By the way, you can get Fowler's "The King's English" online too. I provide a reference for the that/which rules:

http://www.bartleby.com/116/205.html

It doesn't seem to me that British and American English differ that much in the usage (regarding the use of "that" for restrictive clauses).

>....if this were published in an American paper, we would probably have accepted it.<

Well, some might accept it if it were to be published in an American newspaper, or even if it was published in an American newspaper. :)

111op - I may be getting on a bit, but I was at school a few years after Shakespearean times :-)

>Since I love to think of these forums as 'talks', I vote for 'was' in the original posting.<

"A touch, a definite touch".

However, a keyboard is not an oral medium.

Ah of course. Unless you were the character from the Janacek opera who's lived out a couple of centuries (see
http://www.music-lovers.co.il/prague...akropulos.html ). :-)

All I meant to argue is that English usage has changed -- what's accepted then may not be accepted now, etc. Of course I was just being argumentative. :-)

Wow, it is amazing how much school I slept through. I have no idea what most of you are talking about.

I'm with 111op.
Here's what the people at Oxford Dictionaries have to say on the issue:

"In modern English the subjunctive mood still exists but is regarded in many contexts as optional. Use of the subjunctive tends to convey a more formal tone but there are few people who would regard its absence as actually wrong."

http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexper...nctive?view=uk

Interesting link there. Thanks hanl!

I have a(n) MA in English, and am a certified English teacher (PA).

This post has given me a headache.

Thankfully, I have some gin handy. :)

It is better to be a descriptive grammarian, rather than a precriptive one.

Too many of you genuflect to Bishop Lowth.

Thin, you did mean proscriptive, didn't you?

>It is better to be a descriptive grammarian, rather than a precriptive one.<

Well, it is easier.

u dont has ter bother bout communicating clearly and/or precisely. :)

As "mentee" of Chicago Manual editor, I would say that "were" is MORE correct than "was," at least in formal American written English, because the internet is not, in fact, a spoken medium. Put another way, you don't use the indicative with "if." Assuming you know what the indicative is and you care.

As a teacher of newswriting, I also note that the Guardian apparently follows a style that does not capitalize "internet." That would be my choice, but interestingly, the Associated Press style manual requires it to be capitalized (which always bothers me).

And speaking of "whiches": certain purists on "that" vs. "which" would get upset with the phrase "all the mistakes which arise though doing that..." If it's ALL mistakes, then the modifying clause is completely restrictive and the word should be "that." Some manuals (like the AP) would prescribe that "which" only be used in non-restrictive cases and always preceded by a comma.

The that-which mess is a guaranteed brawl among editors, second only to the use of hyphens.

I'm not wedded to any of these things myself.... just sayin'.......

I don't have an MA in English, but I think that I should switch to teach English instead. At least I seem pretty comfortable with all the rules. :-)

(It's definitely an MA -- in fact, I was just looking at that link hanl sent and came across this:

http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexper...r/anma?view=uk )

Jim Thurber reports that, during his days at the New Yorker, Harold Ross (th editor) hated contradictory phrases, such as 'pretty ugly' and 'a little big'.

Anyone have other phrases such as these?

ira:

somewhat pregnant

very unique

terribly happy

There're so many oxymorons out there.

Check this link, for example:
http://www.oxymorons.com/oxymorons.html

Thank you St. Cirq. Using "which" instead of "that" bugged me a lot more than the "was" instead of "were."

But I doubt that the Brits would use "which" in the example that StCirq gave anyway (certainly, not according to the Fowler's reference I provided).

No, Foodsnob, I actually meant "preScriptive" grammarian (which I misspelled, dropping the "s"), not "proscriptive" grammarian.

I am actually a good speller, but I am as blind as Helen Keller. My glasses don't help much.

The gin doesn't help either.

I HATE RULES.

It is arguable to use "a" or "an" MA.

I am leaving now because this is making me seasick.

Well Thin, you'll have to take it up with the Oxford people then regarding "an MA." (Now, let's not get into whether the period should be in or out of the quotation marks -- I've to look this one up.)