Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: A language issue (comment)



As I understand Merriam-Webster, "which" is a selective adjective
or pronoun. So if your meaning is that [specifying the following phrase]
the diver's angular momentum is the "same" out of all possible angular
momenta, then "which" would be correct.
I think, however, that your use of "that" is as a pronoun that
[pointing to the word "pronoun"] is modified by the adjective "same".
As for Feynman, my bet would be that his usage was precisely
intended before the editor made the changes.

Adam was by constitution and proclivity a scientist; I was the same, and
we loved to call ourselves by that great name...Our first memorable
scientific discovery was the law that water and like fluids run downhill,
not up.
Mark Twain, <Extract from Eve's Autobiography>

On Fri, 29 Sep 2000, Leigh Palmer wrote:

I wrote, inter alia:

... the diver took off with the same angular momentum which she
exhibited in her tightest tuck.

I have an annoying grammatical problem. I frequently misuse "which"
and "that". This is a particularly confusing case. Of course what I
should have said is that "The diver took off with the same angular
momentum that she exhibited in her tightest tuck." Alternatively I
could have left the questionable word out of the sentence with no
loss of meaning: "The diver took off with the same angular momentum
she exhibited in her tightest tuck." Perhaps that is even better; I
don't know. I considered and rejected inserting the word "exactly"
before "the same", though I might well use it when teaching. I knew
it would not be prudent to use it here.

I think I'm too old to understand the nuances here, but as I
originally wrote the clause, it was jarring to reread. That "which"
just doesn't seem to belong, and it is distracting, to me at least.
I tried to read Fowler's on this issue but it is too difficult for
me to follow. I do get the idea that the issue is confused, and
that hard rules are difficult to formulate in this case.

It is certainly important that we be sensitive to language in our
teaching. I am curious about others' opinions on the clarity of the
particular clause under scrutiny here, but I do not wish to ignite
a firestorm of grammarian-antigrammarian rage.

Leigh