http://www.englishforums.com/search/pro.htm?q=user%3adionusos&o=DateDescendingSearch results for 'user:dionusos'en-USXMOD (Build: 3607.32596)http://www.englishforums.com/English/SomeGrammarQuestions/2/gkgxj/Post.htm#552390Fri, 08 Aug 2008 03:53:15 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:552390dionusosAccording to a journalism professor, "that" should be used in attribution where the subject changes. He says he supports electoral reform vs. He says (that) his opponent supports electoral reform.http://www.englishforums.com/English/SomeGrammarQuestions/gkgxj/post.htm#552340Fri, 08 Aug 2008 00:14:37 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:552340dionusosWould you say "the party would " or "the law would incriminate people who blah blah blah" instead of "the party will" or "the law will"? You can use either one. If it is enacted, the law will ... vs. If it were enacted, the law would ... The first shows more certainty that the law might really be enacted. That's what I suspected. I notice "which is" is occasionally omitted in writing. It's called Whiz-Deletion. It's the deletion of a relative pronoun like which or who followed by a form of the verb to be , for example is . If you take the wh of which and the pronunciation of is (iz) you get "whiz". Whiz-Deletion is optional. The person who is sitting in the...http://www.englishforums.com/English/SomeGrammarQuestions/gkgxj/post.htm#552312Thu, 07 Aug 2008 22:19:51 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:552312dionusosNo, Doll. I couldn't find an adequate answer to my question about beginning sentences with attribution. On the 'will' vs' would.' It sounds like we're both unsure. After all, merely because something is repeated in print doesn't mean it's correct. I've read "hearken back" many times in the LA Times, when what they meant to write was "harked back."http://www.englishforums.com/English/SomeGrammarQuestions/gkgxj/post.htm#552257Thu, 07 Aug 2008 19:35:13 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:552257dionusosHello, Welcome to EF! Thanks My two cents: -- would vs will Let's say you're discussing a plans for a party or a law that may or may not actualize but you're describing what they will entail. Would you say "the party would " or "the law would incriminate people who blah blah blah" instead of "the party will" or "the law will"? I've noticed in some newspapers the use of "will" even about laws and ordinances that are being proposed or voted on. It seems to me that "will" is preferred most of the time however using would or will depends on your intention and meaning you want to give us. Would suggest a hypothetical thing. This is...http://www.englishforums.com/English/SomeGrammarQuestions/gkgxj/post.htmThu, 07 Aug 2008 18:39:44 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:552237dionusosI can't find simple answers to these questions in the CMS or via web pages. Here they are: -- would vs will Let's say you're discussing a plans for a party or a law that may or may not actualize but you're describing what they will entail. Would you say "the party would " or "the law would incriminate people who blah blah blah" instead of "the party will" or "the law will"? I've noticed in some newspapers the use of "will" even about laws and ordinances that are being proposed or voted on. --,which is.., or not? I notice "which is" is occasionally omitted in writing. For example, "She was referred to Teen Court, an early intervention...