From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B8851382C5 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2018 00:36:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1899CE0BFE; Fri, 2 Feb 2018 00:36:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smarthost01c.mail.zen.net.uk (smarthost01c.mail.zen.net.uk [212.23.1.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 96FD5E0BED for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2018 00:36:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [82.69.80.10] (helo=peak.localnet) by smarthost01c.mail.zen.net.uk with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1ehPKj-0006a9-Fl for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Fri, 02 Feb 2018 00:36:01 +0000 From: Peter Humphrey To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [OT] A little help for non-native English speakers Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2018 00:36:00 +0000 Message-ID: <7111779.UBTVhAxIcJ@peak> In-Reply-To: <20180202000407.4f6389b2@digimed.co.uk> References: <2979311.yKovLQH099@peak> <2102167.S96RrA3Q0U@peak> <20180202000407.4f6389b2@digimed.co.uk> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Originating-smarthost01c-IP: [82.69.80.10] Feedback-ID: 82.69.80.10 X-Archives-Salt: 95eac71e-28c6-413c-8a46-88e6a837b632 X-Archives-Hash: 2b2996d4143d95c066d6d99038c23ad4 On Friday, 2 February 2018 00:04:07 GMT Neil Bothwick wrote: > On Thu, 01 Feb 2018 23:39:13 +0000, Peter Humphrey wrote: > > > > The Romans were very practical people who didn't waste time or > > > > effort, but got on with the job & built an empire which lasted 500 > > > > years . > > > > > > built an empire THAT lasted 500 years > > > > Nope. Philip was right the first time. They built an empire, and it > > lasted 500 years. Your version implies that they built an empire that > > lasted 500 years, as distinct from one that didn't. > > In that case the which should be preceded by a comma, The comma has become optional with developing usage. Otherwise, we agree. > ... as that part of the sentence is optional, only adding extra detail. > However, here the fact that the empire lasted 500 years is the point and > should be included in the main statement with that. That's a matter of opinion. If true, it should be handled by recasting the sentence so as not to rely on such a fine distinction, which would most likely be missed. > The rule of thumb I was taught is that if you can dispense with the > second part without significantly changing the meaning, use which, > otherwise use that. I agree. You haven't consulted Fowler though, I see. (Drat! Where's my copy when I need it?) He says the difference is whether we have a defining clause. If what follows actually defines the subject of the sentence, use "that". Otherwise it's "which". I spent many hours editing programmers' documents in the '80s and '90s (in my spare time between assembler and Fortran programs), and this was a major sticking point. As I said to one of those young men, "which" in this context could often be understood as "and it". I stand by that still. > Since the 500 years is crucial, the latter applies. As I said, the construction is poor. -- Regards, Peter.