that or which

@JTT,

Okay, and till then, we'll just swop insults.

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.

@McTag,

Quote:

Okay, and till then, we'll just swop insults.

I'll continue to point out the numerous errors in your language "advice". You'll insult, which is all that you have ever been able to offer.

Why can't a guy who fancies himself an expert on language even determine what the subject of a sentence is?

===========

We will ensure that you are presented with quality experiences which challenge you, without overwhelming you.

McTag: Something (not a rule, obviously) tells me that one would normally use "which" over "that" if the noun one is replacing is the subject of the sentence.

1 Reply

@JTT,

Do you really think I can't break a sentence down into its constituent parts and label them accordingly. you miserable little squit, or do you just enjoy being miserable?
Actually I found a bit in a book I was reading which seems to fit you well. I'll bring it to you next time.

1 Reply

@McTag,

Quote:

Do you really think I can't break a sentence down into its constituent parts and label them accordingly.

Quote:

McTag: Something (not a rule, obviously) tells me that one would normally use "which" over "that" if the noun one is replacing is the subject of the sentence.

Which it is in this case.

We will ensure that you are presented with quality experiences which challenge you, without overwhelming you.

Obviously you don't know a subject from your asshole, McTag.

You sure don't know anything about relative clauses/pronouns.

McTag: Something (not a rule, obviously, just something I pulled out of my ass) tells me blah blah blah.

1 Reply

@JTT,

Quote:

Do you really think I can't break a sentence down into its constituent parts and label them accordingly

No, you don't. But you want to make a big stink. I made a mistake, admittedly, (what could I have been thinking?) but with such glee you pounce on it! A gentleman might have passed. But not a miserable little squit, apparently.
Good news for you, because it enabled you to create an elaborate smokescreen to attempt to over up the bad advice you gave at the beginning, which you later withdrew without acknowledgement.

I have drawn attention before now to your mental state. I found a telling passage in a book recently, as mentioned above, which seems to fit well with your condition. When I find it again, I shall bring it to you.

1 Reply

@McTag,

Quote:

I made a mistake, admittedly,

See how easy that is, McTag.

Quote:

(what could I have been thinking?)

You were probably trying to impress with another badly remembered bit of prescriptive nonsense.

Quote:

because it enabled you to create an elaborate smokescreen to attempt to over up the bad advice you gave at the beginning, which you later withdrew without acknowledgement.

There was no smokescreen. I stated that you were wrong on the relative clause/pronouns too.

Quote:

I have drawn attention before now to your mental state.

Yes, you try that all the time. That is of no consequence coming from a guy who falls all over himself avoiding discussing the language issues he raises and then lies about it with all manner of diversion.

1 Reply

@JTT,

Quote:

and then lies about it with all manner of diversion.

This from a guy who changed his contributions on this thread away from offering advice on grammar, which he got wrong, to making ad-hominem attacks on all and sundry.
Diversion? Yes, but not in a good way.

1 Reply

@McTag,

Quote:

which he got wrong,

You were wrong, McTag, on the "subject" and on the relative pronouns/clauses. You understand so little about them that you can't even understand the explanation I provided.

You brought source material, isn't that the first time?, and you didn't even understand that.

1 Reply

@JTT,

I "understand" what is very plain, that you have changed your original tune and now agree with me.

As far as your asinine remark on source material, that's not what this forum is mainly about. It's about interested English users helping answer everyday questions. Anyone can open a dictionary, thesaurus or grammar book. The charm of this forum, which you are active in trying to dispel, is in its facility to glean diverse comment from a disparate audience. Your overly-bookish approach seems to confuse many, not excluding yourself on occasion.

I'm not interested in your posturing, nor your risible efforts to strut to the top of your imaginary dungheap.

2 Replies

@McTag,

Quote:

I "understand" what is very plain, that you have changed your original tune and now agree with me.

Not only can you not understand grammar rules and the discussion on the same, you can't understand plain English.

I said the following and it does not agree with you or your silly take on this issue.

