, though ;)

AJ

I agree 'neither' is singular and 'you' is plural, but I'm sceptical the verb should agree with 'you'.

On the first page of a google search, less than half the relevant links were detailed enough to be that specific. Here's a couple:

https://theeditorsblog.net/2015/09/12/either-neither-and-subject-verb-agreement/

https://languagetips.wordpress.com/2008/08/07/weekly-language-usage-tips-neither-singular-or-plural-historic-vs-historical/

One of us is wrong. :-)

Not necessarily, it's just a best-fit rule to explain the majority of historical usage. And given the number of SOL authors who wrongly write 'me either', I'm pretty sure no-one here gives a fig about this level of precision :(

AJ

Neither of the brothers ... [neither is still singular]

Brothers is plural so the verb should be plural eg Neither of the brothers have a key.
OTOH
Neither brother has a key.

Anyone having fun yet? ;)

AJ

The Editor Blog reference you linked to is clear that 'Neither of the brothers' requires a singular verb.

Interesting, I missed that in the examples. The author claims that either/neither takes a singular verb when used to modify a singular subject, but 'brothers' is plural so can't be used to exemplify that rule.

We disagree on the interpretation of the Language Tips reference, but one of its examples - 'Neither of the roommates believe the rumors floating around.' - confirms my interpretation. I saw its rule 4 on another site I visited so I suspect that was copied from a more authoritative source.

AJ

When used with "nor" or, "of" the verb that follows should match the noun immediately preceding it

Doesn't 'the noun immediately preceding it' imply more than one noun?

That would be the 'either' or 'neither' IMO.

I think the original intention of that rule #4 was to apply in the second of these examples, but not the first.
Neither of the roommates believe the rumors floating around.

I disagree, but then I found more sites quoting the proximity rule.

Take away the 'of' and I believe the following is correct:
Neither roommate believes the rumors floating around.

AJ

Take away the 'of' and I believe the following is correct:
Neither roommate believes the rumors floating around.

By 'correct', I mean historically more common.

The 'proximity rule' is rather a leaky sieve:

Neither the girls nor I is interested in a camping weekend?????

AJ

Neither the girls nor I is interested in a camping weekend?????

Apologies, I'm a man so I can't 'talk' and debug computer models at the same time.

Here's an interesting link. Despite grammarian claims that 'neither' is singular, the majority usage treats it as plural.

http://www.macmillandictionaryblog.com/neither-was-or-neither-were

AJ

I looks like one where the rules say 'am' is correct - but it sounds so weird I'd go with the plural 'are'.

Yes, or reorder so the plural noun follows the 'nor'.

AJ

but I agree that 'nor am I' has always been the strongly preferred form

As long as we're discussing anomalies, how about 'nor be me'? 'D Good luck finding that phase in any ngram!

Nice joke, though ;)

That helps so much, after just ripping it to shreds. (Humor doesn't stand up to intensive deconstruction, nor was it ever intended to.) Next time, either chuckle or turn away, clever puns quickly die on their own anyway, as they have a very short shelf life.

I would have thought it a bit low if he'd taken apart anyone else's joke like that, but me? I'm always a fair target for such nitpicks. :-)

I was essentially 'nitpicking the nitpicker' (mostly in jest, so it wasn't a serious criticism), but it sounded similar to the all too-common political non-statements of 'I'm sorry that my words offended you' (not that they regret saying the hateful comments, instead they're merely blaming the victim for their offenses).

An arrogant, argumentative alliteration walked into a bar.

AJ

Ooh, a treasure trove:

A malapropism walks into a bar, looking for all intensive purposes like a wolf in cheap clothing, muttering epitaphs and casting dispersions on his magnificent other, who takes him for granite.

A dangling participle walks into a bar. Enjoying a cocktail and chatting with the bartender, the evening passes pleasantly.

A bar was walked into by the passive voice.

An oxymoron walked into a bar, and the silence was deafening.

Two quotation marks walk into a "bar."

Hyperbole totally rips into this insane bar and absolutely destroys everything.

An Onomatopoeia screeches into a bar, sizzles, growls, and roars.

A question mark walks into a bar?

A non-sequitur walks into a bar. In a strong wind, even turkeys can fly.

Papyrus and Comic Sans walk into a bar. The bartender says, "Get out — we don't serve your type."

A mixed metaphor walks into a bar, seeing the handwriting on the wall but hoping to nip it in the bud.

A comma splice walks into a bar, it has a drink and then leaves.

Three intransitive verbs walk into a bar. They sit. They converse. They depart.

A synonym strolls into a tavern.

At the end of the day, a cliché walks into a bar — fresh as a daisy, cute as a button, and sharp as a tack.

A run-on sentence walks into a bar it starts flirting. With a cute little sentence fragment.

Falling slowly, softly falling, the chiasmus collapses to the bar floor.

A figure of speech literally walks into a bar and ends up getting figuratively hammered.

