look them up in an online dictionary and you should find examples... here's a good site you should keep handy to check things like this: http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Writing/t.html scroll down the page for 'that versus which'
The difference between them doesn't confuse me, but I still go with the advice on that site to "use whatever sounds right". As far as I can tell it's a recent distinction that some rule makers have invented so that they can look cleverer than those who don't know the rule. It's the nature of language change that it might yet become a rule of Grammar (especially now that the Microsoft grammar checker thinks it is), but it's also the nature of language change that those of us who don't like it can resist.
It kills me when people use a ton of (...) ellipses, and/or don't capitalize any word in their sentences. It's even worse when people use all caps, but they are both irritating and hard to read. Not only is it horrible form and bad grammar, it shows disrespect to the reader (who is not worth their time) and also causes false extra meaning in the context. Also using (...), with too many dots ,or incorrectly gets very irritating. I see this in a lot of text messages, emails, posts, Twitter and Facebook.
It's not a firm rule but is a matter or courtesy. It's not actually "the pronoun comes last" because there might be more than one pronoun. It's that you put other people before yourself. As you indicate, there can be reasons for changing that order, but they are "marked": they are unusual and draw attention to the order (which is exactly the reason for using them).
Pronoun Party I definitely looked, but have not seen one answer on the ordering. All i know is that it is typically John and me, and the only reason I would probably do it different is to inflect a last minute name add: e.g. Finally the girl I love called me--and John. Something like that. Still it seems to be more that it follows the pattern John and I, because you can not write I and John. I have a habit of writing in 3rd Person-LO, so that's about as much as I could theorize on it.
You can if it's the subject of the phrase, although it is marked: it draws attention to the order of "I and John" which would normally be "John and I".
It's not a recent distinction. The more recent development is to ignore the distinction. It is, of course, convenient to say it's just there to make people look clever, when you don't understand the rule. You can look here and learn something about it: http://www.kentlaw.edu/academics/lrw/grinker/LwtaThat_Versus_Which.htm
I understand the rule perfectly well, thank you, and no, I cannot learn anything about it from the page you linked to because it doesn't tell me anything I don't already know. If you consult Fowler's "Modern English Usage" (2nd ed) you will find that, although he agrees that it would be helpful if "that" were only for defining clauses and "which" for non-defining clauses, that simply isn't a rule of English and never has been. As Fowler writes, "Some there are who follow this principle now; but it would be idle to pretend that it is the practice either of most or of the best writers."
Maybe you should try this link, then, which cites the Chicago Manual of Style, as well as Strunk: http://www.montana.edu/gradwriting/?p=15 Of course, given your exhaustive knowledge of the topic, you probably won't find anything you didn't already know. But one can hope.
I did hope, but I was disappointed. Both the CMS and Strunk & White are style guides, not grammars, and Strunk and White is an exceptionally poor one that repeatedly breaks its own rules and gets its basic grammar wrong. Anyway, neither addresses my claim that this is a relatively new distinction. Show me a grammar from the 18th century or earlier which states this as a rule of grammar (not of style) and you will have something that challenges what I said and supports your claim that it's an old rule.
I hate... These "..." things. Annoying. Dialogue tags --you don't need them. Semi column used incorrectly. Too little commas. Too many commas. x]
oh, yes you do!... try writing a whole story or novel without any at all and you'll drive your readers batty...
Yeah you sorta do need them dialogue tags. Not for every line of dialogue, but you need to make sure its clear. Also I just don't see whats wrong with them in the first place. You almost never notice them anyways.
I've read this whole thread to be on the safe side I'll probably still make all the mistakes you guys hate Mine is the people who don't know they are doing it wrong in other words me I can't tell the diffidence between dose and does guitar and gutair (last one is not a word) in fact if it was not for this spell checker most of you would be getting out your torches so yeah my pet peeve is me Edit Oh yeah and not capitalization a name or nickname (see username)
One presumes you are a Cormac McCarthy fan. If so, one cannot help but applaud. Anyhoo... m'personal peeves are multifarious and, most likely, unnecessary. Poor spelling is a thing of horridness. As is the pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey approach to punctuation that most people seem to employ these days. A lack of capitalization is sure to drive me to apoplexy. However, the worst offenders are the Harbingers of The Stray Possessive Apostrophe. "Its" is the possessive, "it's" is the contraction. THIS IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE AND YOU SHOULD BE SHOT IN THE FACE WITH A FRIDGE YOU MORONS ARRRGGGGHHHH. I also despise people that type in all-capitals for dramatic effect. The idiots. Oh...
Quite a Few I am a proud grammar Nazi and occasionally irritate my friends. Here are a few: Ending sentences with a preposition (still illegal in "Elements of Style"). News headlines that use present tense. "Man drives car into house." You'd think the man would learn to stop after the third time. Using an adjective to describe an adjective. "I got hurt bad," when it should be "I got hut badly." I saw a presentation from a classmate (in college) where he used the word "indeces," not once, but twice. I will ever be annoyed by people who put up posts on Fakebook with poor grammar: I usually go thought my news feed and add corrections just for fun. In fact, I think I'll do that right now. I usually find a lot more through my day, but I can't think of any right now. I'll keep a mental note and come back with juicy ones!
A few what? Note that that's "Elements of Style", not "Elements of Grammar". The rule against ending sentences with a preposition is another fairly recent pedant's invention that has no historical place in English and has never really taken. It's called "Historical present", and is perfectly standard English. That one, at least, is non-standard English, but it is correct in some regional varieties. A simple spelling mistake? By the way, do you think that items in a bulleted list should be parallel in tense and aspect? This list is rather going astray, isn't it? People who lose track of the structure of what they're writing?
One I've come across a lot lately is the interchangeable use of 'his' and 'he's'. For example: "He's jacket got wet," or "His not coming to the party." His is to hers as he's is to she's.
What?! No one that speaks English as a first language could possibly make that mistake, surely? And yes, I'm calling you 'Shirley'. Maybe.
i have to eat a couple of my own words, kids... yes, you 'saw' me right!... i was wrong!!! i'm currently reading a novel by tami hoag, of all people, and she's done away with many [maybe even most] dialog tags, by the use of skillful wording and juxtaposition of the dialog and narrative... so, i humbly beg the pardon of whoever it was i disagreed with on the subject of tags being necessary, since in the hands of good writers, they aren't always de rigueur... apologetic hugs, maia
Yeah there's a few. Mostly I see a cautious use of tags, somewhere in between. It takes a some good wordsmithing--and lots of engineering--to get them all out. I like to remove as many as possible to increase the motion and intensity without killing flow. Hemingway and a few other older authors have used the lack of tags in a pretty cool way too. They would have mass lines of dialogue, with no clue to who said what, for the sole purpose of making you feel the confusion and group mentality in regard to panic or over excitement. Although, I wouldn't suggest this for commercial fiction, it would probably still work for Literary styles.