Grammar (that/which)

[Penny & Bryce Linsenmayer]

Hi --

storm wrote:

> Amy: "It's easy to test for whether to use "that" or "which," too, but
> in
>   common usage they're often used in one another's place, so that
> people
>   learn a very mixed-up version."
>
> Yael said:
> I didn't know there was a difference *looking around, embarrassed*.
> Sometimes one sounds better, and sometimes the other. I'd be very
> happy to learn about it, if anyone feels like teaching me.
>
> Right now you've admitted it I don't have to feel so silly about
> saying I don't know what the test is either ...

Okay -- I read Tanwo's explanation and while her examples are correct, I
think I can expand on her rule a bit.

1.  If you can't omit a clause without changing the basic meaning, the
clause is a "restrictive clause" and requires the use of THAT (no
comma).  Restrictive clauses are essential to the grammatical and/or
logical completeness of a sentence.

    Example: All cars that were purchased before 1995 need to have their
airbags replaced.

                    This is the wand that killed Cedric.

In the first example, "that were purchased before 1995" is a restrictive
clause UNLESS you're trying to say that *all* cars (not just those
purchased before 1995) need to have their airbags replaced.  In this
case, the restrictive clause is restrictive for logical rather than
grammatical reasons.

In the second example, you have a sentence fragment without that last
clause, therefore it is a grammatically-required restrictive clause.

2.  If you can omit the clause without changing the meaning of the
sentence, the clause is a "non-restrictive clause" and you should use
WHICH (preceded by a comma).

    Example:  This is Voldemort's wand, which killed Cedric.

Most people use "which" when the sentence really requires "that."

Penny

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpfgu-otchatter/attachments/20010408/ec2b5a55/attachment.html>