Candorville by Darrin Bell

Candorville

Comments (12) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. simpsonfan2

    simpsonfan2 said, over 1 year ago

    But before you use it, let me try it out first.

  2. kaecispopX

    kaecispopX said, over 1 year ago

    She can use the chain saw.

  3. knitkitty

    knitkitty said, over 1 year ago

    He is NOT going to learn, is he?

  4. shunting

    shunting said, over 1 year ago

    Actually, “that” directly refers to the chainsaw. It does not restrict the adverbial clause at the other end of the predicate. You CAN get it at Home Depot, doesn’t mean you CANNOT get it at Lowe’s.

  5. rvonluchen

    rvonluchen said, over 1 year ago

    That is the woman who put him in the hospital last January.

  6. DavidHuieGreen

    DavidHuieGreen said, over 1 year ago

    Personally, I would use “which” but I wouldn’t consider correcting the grammar of people discussing making a body unrecognizable. Even so, the general rule below makes me wonder if “that” might be hunky-dory regardless.
    -
    If the lady had used simpler sentences, Lemont would have less grounds (fewer?) for complaint. “I suggest using a chainsaw. You can get one at Home Depot. It isn’t as bad about gumming up with bone, brains and entrails as the ones from Lowes are.”
    -

    http://www.everythingenglishblog.com/?tag=restrictive-pronouns
    -
    “Generally speaking, the rule is that when a removing a clause from a sentence alters the meaning of that sentence, that clause should off-set by “that”, not “which”. When the meaning of a sentence is unaltered by the removal of a clause, the clause should be off-set by “which”.”

  7. Lamberger

    Lamberger said, over 1 year ago

    Power to the Pedant!

  8. msowards

    msowards said, over 1 year ago

    Learn to talk B—ch!!

  9. Gokie5

    Gokie5 said, over 1 year ago

    I confess that though I once taught English to college freshmen and thought I was up on grammar and such, I never heard of “that” being a restrictive pronoun, as opposed to “which.” (Or is it “that’s being a restrictive pronoun”? :-) )
    I thought that restrictiveness was indicated by non-use of a comma. At least I have sense enough not to correct the grammar of someone who is getting up equipment for a chain-saw massacre.

  10. Cynthia Zhuang

    Cynthia Zhuang GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    Poor Lemont. Not too many are fans of Grammar Nazis.

  11. Cynthia Zhuang

    Cynthia Zhuang GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    *people

  12. slcbostonGC

    slcbostonGC said, over 1 year ago

    Sorry, this one’s in the wrong. That is not the way restrictive/nonrestrictive clauses work.

  13. Refresh Comments.