As a manager, I spearheaded a project (creating OR which created) a training program

I'd use number 2 and skip the As a manager. If you spearheaded it, you were the manager.

On the other hand, number 2 isn't wrong. I'd also probably use 'that' instead of which, and possibly 'developed' instead of 'created'.

Number 1 is more direct than the others, which is what you want in this kind of writing. Indeed, you might delete "As a manager. . . "

Is #1 incorrect though because it makes it sound like the project did the creating, not the person?

If this is for a resume, #1 is best. It tells what you did, and that's what you want to communicate. Again, it might be better to drop the "As a manager. . . ."

None of them is incorrect.

I think the best choice is number 2 because it sounds the most formal. Changing to 'that' would, to my mind, be an unwise choice as it seems less formal than the one with 'which'.

I'd also retain "As a manager" because it describes, clearly, your actual position at the time you did what you've described.

In 3. the comma is inappropriate. It makes the description sound like an afterthought.

I created and managed a training program on the explication of divine eternality.

OR

I was the spearhead in a project that cratered and mangled a training program on the explication of divine eternality.


When I spearheaded things I tried to make it sound as if I could think outside the cave.

'I spearheaded' is slangy and informal. 'I was responsible for' is better.

I'll agree with that.

Osso is here describing a prescription disguised as a preference.

Here, below is the BS that, largely, US students received in their grammar lessons.



The Grammar Girl goes on, but you need not read further, for she doesn't have a clue what she is talking about.

When native speakers refuse to follow the "advice" of a mere technical writer, well, that should have immediately clued Ms Fogarty in that something was amiss.

But she then decides to go on and make a career out of her ignorance.

She provides another clear example of what Professor G Pullum describes;

Some more idiots;

http://www.dailywritingtips.com/that-vs-which/

This one also screws up 'who' and 'that'.

=============================
http://www.kentlaw.edu/academics/lrw/grinker/LwtaThat_Versus_Which.htm

That Versus Which

The traditional approach to this question is to use "that" with restrictive clauses and "which" with nonrestrictive clauses. While some writers seem to have abandoned the distinction entirely, no better rule has come along to replace the traditional rule. Moreover, the rule is easy to master.

More idiocy. Practically every sentence is false. That has never been the traditional approach. Everyone abandons this made up rule when they are operating in a natural language situation. Linguists have numerous examples of these idiots mouthing the "rule" and then proceeding to break it, some in the same text wherein they describe the "rule".

The better rule is the one that English has always had, the one people always follow when they use language naturally.

"the rule is easy to master" - Then why are American students always asking about the rule?

A classic example of the arrant stupidity that is to be found within prescriptive circles. And this is from,

ITT Chicago Kent College of Law

Perhaps JoefromChicago's alma mater.

===================

Then, last but not least, from The Chicago Manual of Style Online, this same nonsense.


Which vs. That

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.

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

No, sonny, it is merely a preference.

Sure, Osso, now pull the other one.

Why would your preference just happen to follow this badly misguided rule that you obviously have been exposed to a great deal over your years of education?

How do you expect us to believe that you saw the light on this one rule when you've touted so many other prescriptions?