Re: feature/eglot-texi-manual 4725c123f3 2/5: ; eglot.texi: Fix typos and minor inconsistenciesfeature/eglot-texi-manual 4725c123f3 2/5: ; eglot.texi: Fix typos and minor inconsistencies

[Tim Cross <theophilusx@gmail.com>]

Gregory Heytings <gregory@heytings.org> writes:

>>
>> if the existing text is not clearly incorrect, don't change it, even if there's some
>> guide that says it's 'wrong'. 'which' vs 'that' falls in that camp
>>
>
> IMHO, it doesn't.  And, FWIW, here's what the CMOS says:
>
> that; which.  These are both relative pronouns.  In polished American prose, _that_ is
> used restrictively to narrow a category or identify a particular item being talked about
> {any building that is taller must be outside the state}; _which_ is used
> nonrestrictively---not to narrow a class or identify a particular item but to add
> something about an item already identified {alongside the officer trotted a toy poodle,
> which is hardly a typical police dog}.  _Which_ is best used restrictively only when it is
> preceded by a preposition {the situation in which we find ourselves}. Nonrestrictively, it
> is almost always preceded by a comma, a parenthesis, or a dash. (In British English,
> writers and editors seldom observe the distinction between the two words.)  Is it a useful
> distinction?  Yes.  The language inarguably benefits from having a terminological as well
> as a punctuational means of telling a restrictive from a nonrestrictive relative pronoun.

“We have really everything in common with America nowadays, except, of
course, language.” -- Oscar Wilde