I Just Took This Online Grammar Quiz

[AdamSmith]

Before I answer, you deserve to know, milord, that I am no longer, how you say, ze virgin.

 

We will nonetheless exercise the droit du seignior and think nothing of it.

[Guest Starbuck]

Before I answer, you deserve to know, milord, that I am no longer, how you say, ze virgin.

 

We will nonetheless exercise the droit du seignior and think nothing of it.

 

If this marriage takes place, will gp0560 become the Countess de Crisco?

[gp0560]

If this marriage takes place, will gp0560 become the Countess de Crisco?

Yes, and the heir to the title will be the Viscount du Crisco à Saveur de Beurre. His sister will be the Lady Pam.

[Guest Starbuck]

My Mama always said, It's just as easy to fall in love with a rich man as a poor one. (I can still see her saying it, her fingers knuckle-deep in the Crisco, chicken ready to be fried.) But I don't think even Mama ever imagined nobility ... a title ... rugrats with slick little French-y names. So, I'm guessing your own Ma must be right proud of you, what with your lost virtue and all, landing yourself the Count de Crisco!

[gp0560]

My Mama always said, It's just as easy to fall in love with a rich man as a poor one. (I can still see her saying it, her fingers knuckle-deep in the Crisco, chicken ready to be fried.) But I don't think even Mama ever imagined nobility ... a title ... rugrats with slick little French-y names. So, I'm guessing your own Ma must be right proud of you, what with your lost virtue and all, landing yourself the Count de Crisco!

My Mama don't doesn't know just how good I can be at losing my virtue. I've done it dozens of times.

[Guest]

One can say either "Topanga went to the restaurant which didn't serve burgers" or "..that didn't serve burgers." If I'm wrong, someone show me a reference as to why.

[Guest Starbuck]

My Mama don't doesn't know just how good I can be at losing my virtue. I've done it dozens of times.

 

Practice makes perfect ... de Crisco is one lucky Count!

[gp0560]

One can say either "Topanga went to the restaurant which didn't serve burgers" or "..that didn't serve burgers." If I'm wrong, someone show me a reference as to why.

 

You'll love this answer: It depends.

 

Do you mean something like this? "Topanga didn't go to the bar to eat after all. He went to the restaurant, and oh, by the way, it didn't serve burgers, even though he wanted one." In this case, I would use "which," preferably with a preceding comma, for example, " He went to the restaurant, which didn't serve burgers."

 

But if you mean, "Of all the restaurants in the neighborhood, Topanga went to the only one that didn't serve burgers," then I would use "that," never with a preceding comma.

 

In the first case, the bit about burgers is incidental to your main point, and I suppose you could even put it in parentheses if you wanted to. In the second case, the bit about burgers identifies the specific restaurant you're talking about and means that all the others did, in fact, serve burgers. I suppose you could get away with using "which," although in my personal opinion, it's not a good idea. By the way, as I understand it, British English does not care so much as I do which word you use.

 

That said, I think that in the spoken language you can get away with either form. The comma won't be heard unless you're Victor Borge, and if there's any doubt, you can always explain what you mean in more detail.

 

Please let me know if this little dissertation helped.

[gp0560]

Yes, and the heir to the title will be the Viscount du Crisco à Saveur de Beurre. His sister will be the Lady Pam.

 

This potential Countess is hurt. Hurt, I tell you, hurt. No one has thought fit to mention how clever she was to choose "Lady Pam" for the name of the daughter of the Count de Crisco.

[AdamSmith]

This potential Countess is hurt. Hurt, I tell you, hurt. No one has thought fit to mention how clever she was to choose "Lady Pam" for the name of the daughter of the Count de Crisco.

 

That little amuse-bouche was richly savored by yr umble narratrix here. Brava!

[AdamSmith]

PS Your masterful that vs which dissertation is nothing less than definitive.

 

May I address thee as Fowler henceforth?

[Guest Starbuck]

This potential Countess is hurt. Hurt, I tell you, hurt. No one has thought fit to mention how clever she was to choose "Lady Pam" for the name of the daughter of the Count de Crisco.

 

Oh, now, pardon moi, Countess -- or might Comtesse be preferred, or, when barefoot, Contessa? -- but did I or did I not refer to the slick (and I italicized it so you'd notice!) names of the offspring in an attempt to be as sly and clever as you with "the Lady Pam" ... so let's not be so quick to climb up on that high horse, Missy ... I mean Ma'am ... I mean Your Loveliness Deluxe ...

