TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
"Segal, Betty S." writes:
> My point, which I supported with two rather lengthy quotations, was that
> usage which is at variance with the that/which "rule" is NOT incorrect.
> So that I am not completely misunderstood, let me hasten to say that I do
> frequently change _which_ to _that_ based on sound, because to my ear _
> that_ sounds better in most instances than _which_ . It fits the simple,
> direct style I try to edit into our publications. I do not, however, use the
> that/which "rule" to justify these changes to the writers that I edit--nor
> do I consider whether the phrases being edited are restrictive or
> non-restrictive.
> Good writing to you.
> Betty Segal -- BSS3 -at- PHPMTS1 -dot- EM -dot- CDC -dot- GOV
> Sr. Training Development Specialist (Instructional Editor)
Your writers don't complain about your "ear" being the arbiter of proper
usage?! I find it hard to believe! When I was editor for a group of 9
professional writers, I had to be able to defend every edit I made. Looking
back, I think that is only fair. Otherwise, how will writers ever be able
to produce something that they are confident will be acceptable to the
editor? I think we undercut the professional image of writers when we
do not support our decisions with an objective rule.
Happy Holidays!
Carter Hansen
(CARTERCH -at- AOL -dot- COM)
BTW - I was the one who cited the restrictive/non-restrictive issue earlier
in this thread.
