Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [OT] A little help for non-native English speakers

[Peter Humphrey]

On Friday, 2 February 2018 00:04:07 GMT Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Feb 2018 23:39:13 +0000, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > > > The Romans were very practical people who didn't waste time or
> > > > effort, but got on with the job & built an empire which lasted  500
> > > > years .
> > >
> > > built an empire THAT lasted  500 years
> >
> > Nope. Philip was right the first time. They built an empire, and it
> > lasted 500 years. Your version implies that they built an empire that
> > lasted 500 years, as distinct from one that didn't.
>
> In that case the which should be preceded by a comma,

The comma has become optional with developing usage. Otherwise, we agree.

> ... as that part of the sentence is optional, only adding extra detail.
> However, here the fact that the empire lasted 500 years is the point and
> should be included in the main statement with that.

That's a matter of opinion. If true, it should be handled by recasting the 
sentence so as not to rely on such a fine distinction, which would most 
likely be missed.

> The rule of thumb I was taught is that if you can dispense with the
> second part without significantly changing the meaning, use which,
> otherwise use that.

I agree. You haven't consulted Fowler though, I see. (Drat! Where's my copy 
when I need it?) He says the difference is whether we have a defining 
clause. If what follows actually defines the subject of the sentence, use 
"that". Otherwise it's "which".

I spent many hours editing programmers' documents in the '80s and '90s (in 
my spare time between assembler and Fortran programs), and this was a major 
sticking point. As I said to one of those young men, "which" in this context 
could often be understood as "and it". I stand by that still.

> Since the 500 years is crucial, the latter applies.

As I said, the construction is poor.

-- 
Regards,
Peter.