 

[gp0560]

Oh, now, pardon moi, Countess -- or might Comtesse be preferred, or, when barefoot, Contessa? -- but did I or did I not refer to the slick (and I italicized it so you'd notice!) names of the offspring in an attempt to be as sly and clever as you with "the Lady Pam" ... so let's not be so quick to climb up on that high horse, Missy ... I mean Ma'am ... I mean Your Loveliness Deluxe ...

 

Ah! Mon Dieu! I completely missed that. Well done!

 

You will, of course, note that as a true aristocrat, this potential Countess acknowledges the truth at once. May I get down from my horse now?

 

(Note to self: This third-person nonsense has got to stop. The potential Countess is sounding more and more like Miss Manners.)

[Lookin]

May I get down from my horse now?

 

More likely from a goose, though I'll defer to Professor Wagstaff. http://www.boytoy.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif

 

http://images2.fanpop.com/image/photos/9200000/Groucho-marx-brothers-9268637-500-378.jpg

[AdamSmith]

Polythene Pam would concur.

[gp0560]

PS Your masterful that vs which dissertation is nothing less than definitive.

 

May I address thee as Fowler henceforth?

I take that as an especially nice compliment. Thank you.

 

However, as your Countess in potentia, I think I could allow you to say "My dear Fowler."

[AdamSmith]

However, as your Countess in potentia, I think I could allow you to say "My dear Fowler."

 

Forgive my familiarity.

[gp0560]

Forgive my familiarity.

 

But County dear, I meant "My dear Fowler" to be more intimate, not less. You can be as familiar as you like, which will never be as much as I would like.

[Guest]

You'll love this answer: It depends.

 

Do you mean something like this? "Topanga didn't go to the bar to eat after all. He went to the restaurant, and oh, by the way, it didn't serve burgers, even though he wanted one." In this case, I would use "which," preferably with a preceding comma, for example, " He went to the restaurant, which didn't serve burgers."

 

But if you mean, "Of all the restaurants in the neighborhood, Topanga went to the only one that didn't serve burgers," then I would use "that," never with a preceding comma.

 

In the first case, the bit about burgers is incidental to your main point, and I suppose you could even put it in parentheses if you wanted to. In the second case, the bit about burgers identifies the specific restaurant you're talking about and means that all the others did, in fact, serve burgers. I suppose you could get away with using "which," although in my personal opinion, it's not a good idea. By the way, as I understand it, British English does not care so much as I do which word you use.

 

That said, I think that in the spoken language you can get away with either form. The comma won't be heard unless you're Victor Borge, and if there's any doubt, you can always explain what you mean in more detail.

 

Please let me know if this little dissertation helped.

 

It kind of helped, although it would seem that as long as one leaves the coma out, one is still talking about Topanga going to the burger-less restaurant. I never heard of the rule that if one uses which instead of that, then a preceding coma is implied. I would love to know the origin of that rule (i.e. a reference). Thanks for the input.

[+ Gar1eth]

You'll love this answer: It depends.

 

Do you mean something like this? "Topanga didn't go to the bar to eat after all. He went to the restaurant, and oh, by the way, it didn't serve burgers, even though he wanted one." In this case, I would use "which," preferably with a preceding comma, for example, " He went to the restaurant, which didn't serve burgers."

 

But if you mean, "Of all the restaurants in the neighborhood, Topanga went to the only one that didn't serve burgers," then I would use "that," never with a preceding comma.

 

In the first case, the bit about burgers is incidental to your main point, and I suppose you could even put it in parentheses if you wanted to. In the second case, the bit about burgers identifies the specific restaurant you're talking about and means that all the others did, in fact, serve burgers. I suppose you could get away with using "which," although in my personal opinion, it's not a good idea. By the way, as I understand it, British English does not care so much as I do which word you use.

 

That said, I think that in the spoken language you can get away with either form. The comma won't be heard unless you're Victor Borge, and if there's any doubt, you can always explain what you mean in more detail.

 

Please let me know if this little dissertation helped.

 

I think what you are trying to get at is that 'which' is used for non-restrictive clauses-that is clauses that add extra info to the sentence. But if left out, the sentence meaning wouldn't suffer-such as

 

My car, which has a hole in the gas tank, is incredibly filthy.

