🚀 go-pugleaf

>... (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

Humpty-Dumpty also believed that he had the right to be master over the
meanings of his words.  The question is whether what you write uses the
same language as your readers believe it does.  If you alter the rules,
and write your personal language enough, it will sound right to you, and
mislead your audience.  After having had copy-editors alter hundreds of
my "which"s to "that"s, I now find improper usage really grating.  The
restrictive/non-restrictive distinction is always important, and sometimes
non-redundant.  If you don't stick to it when the reader CAN restore the
meaning, how will the reader know what you mean when he/she can't?
For example " ... letter confusions which maintain the word envelope ..."
is quite different from " ... letter confusions that maintain the word
envelope ..." but if you use "which" and "that" inconsistently, how will
anyone know what you mean?  I use this example deliberately, because a
theoretical argument happened to turn on such a mis-use.
-- 

Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt