=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= EDline Vol. 8, no. 3 (23 January 2003) Editorial mailing list (digest version) Published by the Electric Editors =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Contents: Q & A [2xa] 'Which/that' and spellcheckers [Offshoot of [2wy] Spellcheckers] =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= ---[2]-- Q & A -------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 From: Jane Lyle, jlyle@indiana.edu Breen Sweeney wrote: > As we're talking about this 'which versus that' debate, I live > in the UK, and I have to admit that to someone used to UK > English, the distinction seems arbitary. And whenever I try to > explain it to myself, it starts to seem 'back to front'. Let me > try to explain it here and you can tell me if I'm getting it > wrong, or if I am right and it is just a crazy distinction. You are getting it a bit wrong. > "She took the sandals, which had always proved useful at > keeping at the sand in the past. " > > The argument is that the 'which' is restrictive. No, "which" here is *non*restrictive. Nonrestrictive elements are parenthetical, not essential to the statement; restrictive elements are essential or defining. Nonrestrictive elements are set off with a comma; restrictive elements aren't. The main statement here is that she took the sandals--not the particular sandals that were good at keeping at the sand, but simply the sandals. The sandals are being singled out in some way (perhaps in the sense of the sandals rather than the oxfords). And by the way, the sandals had always proved useful in this regard. That information is set off with a comma because it isn't essential to the main statement; it's additional information. Those (especially here in the U.S.) who believe strongly in the "that"/"which" distinction on the basis that it makes things clearer never give much thought to the fact that we use "who" both restrictively and nonrestrictively without causing any confusion: "The dark-haired man who is standing in the corner is my husband." Restrictive "who"; my husband is [the dark-haired man who is standing in the corner], not just [the dark-haired man], who happens to be standing in the corner. "The dark-haired man, who is standing in the corner, is my husband." Nonrestrictive "who"; [the dark-haired man]--perhaps to distinguish him from the blond-haired man, or as a way to define which man I'm talking about, or simply to describe him--is my husband, and he just happens to be standing in the corner. "The German shepherd that just ran by is my dog." Restrictive "that"; my dog is [the German shepherd that just ran by]. "That just ran by" defines or restricts "the German shepherd." "The German shepherd which just ran by is my dog." Restrictive "which," interchangeable with "that" in some people's minds, but most definitely not in others'! "The German shepherd, which just ran by, is my dog." Nonrestrictive "which"; my dog is [the German shepherd]--being singled out among other dogs, or so as to define her breed. And my dog, the German shepherd, just happened to run by. That information, however, is not essential to my main statement, "The German shepherd is my dog." Sorry if my examples aren't the best, but there is a loud holiday party going on right outside my door! ---------------------- Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 From: Sue Innes, sueinnes@pacificcoast.net Breen Sweeney wrote: > The 'that' is non-restrictive. She took the sandals. One of the > properties that the sandals had is that they were good at keeping > the sand out. However the other sandals in Anne's room may have > also had this property. No, Breen, it's the other way round. "that" is restrictive. Fowler would say: The sandals that keep the sand out are on the table. The sandals, which keep the sand out, are on the table. In the first, the subordinate clause is essential to the sentence. Not other sandals, but these particular sandals. In the second, the sentence is simply telling you where the sandals are. The additional information, that they keep the sand out, is offered at no extra charge, but there is apparently no need to distinguish between this pair and any other. Maybe the owner in the second sentence only has one pair. So the comma usage is as we learn it in the UK. The legislated use of which and that is Fowler's invention, and is now commonly accepted throughout NA. It seems to me that we learned at school (I was brought up in the UK) simply that 'that' was less formal than 'which'. From the responses here, I gather that this is still the case outside NA. Re French - I spent ten minutes trying to explain to a French lady here (elderly and very well educated, with a master's degree in Literature from France) the difference in English between the two sentences 'My uncle, who lives in Australia, is coming for a visit.' and 'My uncle who lives in Australia is coming for a visit.' She was unable to believe that the second one was possible. She told me that in French you cannot remove the comma, and if you want to give the meaning of the second sentence, you have to rewrite to explain it. --------------------- Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 From: Bruce Goatly, ppage@goatly.co.uk Breen Sweeney wrote: > "She took the sandals, which had always proved useful at > keeping at the sand in the past." > > The argument is that the 'which' is restrictive. She took the > sandals. Which sandals did she take, from all the pairs that > were in her room? She took the ones that were good at keeping > at the sand. The implication is the other sandals were not good > at keeping out the sand. That's not the way I read it; the implication is that Anne had many other types of shoe, but she chose the sandals because the other *shoes* were not good at keeping out the sand. Admittedly that doesn't fit with the first sentence in the first example, but both examples would follow comfortably from the sentence "Anne kept all her footwear in her room", with the which/that distinction nicely maintained. Perhaps this helps to clarify... =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= END OF EDline 8.3 Admin page: < http://www.electriceditors.net/edline/admin.htm > ** The views expressed in this mailing list are strictly those of the individual contributors, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the moderators or of the Electric Editors. ** Articles (c) 2002--2003, by individual contributors Design (c) 1996--2003 Iain Brown Compilation (c) 2003 Iain Brown / The Electric Editors =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=