What irritates me are announcements that say the platform at New Cross Gate is only 8 carriages long when it is actually 10. But possibly the wrong thread.

And why 'Seek Assistance' when your Oyster card doesn't work? What's wrong with 'Get Help'?

I have noticed that I am told that I cannot get out of carriage number 10 at New Cross Gate, but I have seen people do it!

I learned a new word from the 'Today' programme this morning - to 'dob in', meaning to inform against. Australian slang, I discover. Anyone know how it became popular?

I heard it on Emmerdale many years ago.

I have recently had to try to convert something I'd written into American English. I got most things right (although I hadn't realised that 'whilst' and 'amongst' do not exist in American English.) There is one thing however on which I failed dismally, on more occasions than I can count. I did not observe the mandatory distinction which Americans (now?) draw between 'which' and 'that' as relative pronouns. 'Which' can only be used at the beginning of a descriptive clause; 'that' is obligatory at the beginning of a defining clause.

Thus I happily wrote sentences like, 'I looked at the method which had been used', which sounds perfectly OK to me. But 'which' had to be corrected to 'that'. Another example: 'She was a wonderful “doula” during the prolonged labor pains which (no - THAT!) eventually brought forth the child.' (But 'which' would be required in 'I picked up Basil's cat, which seemed to be uninjured.')

Do these sentences, as originally drafted, sound wrong to you? Does this rule exist in British English? Have I been guilty of error for all these years? I checked with Fowler, who certainly recommends that 'that' should be used to introduce defining relative clauses referring to inanimate objects. But he admits that there is currently no rule to that effect, and that 'which' is used in this sort of clause by many writers, including some of the best ones. Have things changed since Fowler wrote in 1928?

i don't have a problem with your use of which or that, but the correction may have been offered for clarification. As it stands, it's not clear if the 'which' is going to refer to the labour pains, or back to her being a wonderful doula. Using 'that' would make it clear to me (as the reader) that (!) the next clause refers to the labour pains.

However, I don't know why I feel that way about it, and whether it's because of a rule hardwired into my brain or just instinct. Having never referred to Fowlers in my life, all I know is that as a reader I need it to be unambiguous. I can't say I've ever noticed an American distinction between the two that you describe and none of my American readers have ever commented on it.

My understanding of the rule is this: "that" identifies, "which" describes. So -

"The car that is red is for sale."
"The car, which is red, is for sale."

In your 'labour pains' example I'm inclined to side with you because I can't imagine that there are any other labour pains being discussed. Therefore, they don't need to be identified, just described. So 'which brought forth the child' seems (and sounds) right to me. The labour pains might have stopped, after all, and not yet done what they're supposed to do - so, again, they require description not identification.

The Economist style guide says "Americans tend to be fussy about making a distinction between which and that. Good writers of British English are less fastidious." - So you're in good company.

My copy of The Times Guide to English Style and Usage (1992) bans 'amongst' and 'whilst' - but Fowler (1965) is less fussed.

rshdunlop, you have of course identified the only rule that truly matters. George Orwell would approve.

Of course, that doesn't mean I'm in favour of grammatical anarchy (à la Generation Txt) - quite the opposite, because the purpose of grammatical rules ultimately ought to be to aid understanding not impede it.

Thanks for the interesting references to The Economist and The Times style guides, Mr Numbers. I wonder why I'm so fond of 'whilst' and 'amongst'? Perhaps I see them as giving a bit of phonic backbone - 'whilst I...' sounds to me somehow more solid and reliable that the liquid, floppy and unstable 'while I...'

Fowler makes a point about how things sound, noting that 'amongst' is used much more frequently than 'among' when it is followed by a word beginning with a vowel. The same may be true of 'whilst' though I don't see any mention of that as such - but I've just done a quick skim.

'Debate me, one on one' (E. Miliband)

Ah well.

I think this article might just tip you over the edge Robin Orton...

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/12-misuse...L_hmRGECI1

It's tipped me over the edge - but mostly because it's failed to grammar properly as it's confusioned the examples for verbing and nouning.

'Architect' is indeed a noun used as a verb and so it is 'verbing', but 'ask' is a verb that's been used as a noun, so it's nouning, not verbing.

And the definitions topping the article are wrong ordered.

I think I need a lie down...

Cheers for headsing us up on this, guys.

Maybe he actually meant 'debate me' i.e. they have a debate on the subject Ed Miliband.

No? Okay, maybe not.

In order to have a debate you have to have someone arguing 'For'

I think that Mr Milliband, or his speech writer, is probably aware of normal grammatical usage. It could just be an example of brachylogia - abbreviating his phrasing in order to make it stand out. In that sense it has worked as people are talking about it, including on this forum.

It is also an example of US phrasing anyway and may refer to examples from presidential races where candidates (e.g. McCain) have lost crucial support in the polls for not wanting to show up to debate. Or so he hopes...

This post was last modified: 27-04-2015 01:17 PM by lacb.

Thanks for 'brachylogia', lacb (although the OED only recognized 'brachylogy' - ='conciseness of speech, laconism; a condensed expression') - a term new to me.

I am sure you are right, that Mr Miliband's speechwriter wanted a succès de scandale amongst the fogey classes, who are no doubt high up in the Labour list of target demographics.

A pleasure. I first encountered this in Schott's Miscellany which has a great page about Churchill and his speeches:
http://www.mrswachellsclassroom.com/Rhet...rchill.pdf

I think that the different ending is probably a nod to the Greek origin of these rhetoric words which Churchill no doubt studied in his Classics.