MSGID: 1:153/716.0 eec21a51   
   REPLY: 2:221/6.0 5ee6a722   
   CHRS: IBMPC 2   
   Hi, Anton!  Recently you wrote in a message to Ardith Hinton:   
      
   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,   
      
   AH>  Hmm... I think you've made another important point there.   
      
   AS>  Note to self: "employed with" or "applied to".   
      
      
             Yes, that's better....  :-)   
      
      
      
   AH>  I like the idea that "God the Father" could be a metaphor,   
   AH>  BTW....  :-)   
      
   AS>  I did not have that idea in mind while commenting on the   
   AS>  hymn.   
      
      
             I didn't think you would.  That's why I said "BTW"... [grin].   
      
      
      
   AS>  Nor do Christians think of God that way.   
      
      
             In this part of the world there are many differences of opinion,   
   even among Christians, as to the exact nature of God.  YMMV.  :-)   
      
      
      
   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.   
      
   AH>  Except when it's not.  The Lord's Prayer is a   
   AH>  translation & there are many different versions.   
   AH>  The KJV says "which"....  :-)   
      
   AS>  Well spotted! That explains Heber's "which"--it   
   AS>  is truer to Jacobian English.   
      
      
             That's my take on it.  The "King James" version of the Bible...   
   first published in the early 17th century... is beloved by many people because   
   of the beauty of the language.  I can well understand why it's still widely   
   read today & why authors like Bishop Heber might follow suit if they were   
   writing hymns or poetry.  I'm not sure, however, when popular usage changed   
   WRT "which"....  :-)   
      
      
      
   AS>  It took me three attemts to understand Fowler's   
   AS>  exposition on Will and Shall in a chapter of   
   AS>  "King's English":   
      
   AS>  https://www.bartleby.com/116/213.html   
      
      
             I imagine it will take me as many.  I was quite amused by his   
   comment that while this stuff comes naturally to folks from southern England   
   it remains a mystery to almost everyone else.  I recall some fragments from my   
   school days & I found some brief usage notes in my GAGE CANADIAN DICTIONARY,   
   but both leave out a lot.  This is the most detailed explanation I've   
   seen....  :-)   
      
      
      
   AS>  But in the end I did it   
      
      
             I would say you deserve a box of gold stars... [chuckle].   
      
      
      
   AS>  and now can read Agatha Christie, Anthony Hope, and   
   AS>  Bram Stoker without stumbling at every second `should'.   
      
      
             Great!  I am reminded here of the adventures Dallas & I had trying   
   to explain an Agatha Christie novel to Canadian kids in grade nine.  :-Q   
      
             Although many shall/will distinctions are no longer in common use,   
   it is important to understand that even nowadays a legal document saying   
   "teachers shall do xxx" carries about the same weight as the Ten Commandments   
   in the eyes of the school board.  And it's important to understand that when I   
   say I should like to meet you & other folks here in person, I'm not speaking   
   of a duty or an obligation as in "I really should tidy up the kitchen one of   
   these days".  :-))   
      
      
      
      
   --- timEd/386 1.10.y2k+   
    * Origin: Wits' End, Vancouver CANADA (1:153/716)   
   SEEN-BY: 1/120 123 18/0 90/1 116/116 120/340 601 123/0 25 50 131 150   
   SEEN-BY: 123/170 755 135/300 138/146 153/250 757 7715 154/10 30 40   
   SEEN-BY: 154/50 700 203/0 221/0 6 226/30 227/114 702 229/101 424 426   
   SEEN-BY: 229/664 1014 240/1120 1634 2100 5138 5832 5853 8001 8002   
   SEEN-BY: 240/8005 249/206 317 261/38 280/5003 313/41 317/3 320/219   
   SEEN-BY: 322/757 331/313 333/808 335/206 364 370 342/200 382/147 640/1384   
   SEEN-BY: 2454/119 3634/0 12 15 27 50 4500/1 5020/1042   
   PATH: 153/7715 3634/12 154/10 221/6 335/364 240/1120 5832 229/426