MSGID: 2:221/6.0 5ed82a4e   
   REPLY: 1:153/716.0 ed70e5f2   
   PID: SmapiNNTPd/Linux/IPv6 1.3 20200418   
   EID: Sylpheed 3.7.0 (GTK+ 2.24.32; arm-unknown-linux-gnueabihf)   
   CHRS: CP437 2   
   TZUTC: 0300   
   TID: hpt/lnx 1.9.0-cur 2020-04-15   
   Ardith Hinton to Anton Shepelev:   
      
   > AH>  Nah.  Just a few ordinary household items made of xxx,   
   > AH>  yyy, and zzz... none with magic(k)al powers, but all   
   > AH>  of which we are still using.  :-)   
   >   
   > AS>  Then I won't pursue this quotidian matter any futher.   
   > AS>  But may I make so bold as to question the grammar in   
   > AS>  the quoted sentence?   
   >   
   >           Of course.  You may be sure that whatever I say in the   
   > E_T echo has been edited & proofread thoroughly; however, I do   
   > miss things sometimes.  :-)   
      
   Thank you for this most commendable commission to quality in the   
   echo.   
      
   > AS>  1. Is it correct to use "but.. which" without a prior   
   > AS>  occurence of "which" in the sentence?   
   >   
   >            If I hadn't thought so, I wouldn't have done it.   
   > Perhaps it is an error... or perhaps it's one of those stunts one   
   > shouldn't try at home.  :-))   
      
   It may be that...   
      
   >            I could have written "... none of which has [blah   
   > blah] but all of which we are still using."  Although it would   
   > have made a nicer parallelism I felt it might be unnecessarily   
   > wordy.   
      
   Indeed. The amendment I had in mind (but withheld) was the   
   following: "none with magic(k)al powers, but all of them still in   
   use".   
      
   My other misdoublt about it (withheld, too) was that "but" does not   
   seem to introduce any kind of contradtion! On the other hand,   
   magical items, being rarer, are likely to be used longer.   
      
   >            IIRC I've seen a few constructions like "... most, but   
   > by no means all, of which [i.e. covid-related deaths in this   
   > country] are associated with long term care facilities".  In such   
   > cases the logic is more obvious....  :-)   
      
   A perfectly reasonable construction to me, too.   
      
   > AS>  2. Is it correct to express the continued use of these   
   > AS>  items in the present progressive tense?   
   >   
   >            As a native speaker I depend heavily on my Russian   
   > modem buddies & foreign language textbooks to identify the names   
   > of verb tenses.   
      
   I think the terminology is largely the same in English Grammars   
   written in English, by the English, and for the English.   
      
     (English \Eng"lish\, n. Collectively, the people of England;   
      English people or persons.)   
      
   >            In general the present tense would work too, but in   
   > this example I figure it would change the emphasis as well as the   
   > rhythm I had in mind.  :-)   
      
   If I grasp this distinction corretly, then I should say that a busy   
   and professional photographer may say: "I am using a Horizon   
   camera," whereas a time-to-time amateur like me who shoots several   
   film rolls a season may say: "I use a Horizon camera"?   
      
   That the sound of your original version is better is "fixed with the   
   golden nails to the walls of inevitable necessity".   
      
   > >>>  In a moment, his wife looked up at him and said, "I'm   
   > >>>  sorry. I'd not thought she was capable of a thing like   
   > >>>  that."   
   >   
   > AS>  Mark the last sentece, which, again, is uttered by an   
   > AS>  apparently educted person.   
   >   
   >            It strikes me as unusual, but not incorrect.  If the   
   > person you're referring to lives in the Southern States I'd cut   
   > her a bit of slack....  :-)   
      
   And she sure does.   
      
   > AS>  How about this:   
   >   
   > AS>  a. I forgot he was vegetarian. (he still is)   
   >   
   >            That's what I'd probably say.   
   >   
   > AS>  b. I forgot he had been vegetarian. (he has reverted)   
   >   
   >            If I knew he'd reverted but my brain slipped a cog, I   
   > might say "I forgot he'd been vegetarian as an impecunious   
   > student but modified his stance after he began doing hard   
   > physical work in the construction industry....  :-)   
      
   Your extrapolation has given new life to my example, but I see no   
   cogs slipping...   
      
   ---    
    * Origin: nntps://news.fidonet.fi (2:221/6.0)   
   SEEN-BY: 1/123 90/1 120/340 601 123/131 221/0 6 226/30 227/114 702   
   SEEN-BY: 229/101 424 426 664 1014 240/1120 1634 2100 5138 5832 5853   
   SEEN-BY: 240/8001 8002 8005 249/206 317 261/38 280/5003 313/41 317/3   
   SEEN-BY: 320/219 322/757 331/313 333/808 335/206 364 370 342/200 382/147   
   SEEN-BY: 2454/119 4500/1 5020/1042   
   PATH: 221/6 335/364 240/1120 5832 229/426