ID-ing. The apostrophe suggests either a contraction or a posessive, and neither applies here.

Cool, thanks. I usually "dash" words in that situation.

The apostrophe thing, I can't help you with.

But that vs. which? That's easier. Look at the bolds in the following examples.


He had a birth defect, which made him a poor candidate for Sexiest Man of the year.

Or...

He had a birth defect that rendered him useless for shoveling snow.

Do you see the difference? Does that help?

Thanks, mudpuppie! I usually instinctively use "which" and "that" well, but it's tough to explain to someone else, so I was looking for a webpage or a hard-n-fast rule (that probably only works 90% of the time.)

One thing I came up with is that "that" usually answers the question "which?":

-Which birth defect are we talking about?

-The birth defect that rendered him useless for shoveling snow.

I guess the first part of this article explains it well too.

And I'm too tired to read all of it right now, but this page has a great sentence:

He said that that 'that' that that man used was wrong.

LOL!

One thing I always remember is that when you're editing a story and trying to remove ALL unnecessary words, "that" is one to watch:

"I said that I was going to walk in the woods" is replaceable with "I said I was going to walk in the woods."

I can't help you with the ID thing but I found out that I've been using "its" and "it's" backwards. The possessive is "its" and the contraction is "it's".

I suggest IDing.

The head of press relations where I work always suggests re-writing sentences when you're not sure. Personally I'd use "identifying" instead of IDing as the former is a word, the latter, in any form, isn't.

IDing. IDong. iPod? UDing?

IDing. But "identifying" is better.

(Also, about apostrophes, this makes me crazy: the 1950's. No! The 1950s! Unless it's something like "1950's biggest hit was...")

As a broad rule, you can say that "which" adds additional information, while "that" provides vital information - you can remove the "which" information, and the sentence will still stand.

A pie that is homemade always tastes better.

The pie, which was homemade, tasted great.

In the first sentence, if you take out the info following "that" the sentence no longer makes sense: "A pie tastes better"; in the second, removing the "which information doesn't affect the meaning: "The pie tasted great".

But also, to try to mirror mudpuppie's examples,a bit:

She served homemade pie, which everyone loved.

She served a homemade pie that everyone loved.

In the first you are saying that she served pie, and also mentioning that everyone loved it; in the second, you are offering vital information about the pie. The stress isn't on the fact that she served the pie, but that it was a particular pie that everyone loved... which is sort of easier to see here:

She served homemade pie, which everyone loved, followed by coffee.

She served a homemade pie that everyone loved, followed by coffee.

Thanks! I forgot you were an editor! "That" is usually a qualifier, eh?

...the 1950's. No! The 1950s!

But the '50s !

Great "which" examples, taz! Geez, it's--what?--noon in Greece now? It's 4am here.

But the '50s

yes!

Anyway, it's not to stress too much over - there is quite a bit of disagreement over that/which, so if you get the basics of usage down, you probably shouldn't worry too much.

(11:30 a.m. here now)

See, I would make it ID'ing, with the rationale that in contractions, or in cases like " '50s", the purpose of the apostrophe is to indicate that some letters (or numbers) have been left out. (For example, "can't" is "cannot" minus the second n and o.) In the case of ID'ing, you're leaving out the "entify" part.

Mind you, I'm not saying this is *correct,* just how I would do it and rationalize it. It's a nonstandard usage in any event, so I don't think any hard and fast rule would apply.

What about IDing, with no punctuation - is that acceptable? Because that's probably what I would have done.

Grammar is so fascinating and yet so confusing.

I wonder how many Mechazens are editors. We've got at least three in this thread. We should conduct a poll.

"Editors" (formal or informal) on MeCha are like librarians on MeTa! Without the mystique.
;-(

Naw, we're writers. They have mystique.

Speak for yourself, shane. I'm full of fucking mystique.

*redlines shane's winking frowny*

5 points off for improper emoticonage! Pokes him with mypointystique.

mypointystique

Wow, cool! "My pointy stick" is in there.

Sunday morning word puzzles. Sunday night in Greece.

Left out of the that/which equation so far has been who/whom -- if you're talking about humans, it should be "who." For example:

Incorrect:
There are a number of musicians that play jazz backwards.

Correct:
There are a number of musicians who play jazz backwards.

It's subtle, but important.



(Yes, I'm also an editor.)