MSGID: 2:221/6.0 5ee6a722   
   REPLY: 1:153/716.0 ee1a4d71   
   PID: SmapiNNTPd/Linux/IPv6 1.3 20200606   
   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 - Anton Shepelev:   
      
   > AS>  It is probably permissible because `which' is more   
   > AS>  general than "who", and, together with `that', used be   
   > AS>  employed to personal and impersonal objects alike,   
   >   
   > Hmm... I think you've made another important point there.   
      
   Note to self: "employed with" or "applied to".   
      
   > I like the idea that "God the Father" could be a metaphor,   
   > BTW....  :-)   
      
   I did not have that idea in mind while commenting on the hymn. Nor   
   do Christians think of God that way.   
      
   > AS>  but Cf. another address: "Our Father, Who art in   
   > AS>  Heaven...", where the verb is in the second   
   > AS>  person too, but the prounoun is personal.   
   >   
   >           Except when it's not.  The Lord's Prayer is a   
   > translation & there are many different versions.  The KJV says   
   > "which"....  :-)   
      
   Well spotted! That explains Heber's "which"--it is truer to   
   Jacobian English.   
      
   > AS>  I have failed to what the esteemed Goold Brown has to   
   > AS>  say upon the matter on account of the sheer volume of   
   > AS>  his magnum opus.   
   >   
   >           Uh-huh.  When I try looking up some issues, if I can   
   > find anything at all, I get one of two answers:  "there are so   
   > many possible uses of [blah blah] I won't attempt an exhaustive   
   > list" or "my favourite dictionary includes thirty pages of xxx in   
   > detail, but I feel overwhelmed with too much information".  I'm   
   > reminded here of my adventures with French & Latin... where the   
   > examples in the textbook make sense until question #4, when added   
   > wrinkles are introduced.  :-Q   
      
   That has happened to me, too, but not in case of Brown. It took me   
   three attemts to understand Fowler's exposition on Will and Shall   
   in a chapter of "King's English":   
      
                   https://www.bartleby.com/116/213.html   
      
   But in the end I did it and now can read Agatha Christie, Anthony   
   Hope, and Bram Stoker without stumbling at every second `should'.   
      
   ---    
    * 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