Comment Re:What's wrong with his post? (Score 1) 421
You know you're a grammar nazi when, you create a Slashdot account just to post this:
Actually, the original sentence was correct. If the clause "foisted upon the world by upper class tits that needed another way to make themselves feel special" is treated as a restrictive appositive, then it's correct, even without a comma. The "corrected" sentence is almost correct; the use of "which" as a relative pronoun indicates the dependent clause is non-restrictive, which generally requires a comma (as used in this sentence). Replacing "which" with "that" would make it restrictive, forgoing the need for a comma and retaining the original intent of the author.
Actually, the original sentence was correct. If the clause "foisted upon the world by upper class tits that needed another way to make themselves feel special" is treated as a restrictive appositive, then it's correct, even without a comma. The "corrected" sentence is almost correct; the use of "which" as a relative pronoun indicates the dependent clause is non-restrictive, which generally requires a comma (as used in this sentence). Replacing "which" with "that" would make it restrictive, forgoing the need for a comma and retaining the original intent of the author.
