Post # 61
lovelyruby: That refers to a restrictive clause; which would change the meaning of the sentence if eliminated.
Which is nonrestrictive; it simply adds information to the sentence, but that information can be eliminated without changind the basic meaning. A clause using which has commas on either side (which is a visual way of reminding a person that it can be lifted from the sentence without changing the meaning).
So you would say, “The dog that scares me lives next door.” No other dog can be substituted. This is specifically the dog that scares you.
But you would say, “The spotted dog, which I told you about yesterday, lives next door.” The spotted dog still lives next door, whether or not anyone remembers you telling them about it the day before.
Post # 63
- Wedding: December 1969 - City, State
echomomm : So you would say, “The dog that scares me lives next door.” No other dog can be substituted. This is specifically the dog that scares you.
I know this is not exactly relevant to the “that” vs” who” discussion but thanks for explaining it in a way that is much clearer than in my previous post.
Post # 65
DEFINITLEY! Or definintley, or any other misspelling of the word! I get it, it took me a while to get it consistently right, but some days it seems I’m the only one!
Post # 66
lifeisbeeutiful : Thank you. I was certainly taken aback by the assertion that I was mean to point it out. I think it would be more mean to the children this poster was teaching *not* to point it out.
Post # 67
I remembered the other phrase that bugs me here: “for all intensive purposes”. NO! “For all intents and purposes”, for heaven’s sake.
Post # 68
cassandra7 : “gift” is also a verb. Has been for, well, forever. It is synonymous with “present” (ironically, both a noun and verb).
Post # 69
Four hundred years, but not in wide usage as it is now. It’s one of those 5% things: Use “lay” for “lie,” most people won’t notice, and five percent of your listeners/readers will wince. Or not give you the job. Or marry you. Or whatever. That is, most people don’t care at all, and the few who care care intensely. Language is always changing, and some of the changes are very hard for some people (I am among them, obviously) to accept.
Post # 70
In addition to many of the PPs:
“Brag on” instead of “brag about.”
“Take a listen” instead of “Listen” or “Let’s listen.” Seemingly every reporter in the last five years has adopted this one.
Post # 71
and some of the changes are very hard for some people (I am among them, obviously) to accept.
Me too, I cannot abide ‘lay’ for ‘lie’. Not happy about ‘disinterested’ when it is ‘uninterested’ that is meant either .
And on the ‘it’s not a word!’ front , since I first posted I must have seen ‘alot’ twenty times ….
Post # 72
Elderbee, how do you feel about people who think “fulsome praise” is positive?
Post # 73
Were vs where. I can’t understand how they can be confused for each other.
Post # 74
Fulsome praise yes! I’ll think of others too in a minute , meanwhile, here’s an interesting list.
Appraised for apprised makes me cross, cliché for clichéd and ( I think it’s purely Australian ?) pacific for specific. And ‘bare with me’ for ‘bear with me’ …so different.
I can pacifically state that I will never bare it or lay down under it no matter were it may be , even if I am given alot of fulsome praise and appraised of it on the way down the isle to the alter, even if its really cliché of me to say it . So their!
Post # 75
And as if ‘alot’ wasn’t enough there is also ‘apart’ and ‘awhile’ when ‘ a part’ and ‘a while ‘ is meant.