Discussion Forum (Archived)
Guest
I remember once as a youung teen being corrected in public having used "that" when (apparently, I mean, who knows?) I should have used "which." Maybe it was the sting of the correction, but I have resisted since then caring one way or the other... an attitude I still hold.
To me, the importance of language is to communicate clearly, not follow exactly, often times arbitrary, rules of "propah" English. On the occasion I was corrected I remeber thinking, "Did you not understand me?" I wish I had said it.
I agree that clear communication is more important than perfect grammar. Just think of all the great song lyrics that would be ruined by perfect grammar!
But just for grins, I have heard that most "writers" use that with restrictive clauses and which with nonrestrictive clauses. I use my ear to decide which one sounds best in a sentence.
A restrictive clause is a clause that would change the meaning of a sentence if removed. For example: Cars that are red attract cops. If you take out the clause "that are red" you are left with "Cars attract cops." The meaning of the sentence is changed. I think it's okay to say "Cars which are red attract cops," but it sounds better to say that (don't ask me why, but maybe it's because I have grown accustomed to seeing that used with restrictive clauses). Strict grammarians would probably say that using which in this sentence is incorrect.
On the other hand, nonrestrictive clauses prefer which over that. For example: The defendant entered a plea of not guilty, which didn't surprise anyone. If you take out the clause "which didn't surprise anyone," you are left with "The defendant entered a plea of not guilty." The meaning of the first clause did not change, hence you use which instead of that. It sounds bad to my ear to use that in that sentence, but consider this sentence: He bought all the books that are required for the course. This is a restrictive clause, so that should be correct. But it sounds perfectly fine to say "He bought all the books which are required for the course." Are my ears deceiving me?
I remember learning that the offsetting commas distinguish the restrictive from the nonrestrictive.
“My sister, Sharon, likes to read.†(I have only one sister.)
“My sister Ellen runs a hardware store.†(I have more than one sister.)
“Animals which are carnivores share some common characteristics.†(We're talking only the carnivorous animals here. OK. You might say I need to write“that†here.)
“Lions, which are carnivores, are social animals.†(All lions are at subject.)
The commas become especially significant when using “who,†which does not have an alternate form for restrictive and nonrestrictive uses. (For some, it is also common to use “that†for “who†in a restrictive sense.)
It is also important to note that the use of “that†is not always possible to distinguish between restrictive and nonrestrictive. This happens, for example, when the clause is a little more complex:
“The hospital to which you sent a contribution is inscribing your name on a plaque.†(Restrictive.)
“The hospital, to which you sent a contribution, is inscribing your name on a plaque.†(Nonrestrictive. The hospital in question is understood.)
“The manager whose wife won a Pulitzer Prize is accompanying her on her trip.†(Restrictive. You can't use “that†here. Everone is expected to know about the Pulitzer Prize and who that manager is.)
“The manager, whose wife won a Pulitzer Prize, is accompanying her on her trip.†(Nonrestrictive. The listeners know what manager, and the Pulitzer Prize thing might be news to them.)
Do I need to go hunt down my teacher and set him straight?
All these examples are proof to me that, like Avalon, the whole issue is slipping off into the mists.
I would generally not say "Cars which are red attract cops", and would naturally opt for "that"; but if I heard it, it wouldn't bother me and certainly I would understand the intent.
It's the same thing with, "The defendant entered a plea of not guilty, which didn't surprise anyone." While I would not do a straight substitute of "which" for "that"--I just wouldn't, I'm not sure why--"The defendant entered a plea of not guilty, and that didn't surprise anyone." should bother no one either.
And I have to confess, Glenn, you restrictive/nonrestrctive sort of made a difference if I really thought hard about them, but again, slipped away quickly. I would not have found any communicative differences in any of the examples, if I read them without trying to follow your logic.
Martha Barnette
Grant Barrett
Grant Barrett
1 Guest(s)