Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : SI Grammar and Spelling Lab -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rick Julian who wrote (2343)	4/22/1999 3:24:00 PM
From: Anaxagoras	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4711

<<Which grammatical rule applies to the use of "which" vs. "that"?>> I regret that there is no fast rule governing this. In general 'which' is used for attributive relative clauses while 'that' is used for restrictive relative clauses, and this is the convention that I follow. It clarifies my thinking and forces me to concentrate on what I am writing. I've looked into the history of this a few years ago and if I get a chance I'll relate a thing or two of interest with regard to it. Right now I'm a bit busy, but this is a favorite subject of mine so I couldn't help but respond. :-) Anaxagoras

To: Rick Julian who wrote (2343)	4/23/1999 9:16:00 AM
From: jbe	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4711

Which grammatical rule applies to the use of "which" vs. "that"? Christopher H. notes that Fowler devotes "significant" attention to this question. Well, in The King's English, he devotes 33 full pages to it (83-116, Third edition). That's significant! Fowler's basic point is that "that" is used to introduce a defining relative clause and "which" (as well as "who") is used to introduce a non-defining one. Concrete examples of the difference: The book that I read was not very good. (We had lots of books to choose from. I chose a bad one.) The book, which I happened to have read, was not very good. (Mr. X wrote a book. It was not very good. By the way, I read it myself.) Another way of putting it is that "which" clauses are inessential. You can leave the "which" clause out in sentence (2) without changing the basic meaning. It only amplifies the meaning of the sentence, without "defining" it. A still simpler rule of thumb: "that" clauses are not set off by commas; "which" clauses are. For further shades of meaning, read the 33 pages... :-) jbe

To: Rick Julian who wrote (2343)	4/23/1999 9:13:00 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4711

The classic treatment of the topic of that and which, from Strunk & White: >>>>>That is the defining, or restrictive pronoun, which is the nondefining or nonrestrictive . . . . The lawn mower that is broken is in the garage. (Tells which one) The lawn mower, which is broken, is in the garage. (Adds a fact about the only lawn mower in question. The use of which for that is common in written and spoken language ("Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass"). [edit: how's that for a nifty example of punctuation!] Occasionally which seems preferable to that, as in the sentence from the Bible. [edit: don't you love it? "The" Bible. King James, of course.] But it would be a convenience to all if these two pronouns were used with precision. The careful writer goes which-hunting, removes the defining whiches, and by doing so improves his work.<<<<< A quickie from James J. Kilpatrick: >>>>>Rule of thumb: If the qualifying phrase is set off by commas, use which, if not, use that.<<<<<