An allusion walks into a bar, despite the fact that alcohol is its Achilles heel.

The subjunctive would have walked into a bar, had it only known.

A misplaced modifier walks into a bar owned a man with a glass eye named Ralph.

The past, present, and future walked into a bar. It was tense.

A dyslexic walks into a bra.

A verb walks into a bar, sees a beautiful noun, and suggests they conjugate. The noun declines.

An Oxford comma walks into a bar, where it spends the evening watching the television getting drunk and smoking cigars.

A simile walks into a bar, as parched as a desert.

A gerund and an infinitive walk into a bar, drinking to forget.

A hyphenated word and a non-hyphenated word walk into a bar, and the bartender nearly chokes on the irony.

(Borrowed from https://ronaldyatesbooks.com/2018/03/a-mixed-metaphor-walks-into-a-bar/)

AJ

An arrogant, argumentative alliteration walked into a bar.

and …?

Some of you guys don't pay me anywhere near enough for some of the work I do here, in neither money nor respect. :-)

Yeah, good luck collecting either of those on the interwebs!!!!! ;-)

1. 'who' when referencing any person(s) or anything people-ish, e.g. vessels, animals, aliens or demons, institutions making human-like decisions

For me, that depends on how 'human' the aliens are. If I refer to an alien character with standard pronouns (i.e. either "he" or "she") then I'll use "who". But if I use the pronoun "it" (because they don't have our binary sex organs), then I'll use "which" instead. (All you non-scifi nerds can ignore that difference, though).

2. then 'that' when pointing at a specific subset, i.e. introducing "restrictive" information; If in doubt then conclude it does not

In that case (the "that" refers to something stated previously), then you should also consider whether "it" is more appropriate, as it often is, but most people, in their hurry to finish up, never even consider the difference. Again, if you referenced a 'thing', a concept or a declaration, the "it" is a decent replacement.

2. then 'that' when pointing at a specific subset, i.e. introducing "restrictive" information; If in doubt then conclude it does not

Those are two completely different uses of "which". For anything requiring commas, it is a restrictive clause (if A, then B, or when A, then C), but if it doesn't, then "which" merely refers to non-human 'others' (like animals, certain aliens or concepts or ideas).

Any comments on that idea?

Only that, for fiction, I'd also break it down into comma-delimited and em-dash delimited, but that's a separate (and overly complicated) discussion.

When Is 'That' Safe to Delete?

This is surprisingly simple ...

When followed by a subject then a verb!! That is basically it!

I hate to cause trouble, but if that that refers to something reference recently (same or previous sentence) then "that" becomes the noun-phrase, as it's short for 'the topic we were just discussion' or even 'the person {or alley-cat) we were gossiping about'. In that case (ex: "That's the point, we should eat an Antonio's."), the "that" is necessary, since the sentence is meaningless without the principal noun-phrase.

But it's yet another complication to consider (so I don't blame anyone who doesn't want to bother evaluating between them).

Some of you guys don't pay me anywhere near enough for some of the work I do here, in neither money nor respect. :-)

Trust me, despite the fact I constantly give you grief, I do appreciate the extra research you do (but mainly, because you'll the only one who will put up with my tirades on these sorts of issues!). 'D

Are you saying you agree with my notion?

... that the "restrictive test" is different for when (a) yes means you should prefer 'that' instead of 'which', and (b) whether the entire relative phrase/clause (including either 'that' or 'which') should NOT be enclosed in commas or dashes.

Short answer: Yes. IF you have a restrictive clause, THEN you require commas, which override any other consideration: (ex: "This is a test, which if conducted correct, validates the experiment"). In this case, a restrictive clause is far different than this larger discussion of 'filler words' which aren't adding much value. Instead, since it's a necessary component of the overall sentence, it's not only needed but the entire sentence depends on it's presence.

(See, that wasn't so short after all!) 'D

Thanks, but note you're getting 'restrictive' or not the wrong way around.

I had to double back, just to see what you'd said initially, and I'd gotten confused by the phrasing. I was in the process of revising my last post when my world came crashing down (website problems, Amazon accusing me of plagiarizing my own book, and assorted other minor disasters.

Long story short, no, I don't agree with your assertion, but at this point, I'd have to research the entire discussion to remember why I had an issue with it. And from the looks of it, neither one of us has been having a good week. :(

Looks a reasonable summary to me.

* It's okay in both BrE and AmE to go on preferring 'that' for restrictive clauses, but in BrE 'which' may be okay too

A current UK network TV ad for the New York Bakery Co (which sells cheapskate bread rolls with a hole in the middle) refers to 'the woman that runs New York'. I'd prefer 'the woman who runs New York', and it looks to me as though your findings above about the usage of 'that' versus 'which' in restrictive clauses can be extended to 'that' versus 'who'.

AJ

So they can be sold at (W)hole Foods (now an Amazon sub(sidiary)). Amazon as a Dom, there is a possible plot.

