ddw (03/09/83)
Interestingly, I recently had an interchange with Ken Goutal (decvax!goutal)
on the differences between "that" and "which". Strictly speaking, "that"
should be used to introduce restrictive clauses, "which" nonrestrictive.
For those not familiar with the terminology, a restrictive clause describes
(restricts) the objects in question, e.g. "the book that is on the table"
tells you what book I mean, whereas "the book, which is on the table" implies
you already know what book I mean, and I just happen to be mentioning that
it's on the table.
(Sorry about the run-on sentence.)
I admit that there is usually no danger of the reader becoming confused, but
I ran across an example not long ago where someone had used "which" and should
have used "that". Taking it as a nonrestrictive clause made the sentence
false. Unfortunately, I failed to copy down the example, but will try to
get hold of it.
As for the diction program, I have rarely found any use for it. Most of the
stuff it complains about is bad in some contexts but all right in others, so
I've given up on it.
David Wright
{vax135|decvax|allegra}!cornell!ddw
ddw@cornellmmt (03/10/83)
It is true that the diction program provides many false alarms. Its main benefit is that it gets the writer to think about whether the writing is correct, and leads to better writing overall. Different people will start with different hit rates, and if the writer doesn't know enough English to know whether a "diction" output is a hit or a false alarm, diction can't help. If a writer starts with a diction hit rate of, say 20%, and understands why the hits actually should be changed (use "suggest" to see what alternatives there may be), then after a few tens of pages of writing the hit rate will decline to 10% and then 5%, at which point there is no further use for "diction". It is a training aid, not a paper-corrector. As for that/which, I started with diction without having any feel for when to use one and when the other. Diction annoyed me with its pedantic approach. But having used it for a while, and having had a book copy-edited (most of my "which"s were changed), I now have a good feel for their correct usage. It is a worth-while exercise. Martin Taylor
mjl (03/11/83)
Ok, I'll enter the fray. I find `diction' useful, even though it often complains about phrases I think are appropriate. I view it as a tool to detect questionable usage, rather than an automated Miss Grundy giving me electronic raps on the knuckles. As such, it has often kept me from slipping into educationalese, computerese, and all the other "ese's" that confuse rather than enlighten. Eschewing obfuscation, Mike Lutz ucbvax!allegra!rochester!ritcv!mjl P.S. I wonder what William Safire would think of diction (or, for that matter, net.nlang).