Re: Part 2 of 2 -- Re: GDP: NR 1.1 Pitches 2008-01-26

[Palmer, Ralph]

Greetings -

Kurt wrote:

------------------------------

Generally -- "which" and "that" have specific uses that we aren't observing

very well. "That" introduces a restrictive subclause and should not be

preceded by a comma. Removing this clause changes the meaning of the

sentence, usually by making it more general.  On the other hand, "which"

introduces an informative (but non-restrictive) subclause and should be

preceded by a comma.  I replaced which with that below (and in my preceding

email) where the following clause was restrictive and couldn't be removed

without generalizing the meaning of the sentence.

----------------------------------

My copy of The Scott, Foresman Handbook for Writers, Fourth Edition, (1996), under "Problems with that, which, and who?" says,

Understand that both essential (restrictive) and nonessential (nonrestrictive) clauses may begin with which. A clause introduced by that will almost always be essential. No commas are used around such clauses. . . . Context and punctuation, however, determine whether a which clause is essential or nonessential. If the clause is essential, no commas separate it from the rest of the sentence; if nonessential, commas enclose the clause. (Emphasis in the original.)

That being said, I am not opposed to trying to maintain consistency.

Ralph

+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ralph Palmer, CEM
Energy/Administrative Coordinator
Keene State College
Keene, NH 03435-2502
Phone: 603-358-2230
Cell: 603-209-2903
Fax: 603-358-2456
address@hidden