Re: that/which--an exception to majority opinion

[Mean Green Dancing Machine <aahz -at- NETCOM -dot- COM>]

In article <3dfbj7$d9r -at- s-cwis -dot- unomaha -dot- edu>,
Carter Hansen <chansen -at- cwis -dot- unomaha -dot- edu> wrote:

>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.

I'm writing this mostly in response to your last sentence; an editor
should be able to explain what zie is doing:

It depends on whether you believe that editing is an art, a craft, or a
science.  If editing is a pure art, then it need not be backed by
anything other than the artistic sensibility of the editor.  If editing
is a craft, then you rely on the experience of the editor backed by
common-sense rules.  If it's a science, then the editor becomes nothing
more than a machine grinding a piece of text through some rules.

I think we need all three kinds of editing.
--
                      --- Aahz (@netcom.com)

Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
Androgynous kinky vanilla queer het

Third virtual anniversary: 7 days and counting