add "that/which" to Style Guide > Commonly ConfusedWords

[Andrew Mathenge]

I think that I'd tend to agree with Matthew on this one. I believe (and I'm
not a native English speaker) that the following two sentences would be
correct in my mind:

The car that I bought last year is a lemon.
The car, which I bought last year, is a lemon.

I suppose that in very strict grammar there's a rule about those two words
regarding "restrictive clauses" and "non-restrictive clauses" but I'm sure
that over time that rule has been relaxed.

Therefore I'd tend to agree that we don't include it also.

Andrew.



On Jan 3, 2008 6:08 PM, Matthew East <mdke at ubuntu.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Jan 3, 2008 7:55 PM, Kyle Nitzsche <kyle.nitzsche at canonical.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'd like to propose adding the following to the Documentation Style
> > Guide, Commonly Confused Words section.
> > (
> http://wiki.ubuntu.com/DocumentationTeam/StyleGuide/CommonlyConfusedWords
> >   )
> >
> > "
> > that, which
> >
> > These words often start phrases that modify a preceding noun, but the
> > wrong one is sometimes used. For example, the following is incorrect:
> > The car which crashed is red. Use that to start a phrase that
> > restricts the modified noun to a particular instance or set, and do
> > not enclose the phrase in commas. Use which to add additional
> > information about the noun, and enclose the phrase in commas.
> >
> > Examples: The car that crashed is red. The car, which I own, is red.
> > "
> >
> > Is there a procedure for suggesting/making changes to the Style Guide?
>
> I guess this is it!
>
> I have to say, I have always found the distinction between "that" and
> "which" unnecessary and I don't follow it myself when writing.
>
> I'd much prefer that we simplify the style guide if possible, and
> adding rules which are probably a bit nit picky will complicate it
> without a good reason: there are already a wealth of rules in there
> and quite frankly I don't think that we can expect all of our
> contributors to religiously adhere to each of them.
>
> If there is an outcry in support of this rule or there are some
> prominent authorities which support it then I guess we could consider
> this, but my initial reaction is against adding it.
>
> What do others think?
>
> --
> Matthew East
> http://www.mdke.org
> gnupg pub 1024D/0E6B06FF
>
> --
> ubuntu-doc mailing list
> ubuntu-doc at lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-doc
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-doc/attachments/20080103/f78ea031/attachment.html>