What's the reason for thinking that this isn't still a relative pronoun?
Although we tend to chide our students for fragments, professional
writers use them all the time for emphasis. Absent the full context, my
own assumption is that we just have a relative clause here, punctuated
as a complete sentence.

As for dates, if we ignore punctuation and look at the basic syntax,
'which' as the subject goes back to early Middle English, and its use in
broad reference to a preceding clause from the at least the end of the
14th century. (The OED's earliest citation is from Gower.) Personally,
I've always thought that usage books strain at gnats when they object to
this construction. Sometimes it can be ambiguous, but often it is not.

Karl Hagen
Department of English
Mount St. Mary's College


Edgar Schuster wrote:

> I have noticed "which" used as a sort of demonstrative pronoun quite
> frequently in the New York Times, as in today's "Which is one reason
> Gov. Tom Vilsack is optimistic about John Kerry's chances . . . ."
> Does anyone know how long this usage has been around?
>
> Ed SchusterTo join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the
> list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/