Ardith Hinton - Anton Shepelev:

> AS>  It is probably permissible because `which' is more
> AS>  general than "who", and, together with `that', used be
> AS>  employed to personal and impersonal objects alike,
>
> Hmm... I think you've made another important point there.

Note to self: "employed with" or "applied to".

> I like the idea that "God the Father" could be a metaphor,
> BTW....  :-)

I did not have that idea in mind while commenting on the hymn. Nor
do Christians think of God that way.

> AS>  but Cf. another address: "Our Father, Who art in
> AS>  Heaven...", where the verb is in the second
> AS>  person too, but the prounoun is personal.
>
>           Except when it's not.  The Lord's Prayer is a
> translation & there are many different versions.  The KJV says
> "which"....  :-)

Well spotted! That explains Heber's "which"--it is truer to
Jacobian English.

> AS>  I have failed to what the esteemed Goold Brown has to
> AS>  say upon the matter on account of the sheer volume of
> AS>  his magnum opus.
>
>           Uh-huh.  When I try looking up some issues, if I can
> find anything at all, I get one of two answers:  "there are so
> many possible uses of [blah blah] I won't attempt an exhaustive
> list" or "my favourite dictionary includes thirty pages of xxx in
> detail, but I feel overwhelmed with too much information".  I'm
> reminded here of my adventures with French & Latin... where the
> examples in the textbook make sense until question #4, when added
> wrinkles are introduced.  :-Q

That has happened to me, too, but not in case of Brown. It took me
three attemts to understand Fowler's exposition on Will and Shall
in a chapter of "King's English":

                https://www.bartleby.com/116/213.html

But in the end I did it and now can read Agatha Christie, Anthony
Hope, and Bram Stoker without stumbling at every second `should'.

---