Quote:

In your example, the first relative clause is restrictive because it is needed to define the man. The dog is amply covered by 'a', we know which dog, which leads the second relative clause to be a non-restrictive clause. But this example isn't at all like the OP's.

We will ensure that you are presented with quality experiences which challenge you, without overwhelming you.

There is no introduction to 'experiences'. The first mention comes with a following restrictive clause that is needed to let the reader/listener know the parameters of the 'experiences'. These 'experiences' are limited/restricted to ones that "challenge you".

Quote:

on source material, that's not what this forum is mainly about. It's about interested English users helping answer everyday questions.

I thought so - the first time. Smile

This is Able2Know, McTag, not Able2LetIdiotsMisinform. Setanta long ago tried this same line of bullshit. It didn't fly then and it doesn't fly not. It's a ludicrous, preposterous suggestion that guys like you should be able to mislead anyone, especially ESLs on language issues.

Quote:

Anyone can open a dictionary, thesaurus or grammar book.

But apparently that is all you can do is open them. You can't grasp what's written within.

Quote:

The charm of this forum, which you are active in trying to dispel, is in its facility to glean diverse comment from a disparate audience.

Amazing that you can proffer anything so patently dumb.

1 Reply

@McTag,

Quote:

I "understand" what is very plain, that you have changed your original tune and now agree with me.

Quote the text that you believe illustrates that I "now agree with" you.

1 Reply

@JTT,

Quote:

We will ensure that you are presented with quality experiences which challenge you, without overwhelming you

Quote:

And there I was thinking that the supercilious, patronising and peevish posts were becoming fewer.

I'm glad though, that you have come around to agreeing that "which" is the correct choice here.

1 Reply

@JTT,

Quote:

Amazing that you can proffer anything so patently dumb.

"O wad some pow'r the giftie gie us
Tae see oorsel's as ithers see us"

0 Replies

@luxechick,

The basic rule is that if you would pause in speaking, then you want a comma followed by 'which'; if there would be no pause in speaking, you want 'that'.

This rule strikes me as nearly idiotic, and nobody learning English as a second language could be expected to be up on it.

1 Reply

@McTag,

You make it clearer with your every post that you don't understand this aspect of English either.

1 Reply

@gungasnake,

Quote:

The basic rule is that if you would pause in speaking, then you want a comma followed by 'which'; if there would be no pause in speaking, you want 'that'.

Illustrative of the idiocy that has been grammar teaching in the US for far too long, Gunga. But I must admit, that that one is new to me. I think you were sleeping that day in class.

Quote:

April 17, 2009
50 Years of Stupid Grammar Advice

By Geoffrey K. Pullum

...

The Elements of Style does not deserve the enormous esteem in which it is held by American college graduates. Its advice ranges from limp platitudes to inconsistent nonsense. Its enormous influence has not improved American students' grasp of English grammar; it has significantly degraded it.

http://chronicle.com/article/50-Years-of-Stupid-Grammar/25497

Quote:

This rule strikes me as nearly idiotic, and nobody learning English as a second language could be expected to be up on it.

It is idiotic. But you would be surprised at just how many of these idiotic rules are to be found in the field of ESL/EFL.

0 Replies

@JTT,

Quote:

You make it clearer with your every post that you don't understand this aspect of English either.

How is our little ray of sunshine this morning, A2K's resident feel-bad factor? Still keeping the bile quotient up?
If your posts made anything clear you might have some cause for self-congratulation.

1 Reply

@McTag,

Another typically dishonest McTag posting - ferociously avoid the language issue. Why? Because McTag knows he will embarrass himself yet again.

1 Reply

@JTT,

Quote:

This from a guy who changed his contributions on this thread away from offering advice on grammar, which he got wrong, to making ad-hominem attacks on all and sundry.
Diversion? Yes, but not in a good way.

2 Replies

@McTag,

McTag, a guy who makes a big pretense of being interested in language issues but he simple can't address them in any cogent fashion whatsoever.

As soon as he has to actually address the LANGUAGE ISSUE, he goes to personal attacks, and all manner of diversion.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know