Re: that or which?
- From: "Father Ignatius" <FatherIgnatius@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 20:55:59 +0200
In news:1145034076.912251.258440@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
aidy <aidy.rutter@xxxxxxxxx> typed:
Hi,
I have an example sentence where I am unsure whether to put 'that'
or 'which', or if it matters at all
I was concerned about the ideas presented, *which* I believed, were
... I was concerned about the ideas presented, *that* I believed,
were ...
Marie-Claire van Leunen, bless her, has this to say in the article
"Which-Hunting" in her excellent and recommended /A Handbook for Scholars/:
*****
Which-Hunting
I understand that if you tape-record a person who's carrying on a normal
conversation, he follows the normal English pattern for relative pronouns,
"that" for restrictive clauses, "which" for nonrestrictive. He does, that
is, unless you tell him that he's addressing an audience, or dictating a
formal letter or a paper. At that point, he starts substituting "which" for
"that." This is another of those bending-over-backwards errors, the ones
that result from affecting an unnatural, prissy diction in writing.
The first cure, then, is to listen to what you write. For many people that
will be sufficient.
[Bad] The novel which is emerging in the Third World does not fit our
standard categories.
If you're lucky, that will sound awful to you, and you'll change it easily
and automatically to:
The novel that is emerging in the Third World does not fit our
standard categories.
Don't give up if you can't hear it right away. Your ear has undoubtedly been
battered by all the bad prose you've had to read, but the damage is not
permanent.
If you have a good grasp of comma punctuation, all you need to know is that
which-clauses are set off by commas.
These regulations, which Elizabeth had no intention of following,
went into effect the following summer.
No commas, no "which":
[Bad] He preferred the settlement which his sister had proposed.
He preferred the settlement that his sister had proposed.
But if you're weak on both "which/that" and commas, you'll have to think
about the grammar of restrictive and non-restrictive clauses. Restrictive
clauses ("that" with no commas) are essential, defining, irremovable.
Non-restrictive clauses ("which" with commas) are parenthetical,
descriptive, detachable. The trouble comes in deciding what you mean to say.
In most cases, you can't decide the sentence by itself; you need to look
around at the context.
The leaf _____ the grub has used for shelter now becomes its food.
"That" with no commas or "which" with commas? There's no way to tell by
looking at the sentence in isolation. Check the context to sec how the
clause relates to the noun it's modifying. If "the leaf" is a fresh
expression, not mentioned before, or not sufficient in itself for your
reader to know what leaf you're talking about, the clause is restrictive.
The leaf that the grub has used for shelter now becomes its food.
If you've already talked about the leaf, your reader knows full well what
leaf you mean, and you're just reminding him, the clause is non-restrictive.
The leaf, which the grub has used for shelter, now becomes its food.
Another way of checking the same distinction is to try out imaginary
uprooting.
The training _____ the Agency gives is free except for books and
supplies.
"That" with no commas or "which" with commas? Again, only the context can
answer the question. But try ripping out the clause and putting it after the
sentence.
The training is free except for books and supplies. The Agency gives
the training.
If that makes sense in context, the clause is non-restrictive:
The training, which the Agency gives, is free except for books and
supplies.
But if the uprooted version is nonsense---if the reader must ask, "What
training? What are you talking about?"---then the clause is restrictive. A
restrictive clause uprooted would have to go before the sentence.
The Agency gives training. The training is free except for books and
supplies.
If this is the only version that makes sense in context, what you want is
"that" with no commas:
The training that the Agency gives is free except for books and
supplies.
As a desperate last measure, if you're completely at a loss, use "that" with
no commas. It's the more common construction by maybe ten to one, so the
odds will be with you.
*****
--
Nat
Wooster: Jeeves, I'm sure that nothing is further from your mind, but
you know you have a way of saying "Indeed, sir" which gives the
impression that it's only a feudal sense of what is fitting which
prevents you from substituting the words "Says you."
Jeeves: I'm distressed to hear this, sir.
.
- References:
- that or which?
- From: aidy
- that or which?
- Prev by Date: Re: Ross Howard crucified -- it's official!
- Next by Date: Re: Freedom Fries
- Previous by thread: Re: that or which?
- Next by thread: Re: that or which?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
