Getting back to some grammatical 'which'-hunting

Question for November: What is the ugliest English word in common use today?

Answer: No, it's not that tired old obscenity. The winner is "which." It grates, it pouts, it scratches. It rubs the wrong way. It rarely accomplishes anything not already well served by "that." You've heard my which-hunting spiel many times before. Today the chair recognizes a concurring voice from Randy Miller, city editor of The Hawk Eye in Burlington, Iowa.

He writes: "We know, and tell young reporters, that in most cases nearly all of their 'thats' can be usefully de-leted. But what about their 'whiches'? We have a sports reporter who tends toward hyperbole in his writing. Readers love it, but the rest of us cringe. Here's a recent example:

"FARMINGTON — A high school football program which has not made the playoffs in its 47-year history suddenly turns the table, making the postseason. ... A team which had been down on its luck, a team which had won just 12 games in the previous five seasons, a team which had not had a winning season since 2002, suddenly becomes a postseason qualifier. A team which had become almost a laughingstock to its opponents suddenly becomes a force to be reckoned with, a team which has brought several communities together with a common purpose."

As Horrid Examples go, that wins the jug-eared cup of wet spaghetti. Let us turn to that brilliant lexicographer, Bryan Garner, in his "Modern American Usage." He begins his entry on "which" with characteristic restraint:

"This word, used immoderately, is possibly responsible for more bad sentences than any other in the language."

My own advice to writers is not so restrained: When you feel an urge to use a "which," lie down until the spasm goes away.

Moving on: Kenneth Gottlieb of Tucson, Ariz., wonders if the old rules of antecedal usage have gone to the bow-wows. He cites a letter from Martin Luther King III to Sen. John Edwards. "We need a leader with knowledge of injustice in the forefront of their minds." In another Horrid Example, he quotes election officials in Arizona. They remind mail-in voters that "if you cannot sign, have the person assisting you fill in their name."

Careful writers will hold firmly to the old ways, i.e., "we need leaders with knowledge of injustice in the forefront of THEIR minds," or less diplomatically, "a leader with knowledge ... in HIS mind." Similarly, those voting instructions in Arizona could be usefully recast in a plural construction — persons who fill in their names.

But I wobble in the company of that melancholy Dane. My native hue of resolution is sicklied o'er by a pale cast of doubt: Have we reached a point, grammatically speaking, when referent pronouns have lost their old character? Has a new wave come ashore?

And speaking of grammatical agreement, Frances Casey of North Wilkesboro, N.C., cites a sentence by Michele Borba in a book of advice to parents of school-age children. Parents should embrace their urchins' apparent boredom because it means "there's new neurons forming" in their brains. If we emend the sentence to read that "there are new neurons forming," we gain in grammar but lose in euphony. The best editing would get rid of the "there" altogether. New neurons are forming, and there's an end to it.

Finally, let me seek advice from all you mathematicians out there. A columnist in The Washington Post noted last month that teenage pregnancy rates in the Netherlands are "six times lower" than they are here. I have an uneasy feeling that "six times lower" is a boo-boo, but I can't say why. With your direction, I will find out.

James J. Kilpatrick is a syndicated columnist. Contact him at kilpatjj@aol.com.