🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <217@mind.UUCP>, harnad@mind.UUCP (Stevan Harnad) writes:
> 
> Rules are for pedants and analphabets; stylists will always adapt them
> to the uncodifiable higher purposes literary language is really meant
> for.

	Would that it were so!  I have spent uncounted hours restoring
'which's that had dutifully been altered to 'that's by presumably-well-
educated copy editors obeisant to the restrictive/non-restrictive clause
rule.  Since 'that' does journeyman work as a demonstrative pronoun and as a
subordinating conjunction, I (a philosopher, whose professional interests
often require special attention to those grammatical roles) have developed a
style in which 'which' tends, fairly generally, to replace 'that' in its
additional relative pronoun role.  By "developed a style" I mean that I
write in such a way that the sentences not only convey what I wish them to
convey but also *sound* right.  Such considerations, however, are simply
lost on copy editors, whose horizons, as far as I can determine,
characteristically extend no further than Webster's, Fowler's, and their own
publishers' style sheets.

JAY ROSENBERG     Dept. of Philosophy     UNC     Chapel Hill, NC   27514
=========================================================================
...{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!unbent                   unbent@ecsvax.UUCP
...tucc!tuccvm!ecsvax!unbent                         unbent@ecsvax.BITNET
=========================================================================