GalacticCactus Forum

Forums => English & Linguistics => Topic started by: AFR on July 14, 2005, 09:39:08 AM

Title: Tell me I'm not drunk (another question!)
Post by: AFR on July 14, 2005, 09:39:08 AM

Here's the sentence:

"It's been improved with the addition of specific nutrients which target and inhibit the symptoms associated with the aging process."

The "which" should be "that," right? This is something that was written a long time ago by someone else, and I'm having to proofread it today.

Title: Tell me I'm not drunk (another question!)
Post by: Jonathon on July 14, 2005, 09:42:44 AM

Yes.

Title: Tell me I'm not drunk (another question!)
Post by: AFR on July 14, 2005, 09:43:29 AM

Danke.

Title: Tell me I'm not drunk (another question!)
Post by: AFR on July 14, 2005, 09:56:47 AM

Another one:

"[Product] has been developed and manufactured in accordance with the [process], using an ultra-pure source of fresh fish oil, which tested free of toxins, pollutants, and heavy metals."

I want to remove the comma before which and change which to that.

Title: Tell me I'm not drunk (another question!)
Post by: Brinestone on July 14, 2005, 10:33:28 AM

I would leave the comma and the which because it looks like it's just additional (nonrestrictive) information about the fish oil.

Title: Tell me I'm not drunk (another question!)
Post by: AFR on July 14, 2005, 10:51:51 AM

Hmm. Yeah, I can see it that way, too. I want to talk about the source, not the oil itself.

Title: Tell me I'm not drunk (another question!)
Post by: Jonathon on July 14, 2005, 11:02:22 AM

I disagree. I'd change it to that. Not all ultra-pure, fresh fish oil is necessarily free of toxins, pollutants, and heavy metals, so the clause is restrictive.

Title: Tell me I'm not drunk (another question!)
Post by: Brinestone on July 14, 2005, 11:12:44 AM

Hm. I thought it was just added information clarifying what "ultra-pure, fresh" meant.

Title: Tell me I'm not drunk (another question!)
Post by: AFR on July 14, 2005, 12:28:51 PM

Now, mind you, I want to describe the source as being free of toxins, etc.---not necessarily the fish oil. It's a small difference, but meaningful in this case.

I compromised. I took out the comma and kept the which. In my ear that sounded best.

Title: Tell me I'm not drunk (another question!)
Post by: Jonathon on July 14, 2005, 03:03:34 PM

Sounds good to me.

Title: Tell me I'm not drunk (another question!)
Post by: weezer on July 14, 2005, 04:18:07 PM

You mean it "sounds well to me."

Title: Tell me I'm not drunk (another question!)
Post by: Jonathon on July 14, 2005, 05:01:54 PM

>.<  

Title: Tell me I'm not drunk (another question!)
Post by: Annie Conjunction on July 14, 2005, 07:20:19 PM

You should listen to her, you know.

Title: Tell me I'm not drunk (another question!)
Post by: Slash the Berzerker on July 14, 2005, 08:21:29 PM

I think he's drunk.

Title: Tell me I'm not drunk (another question!)
Post by: Brinestone on July 14, 2005, 09:03:22 PM

I wouldn't know, being drunk myself.

Title: Tell me I'm not drunk (another question!)
Post by: weezer on July 14, 2005, 09:09:21 PM

Can you just put your hip flask down for one minute?

Title: Tell me I'm not drunk (another question!)
Post by: Jonathon on July 15, 2005, 11:45:00 AM

I'm an enabler.  :(  

Title: Tell me I'm not drunk (another question!)
Post by: Annie Subjunctive on July 15, 2005, 12:31:31 PM

I think you need to dangle your participle a little better there, Ruth.

Title: Tell me I'm not drunk (another question!)
Post by: AFR on July 15, 2005, 01:18:51 PM

To much drink having affected me, that was a funny double-entendre.