>In a sentence similar to the one I used--
>
>In the first case we have blah-blah, whereas in the second case we have
>yak-yak.
>
>we debated the function of "whereas."  Is it a coordinating conjunction?
>Or would it function as "thus" did in the example I used?  [we're leaning
>toward the former]
>

I would like to refer to what Fowler (or Gowers?) wrote when discussing the
word "while" (Fowler's Modern English Usage, 2nd ed., p. 707).
It would seem that much of what is said there also applies to "whereas", as
used in Mr. Dubinsky's sentence.


Fowler uses the term
(3) Weak conjunction, not pretending to be anything else, but merely serving
as a FORMAL WORD or ELEGANT VARIATION  for  "and" , with complete
abandonment of the strong conjunction character...


I would say that grammatically speaking (sic!) we are dealing with a
subordinating conjunction, but semantically speaking it is an "elegant
variation" of the word "and".

Willem van Bork
Middelburg
Holland