 

Versus 'that' -used for restrictive clauses without commas for information that is necessary to the sentence-such as

 

The car that has a hole in the gas tank is incredibly filthy.

 

In the first instance we don't need the 'which' phrase because we know whose car it is. It's 'my car'. (Non-restrictive)

 

In the second instance the 'that' phrase is necessary to know the specific car. (Restrictive).

 

 

Gman

[+ Gar1eth]

It kind of helped, although it would seem that as long as one leaves the coma out, one is still talking about Topanga going to the burger-less restaurant. I never heard of the rule that if one uses which instead of that, then a preceding coma is implied. I would love to know the origin of that rule (i.e. a reference). Thanks for the input.

 

I think I answered your question. You use commas for extraneous material not necessary for the meaning of the sentence. And those clauses are introduced by which. Clauses introduced with needed info are introduced by that and don't use commas.

 

Gman

 

PS Topanga is not male. She is a female character from the show Boy Meets World.

[+ Gar1eth]

I never heard of the rule that if one uses which instead of that' date=' then a preceding coma is implied. I would love to know the origin of that rule (i.e. a reference). Thanks for the input.[/quote']

 

The rule was in all my junior high and high school grammar books in the 1970's. But if you need a more current reference, here is one.

 

 

http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/which-versus-that-0

 

Gman

[Guest]

I did a little research online, and apparently, using the "which" restrictively is "more or less okay" unless you're British, in which case it's more acceptable. Thanks for clearing up the "restrictive" versus "non-restrictive" clauses. It seems that "that" is preferable, but "which" is not strictly incorrect (as long as one leaves out the comas):

http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/Whichvs.That.html

Q. Could you please explain to me the proper usage of “which” vs. “that”? I could really use a “hard-and-fast” rule to keep in mind regarding proper usage of these terms. Here is an example of the actual sentence currently in debate:

 

The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 which became law on June 7, 2001 was the largest change in tax regulations in over two decades.

 

I felt that in this instance “which” should be replaced with “that,” or that the phrase “which became law on June 7, 2001” should be set off in commas. A coworker disagreed, saying that “which” is correct because there is only one Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, but that doesn’t seem right to me. Should we just have rewritten it to say “The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 passed on June 7, 2001 was the largest change in tax regulations in over two decades”?

 

HELP! Thank you.

 

A. First, the correct form for the sentence you cite:

 

The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, which became law on June 7, 2001, is the largest change in tax regulations in over two decades.

 

The phrase “which became law on June 7, 2001” is not necessary to the meaning of the sentence; remove it and the sentence still makes sense (without it, there’s no question as to what is the largest change in tax regulations in the past twenty years).

 

The basic rule: Use “which” plus commas to set off nonrestrictive (unnecessary) clauses; use “that” to introduce a restrictive (necessary) clause:

 

Pizza that’s less than an inch deep just isn’t Chicago-style.

 

Pizza, which is a favorite among Chicagoans, can be either bad for you or good, depending on how much of it you eat.

 

If you remove “that’s less than an inch deep” from the first sentence, it becomes inaccurate. The clause is said to restrict the meaning of the sentence; therefore, “that” is correct.

 

If, however, you take out the clause “which is a favorite among Chicagoans” from the second sentence, it still makes sense: i.e., pizza can be either bad for you or good, and whether or not it is a favorite among Chicagoans does not restrict this meaning; therefore, the clause is nonrestrictive and should be introduced by “which” and set off by commas.

 

Some people use “which” restrictively, which is more or less okay (and popular among writers of British English) as long as no commas are involved:

 

Pianos which have a fourth pedal to mute the strings are popular among apartment owners.

 

CMOS covers this issue in several places. For starters, see 6.22. Then take a look at the entry for “that; which” in the “Glossary of Problematic Words and Phrases” following paragraph 5.220.

[AdamSmith]

A little bit off point but in Modern English Usage Fowler has a rather long and hilarious diatribe against unnecessary commas. The serial (Oxford) comma in particular but he also gives many other examples.

[gp0560]

A little bit off point but in Modern English Usage Fowler has a rather long and hilarious diatribe against unnecessary commas. The serial (Oxford) comma in particular but he also gives many other examples.

 

Thank you for remembering me. May I call you Strunk?

 

(signed) H. W.