Stone-Faced

Look, I'm not proud of this, OK? But who among us hasn't had the experience of idly trawling the webosphere, mindlessly clicking links, and inexplicably ending up in some louche (and irresistably compelling) corner of cyberspace? In other words, I don't remember how I arrived at this slide show of "When Stars Have a Bad Day"--let's just say I was doing research and leave it at that--but I could not look away once I got there.

Among the photos of the stars and their cellulite and bunions was this snap of Sharon Stone with an accompanying caption.

Sharon Stone's eyes looked bruised as she shopped in Beverly Hills, Calif., Jan. 21, 2010. She wore a fedora and sunglasses that she eventually took off to conceal her dark eyes.

Remember when we covered the whole "that vs which," "restrictive vs non-restrictive clause" conundrum? Neither do I, really. Not in detail, anyway. But in any case, the above is an example of how a misplaced that  can sabotage the intended meaning of a sentence.

Obviously, one does not take off sunglasses to conceal one's eyes, but that's what this caption appears to be saying. If we throw in a couple of commas, however, and have which tap that on the shoulder and take its place, we get: "She wore a fedora and sunglasses, which she eventually took off, to conceal her dark eyes." The fact that she took the glasses off becomes parenthetical (and it explains why she is bare-faced in the picture) while the logical integrity of the sentence is preserved. That way, we gossip-loving voyeurs understand that she had been wearing sunglasses to cover her hideous, probably post-plastic-surgery bruising.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to get back to passing judgments on hotornot.com.

I'll Wait for the iFamilyMiniVan

I remember reading somewhere awhile back that what the ailing U.S. auto industry needs is some of the playful and seductive design ingenuity behind Apple's best products. Well, behold: we give you the iMo.

Alas, the iMo is only (for now, at least) a work of fiction. It's one the concept cars featured in this Huffington Post slideshow. The description, as composed by the iMo's designer, says:

iMo is a robotic car based on the Apple philosophy which consists of applying a process of elimination to come up with simple and elegant design solutions, by means of cutting-edge technology.

First of all, we have the problem of  which  being used with a restrictive clause--a gaffe I covered in obsessive drunken detail recently. But the thing is, with this example, we need not fuss about with whichs and thats at all. Why not just: "the Apple philosophy of applying a process of elimination..."? That, I think, would be in the Apple spirit of simple and elegant solutions.

Which Wine is That?

It's not often you can find a drinkable wine for under ten dollars (at least not in Canada, with our confiscatory booze taxes). Allow me to recommend the Gray Fox Shiraz, which retails for $6.99 (which would make it...what, about a buck and a half  U.S.?). If, like me and most other successful people, you're poor and drink a lot of wine, that represents pretty good bang for your grape-buying buck. Remember, though, I said "drinkable," not "outstanding," and keep in mind that it has to be the Shiraz--the other wines I've tried in the Gray Fox line-up taste like yak urine.

Anyway, I'm enjoying my first (ok, third) glass right now and I notice that the marketing babble on the back label of the bottle includes this line:

Our Shiraz is a full bodied wine which displays ripe raspberry with hints of black pepper and not a trace of yak urine.

Ok, I made that last bit up. But we are still left with the un-hyphenated "full bodied" and, more disturbingly, a misused "which." And it is truly disturbing because it means I have to harsh my wine mellow by getting into a discussion of defining versus non-defining clauses.

A defining (or restrictive) clause is essential to the meaning of the sentence and cannot be removed without causing confusion. Defining clauses use "that" and are not set off with commas: "The wine that I drink is cheap and tastes surprisingly unlike yak urine." Here, the clause "that I drink" is defining the wine in question. Similarly, the example on the Gray Fox bottle needs a "that."

With non-defining clauses we use "which" and set the phrase off with commas: "The wine, which is bottled on a yak farm, is cheap and tastes surprisingly unlike yak urine." In this example, the clause "which is bottled on a yak farm" is incidental and could be removed without altering the meaning of the sentence--in other words, it does not define (or restrict) the essence of what is being conveyed.

Wasn't that fun? Oh yes, I suppose it's worth noting that many otherwise sane (albeit usually British) people are much more lax about this distinction. Even the scrupulously-edited New Yorker, for instance, for reasons that have never been adequately explained, will often allow a "which" to sit in on a defining clause. So if you want to be loosy-goosy with your "thats" and "whichs" you do have reputable sources to call as character witnesses. But you risk being mocked by those of us who appreciate the ripe raspberry nuances of a well-placed "that" and the hints of black pepper in an artfully executed "which."