A reader wanted to talk about “by accident” versus “by accident.” Another had a problem with Wall Street Journal editors not distinguishing between “that” and “what.” Another complained about people adding the word “correct” after every sentence, while yet another felt that inserting the word “like” was the real problem.

These commenters were among nearly 1,100 readers who responded online to an article that wasn’t about “that” and “who,” “by accident” or linguistic tics like “well” — and that didn’t even appear in the wall. Street Journal.

This is what happens when you talk about grammar in a public forum: linguistic grievances will demand their moment in the sun. So let’s address some of the comments about Michael Dirda April 25, 2024, review from Anne Curzan’s grammar book “Says Who?” »

“It drives me crazy that the Wall Street Journal in particular constantly confuses ‘it’ and ‘who’, ‘that’ and ‘who’, and ‘who’ and ‘who,'” posted a reader called Local NYer. “Obviously, nothing is subject to retouching anymore.”

“It” and “which” are not as rigid as New Yorkers seem to think. Some major drafting styles have long said that “that” is for restrictive clauses and “which” is for nonrestrictive clauses. A restrictive clause restricts the range of nouns to which it refers. Compare: “Cookies that are eaten quickly contain chocolate chips” and “Cookies that are eaten quickly contain chocolate chips.” See, in the first sentence we’re just talking about which cookies are eaten first? Indeed, the “that” clause restricts the range of cookies we are talking about. But in the second example, “which gobble up quickly” is not there to specify which cookies we are talking about. Instead, “the cookies” – all of them – are gobbled up quickly and also contain chocolate chips. But unlike in editing, in the real world there’s no rule against using “which” in place of “that,” not least because commas usually make it pretty clear whether a clause is restrictive. So instead of a hard rule, it’s just a good reminder to write clearly.

“That” and “which” pose a similar problem. Editors generally think it’s better to refer to “who” rather than “that” because it’s specific to people: “the man I saw” versus “the man whom I saw “. I agree. But you can use “that” if you want.

As for using “who” instead of “whom,” that can be a difficult decision. Sometimes “who” seems so stuffy and formal that it distracts from your message. Precise language is nice, so I use “who” when it suits me, but getting your point across is what’s most important.

As for “by accident”, this is a case in which no syntax rules apply. “The appropriate preposition is a matter of idiom,” wrote Theodore Bernstein in his 1965 guide “The Careful Writer.” When choosing between prepositions like “on” and “by,” opt for the one that comes naturally or consult a dictionary. If these methods fail, Bernstein writes, “the only thing to do is to consult three knowledgeable friends and reach a consensus.” So no one can say “by accident” is ungrammatical, but you can count me among your friends who say “by accident” is better.

A reader using Speedostat added this comment: “This latest fad is driving me crazy: using the word ‘isn’t it?’ after every statement someone says. Damn, don’t get me started, right?

Interjections like “isn’t it?” » are a matter of taste, but a user called dkb50 found another reason to take a look at Speedostat: “Last? It bothered me when I was a kid in the 60s.”

That’s how it goes when you write about grammar in a public space: even the nitpickers get pinched.

June Casagrande is the author of “The Joy of Syntax: A Simple Guide to All the Grammar You Know You Should Know.” She can be reached at [email protected].