RE: Part 2 of 2 -- Re: GDP: NR 1.1 Pitches 2008-01-26 [OT]

[Trevor Daniels]

Graham Percival wrote 04 February 2008 16:27
> 
> On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 09:42:55 -0600
> Stan Sanderson <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> > On Feb 4, 2008, at 9:19 AM, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
> > 
> > >> I bet that there's less than a hundred people
> > >
> > > You mean "I bet there are fewer than..."  ;-)
> 
> *hmph*
> In modern Canadian, an apostrophe followed by an `s' is
> appropriate for singular or plural use.
> :)
>
I think Kieren also meant the distinction between
less and fewer :)
 
> I mean, does this sentence _actually_ bother 
> anybody?  Or make it
> unclear?
> ----
> Accidentals are only printed on tied notes which 
> begin a new system:
> ----

Well it certainly is not clear, but that is not due
to the choice of "that" or "which".  Accidentals are 
certainly printed in other places than this suggests.

Perhaps it means, "Accidentals are printed on
tied notes only when the note to which they are 
tied is on the previous system." 
 
> I personally think that "which" makes the 
> sentence flow better --
> that's why I changed it from the "that" which was 
> originally put
> there by Valentin (IIRC).  When Kurt complained, 
> I changed it back
> to "that", but I still think which there's 
> nothing wrong with
> "which" in that sentence.  [sic :P ]

I agree.  "which" is perfectly correct here, and
like you, I prefer it.

You have a choice for restrictive clauses.  You
may base your choice on style, on previous words
in the sentence, or simply your feeling for what
sounds best.

Incidently, the MS Grammar checker -always-
annoyingly recommends "that" for all restrictive 
clauses.  That seems an excellent reason to use 
"which" whenever possible :)

Trevor D