A better plot is Amazon's Alexa as a dom, telling you just how worthless you are for buying those overpriced items she suggested you buy. 'D That story idea practically writes itself!

I note that 'that' some specific uses. One is as a potential replacement for either 'of which' or 'whose'. The other is when referencing a person and a thing.

Again, those uses are fine for normal conversation, memos or simple communications, but when it comes to literature, where the meaning (and who you're referring to) is paramount, it seems worthwhile to clarify which you're referring to. Again, for most uses, it simply doesn't matter. But if you throw caution aside, you're likely to get several story segments where readers aren't sure who's who, what's what, or which witches are which.

That said, in most cases, it's NOT going to make a major difference, but since I've been keeping track of it, I think my pronoun use has improved (less confusion over who's speaking) and my 'filler phases' has dropped significantly. So even if no one else follows suit, I still think it's worthwhile.

Actually, you're preaching to a choirfuhrer here. :-)

They're always the best people to preach too. Choirs don't talk back or argue with you after the service!

The motto of the University of Washington is Lux Sit. Lux is light and Sit is the imperative tense(?) of esse, to be. So it gets translated "Let there be light".

"Sit, light. Sit. And don't take all year doing it, either!" 'D

My own view -- if currently out-of-favor terms are used gratuitiously, so what -- will probably not find favor, but since I'm a member of the currently politically disfavored group in the U.S., i.e. white male, I think I have standing to make that statement. If people let slurs and hurtful words roll of their backs (I sure do), we'd all be a lot better off.

I agree, generally. My current thinking is simply a note in the two chapters where the word appears that language in the chapter conforms to normal usage in the era. I may even remove that.

I agree, generally. My current thinking is simply a note in the two chapters where the word appears that language in the chapter conforms to normal usage in the era. I may even remove that.

Once more, I wouldn't flag the chapters, as it only robs the words of their intended effect. Either put a short generic note at the beginning, without specifying what you're warning readers about, or don't bother and let the complaints rolls when readers encounter it. But weakening your story never works, as everyone is disappointed, rather than just a vocal few.

Once more, I wouldn't flag the chapters, as it only robs the words of their intended effect. Either put a short generic note at the beginning, without specifying what you're warning readers about, or don't bother and let the complaints rolls when readers encounter it. But weakening your story never works, as everyone is disappointed, rather than just a vocal few.

As I said, I may even remove that and let the snowflakes and PC crowd rate the story a '1' because their sensibilities are offended by hearing people speak the way they did and express ideas that they did.

Hmm... I always used the codes to find the particular sensibilities I enjoy most. ;)

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=a+gathering+that%2Ca+gathering+which%2Cthe+gathering+that%2C+the+gathering+which&year_start=1950&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Ca%20gathering%20that%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Ca%20gathering%20which%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cthe%20gathering%20that%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cthe%20gathering%20which%3B%2Cc0

I really must learn how to do neater links :(

AJ

Indeed.

Please send idiot-proof instructions.

AJ

Please send idiot-proof instructions.

Use the < a ref=link>your preferred title< /a> html format. But Ross's method is much easier than hand-coding html code in your Forum posts! 'D

They're simple:
1. Copy the address line from the page you want others to visit
2. Highlight the words in your post to be shown as a link
3. Click the 'link' option above the text entry box
4. Paste the clipboard and hit OK or Return

Thank you.

Changing the subject, it seems interesting times began in 1980.

AJ

Changing the subject, it seems interesting times began in 1980.

Technically, those require separate forms (i.e. "interest piqued at" vs. "interest (was) peaked in". Thus that might also confuse the ngram usages.

Bank of England interest rates peaked 1989/1990 ;)

AJ

What do others think?

Because I've spent so long debating this with myself, I prefer that when it relates to something stated earlier, and you're referencing the previous comment. But in most other uses, I prefer the more definitive article (i.e. "who" or "which"), as there's less chance to it being misinterpreted. But I do agree with you about the definite vs. the defining pronoun.

That sounds more like a 'that' vs 'it' question. I'm not sure I've looked closely at how I decide those. I think the only time I use 'it' for something that is not the last thing mentioned is when referring back to a previous 'it'. But when it is the last thing mentioned sometimes 'that' conveys a desire to point at an antecedent, rather than just identify it.

Thanks for that, when I referenced "who and which" I knew I'd forgotten one, but couldn't remember which it was. 'D

That's where it gets tricky. Often, authors keep using "that" regardless of the situation/context simply because it's easy, rather than being precise and clear in their meaning. But I agree with you. "That" often refers to the last referenced subject, while "it" refers to a previously referenced subject. But that usage of that (as a pointer to a previous subject) is distinct from using "which", "who" or "it" as a more descriptive pronoun (i.e. "I don't know what that is!" when referencing an alien species, isn't the same as saying "that principle doesn't apply in this lawsuit, your honor").