This is the thread where the fringster comes back with teeth

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

I hit it with a cinder block.

And we only killed it because it was directly in front of the entrance to the casita.

Nerves of steel, a head full of passwords and an instinctive flair for grammar. It's like a focus group designed you specifically to get the FBetties all hot and bothered.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

I hit it with a cinder block.

And we only killed it because it was directly in front of the entrance to the casita.

Heretic.

16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

17And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

18They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

[dtb]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

Does anyone even care about the "that vs. which" distinction any more? I am pretty strict about changing "which" to "that" when which is used in a restictive clause, per the examples found here:

http://www.kentlaw.edu/academics/lrw...rsus_Which.htm

But it is happening so often, I am beginning to wonder whether this rule is obsolete.

Keep fighting the good fight, man! Stem the tide!

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by dtb

Keep fighting the good fight, man! Stem the tide!

Thank you. Late Sunday night, I was reviewing the work of a rising star associate, a former teacher, when I saw the the word "which" used in the restrictive setting. Twice. I felt the overwhelming urge to stop fighting against rising waters and succumb to the darkness. But with your words I am reenergized to continue the battle. We shall overcome!

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by greatwhitenorthchick

I care about it. And it burns me up beyond description when a certain partner changes my "thats" back to "whichs". Drives me fucking insane.

I often prefer to omit the "that" as is suggested in one of the MLA sentences above:

"Some people say (that) success is one percent of talent and ninety-nine percent of hard work."

but I have a partner who always inserts the "that."

[Adder]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

I often prefer to omit the "that" as is suggested in one of the MLA sentences above:

"Some people say (that) success is one percent of talent and ninety-nine percent of hard work."

but I have a partner who always inserts the "that."

That use of that is not introducing a restrictive clause, but instead is simply unnecessary.

[1436]

Originally Posted by Adder

That use of that is not introducing a restrictive clause, but instead is simply unnecessary.

That that usage of that comes up often always puzzles me.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by 1436

That that usage of that comes up often always puzzles me.

I thought it was a good example of the silliness engaged in by the MLA.

Flower, you're correcting the associates' grammah?! Don't you have someone to do that for you?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

I often prefer to omit the "that" as is suggested in one of the MLA sentences above:

"Some people say (that) success is one percent of talent and ninety-nine percent of hard work."

but I have a partner who always inserts the "that."

I had a partner that would see this sentence:

D. says the law says X, however, that is no longer true.

He would say "however" should almost never be used in the middle os a sentence- that is, he mirrored the Stunk rule, or inverted it. He was far to senior for me to call bs on, and I know modern usage is breaking up the S&W rule as being a rule, but it hasn't inverted the rule.

My only response was to eliminate "however" from my brief writing toolbox.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I had a partner that would see this sentence:

D. says the law says X, however, that is no longer true.

He would say "however" should almost never be used in the middle os a sentence- that is, he mirrored the Stunk rule, or inverted it. He was far to senior for me to call bs on, and I know modern usage is breaking up the S&W rule as being a rule, but it hasn't inverted the rule.

The partner I worked with was the opposite, and said that "however" could never start a sentence.

My only response was to eliminate "however" from my brief writing toolbox.

The result, though, was the same.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

Thank you. Late Sunday night, I was reviewing the work of a rising star associate, a former teacher, when I saw the the word "which" used in the restrictive setting. Twice. I felt the overwhelming urge to stop fighting against rising waters and succumb to the darkness. But with your words I am reenergized to continue the battle. We shall overcome!

I read this slam on educators as some indictment of the teacher's unions and the Dem party that supports them. If so, please take this to the politics board.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I read this slam on educators as some indictment of the teacher's unions and the Dem party that supports them. If so, please take this to the politics board.

You should check in over there because you may be needed as my second.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I had a partner that would see this sentence:

D. says the law says X, however, that is no longer true.

He would say "however" should almost never be used in the middle os a sentence- that is, he mirrored the Stunk rule, or inverted it. He was far to senior for me to call bs on, and I know modern usage is breaking up the S&W rule as being a rule, but it hasn't inverted the rule.

My only response was to eliminate "however" from my brief writing toolbox.

No one noticed the failure to use a semi-colon?

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I thought it was a good example of the silliness engaged in by the MLA.

Flower, you're correcting the associates' grammah?! Don't you have someone to do that for you?

I suppose I could have e-mailed another associate on Sunday night and instructed him or her review the brief first thing Monday morning and correct all the which-that mix-ups. That would have taken more time than fixing it myself, but you are correct that it is a bit unseemly to have to go about correcting associate grammar all the time. That is the approach I will take next time. Alternately, I will e-mail the original author of the brief with the message, "I noticed some grammatical errors. Fix them by the time I get in tomorrow."

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I read this slam on educators as some indictment of the teacher's unions and the Dem party that supports them. If so, please take this to the politics board.

No.