THAT not which

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

ProfQ - 30 Nov 2008 11:41 GMT

Why are so many people using the word "which" when THAT ought to have
been used? Has English Grammar changed so significantly without my
noticing it? Are new rules in place where everyone uses WHICH instead of
THAT?

It is becoming as ubiquitous as "You know" (when we don't, of course!).

Q

Reply to this Message

John Holmes - 30 Nov 2008 11:59 GMT

> Why are so many people using the word "which" when THAT ought to have
> been used?

Because it sounds right to them.

> Has English Grammar changed so significantly without my
> noticing it?

No, you must have noticed or you wouldn't have posted about it.

> Are new rules in place where everyone uses WHICH instead
> of THAT?

No.

Signature

Regards
John
for mail: my initials plus a u e
at tpg dot com dot au

Reply to this Message

Robert Lieblich - 30 Nov 2008 13:45 GMT

> > Why are so many people using the word "which" when THAT ought to have
> > been used?
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> No.

The AUE FAQ (yes, newbies, we have one) deals with this:
<http://www.alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxthatvs.html>.

I find restrictive "which" somewhat old-fashioned, but it's Standard
English, and the problem is mine, not the language's.

Signature

Bob Lieblich
Ya remember the FAQ?

Reply to this Message

Bob Cunningham - 30 Nov 2008 15:19 GMT

>> > Why are so many people using the word "which" when THAT ought to have
>> > been used?
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>I find restrictive "which" somewhat old-fashioned, but it's Standard
>English, and the problem is mine, not the language's.

Anyway, I wonder if the "rules" that ProfQ refers to ever existed.
Henry Fowler expressed a somewhat wistful wish that writers would
distinguish restrictive "that" and nonrestrictive "which", but he
recognized that there was no supporting rule.

I was so favorably impressed by the suggestion when I read it in
Fowler that it has come to be like a rule in my mind, so when I see a
restrictive "which" it tends to strike me as an error, but I'm not
aware of any rule that has ever been agreed upon to formally make it
an error.

Signature

Bob Cunningham, Southern California, USA. Western American English

Reply to this Message

ProfQ - 30 Nov 2008 15:45 GMT

Thanks to all WHO responded to my question. I am referring to the
English I was taught starting approximately 50 years ago in South
Africa. Our English then was far purer than it appears today and "South
African English" (almost a contradiction in terms) is fast becoming the
norm.

"The family [that][which] prays together" ... I was taught that when the
conjunction refers to humans, one uses "which", otherwise it's "that".

"The family of dogs ..." THAT ...
"The group of plants ..." THAT ...
"The rocky outcrop ..." THAT ...
"The family of people ..." WHICH ...
but "Our Father WHO art in Heaven" and not WHICH, as this refers to a
singular individual rather than a group.

It is sloppy television journalism and nothing more that has raised,
sorry, which has raised my ire resulting in these postings.

Q

> On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 08:45:47 -0500, Robert Lieblich
> <r_s_lieblich@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
> aware of any rule that has ever been agreed upon to formally make it
> an error.

Reply to this Message

Don Aitken - 30 Nov 2008 17:40 GMT

>Thanks to all WHO responded to my question. I am referring to the
>English I was taught starting approximately 50 years ago in South
>Africa. Our English then was far purer than it appears today and "South
>African English" (almost a contradiction in terms) is fast becoming the
>norm.

It seem that what you were taught fifty years ago was probably not
English then; it is certainly not English now, "pure" or otherwise.

>"The family [that][which] prays together" ... I was taught that when the
> conjunction refers to humans, one uses "which", otherwise it's "that".

Then you were taught wrongly. There is no such rule, and never has
been.

>"The family of dogs ..." THAT ...
>"The group of plants ..." THAT ...
>"The rocky outcrop ..." THAT ...
>"The family of people ..." WHICH ...

>but "Our Father WHO art in Heaven" and not WHICH, as this refers to a
>singular individual rather than a group.

Have you told the translators of the Authorised Version of your
discovery? It is now archaic, but violates no rule.

>It is sloppy television journalism and nothing more that has raised,
>sorry, which has raised my ire resulting in these postings.

Nonsense. Those whose usage you object to are using current standard
English.

Signature

Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"

Reply to this Message

Bob Cunningham - 30 Nov 2008 18:04 GMT

>Thanks to all WHO responded to my question. I am referring to the
>English I was taught starting approximately 50 years ago in South
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>"The family [that][which] prays together" ... I was taught that when the
> conjunction refers to humans, one uses "which", otherwise it's "that".

"Together" focuses on the concept that the members of the family,
acting as individuals, are getting together to pray. So, better
English is "The family who pray together".

>"The family of dogs ..." THAT ...
>"The group of plants ..." THAT ...
>"The rocky outcrop ..." THAT ...
>"The family of people ..." WHICH ...
>but "Our Father WHO art in Heaven" and not WHICH, as this refers to a
>singular individual rather than a group.

Those conventions, which I had never heard of, couldn't coexist
comfortably with the more important distinction between restrictive
"that" and nonrestrictive "which".

"The family of dogs, which were a nuisance, stayed with us too long."
"The family of dogs that we got at the pound, not the ones who
wandered into our yard, were infested with fleas."

"The rocky outcrop, which proved difficult to traverse, was our main
obstacle on the climb."
"The rocky outcrop that was near the bottom of the mountain, not the
one that was near the top, which was not so extensive, was difficult
to traverse."

>It is sloppy television journalism and nothing more that has raised,
>sorry, which has raised my ire resulting in these postings.

According to Fowler's excellent recommendation "that has raised" would
be preferable. "Which has raised" would make the clause
parenthetical, so that the clause could be omitted without changing
the principal sense of the statement.

Do you know if your strange rules are still prevalent in South Africa?

I can understand how you could become irate with trying to make normal
English fit your abnormal rules.

Signature

Bob Cunningham, Southern California, USA. Western American English

Reply to this Message

Bob Cunningham - 30 Nov 2008 18:32 GMT

[...]

>"The family of dogs, which were a nuisance, stayed with us too long."
>"The family of dogs that we got at the pound, not the ones [>]who[<]
>wandered into our yard, were infested with fleas."

It would probably have been better to say "that" there, but I think
"who" is acceptable. Some people would say "who" in order to avoid
piling up the "that"s.

The _New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary_ doesn't seem to support
the use of "who" with anything but persons, but _Merriam-Webster's
Unabridged Dictionary_ has examples where it's used with animals and
inanimate objects:

<these were a pair of owls, who...showed little sign of alarm
-- Nathaniel Hawthorne>

<one of those dogs who...fawn all over tramps
-- Nigel Balchin>

<the plaintive woodwinds who opened the passage
-- Marcia Davenport>

<the English firms who opened branches in New York
-- Hellmut Lehmann-Haupt>

Note that the inanimate uses have a suggestion of a person or persons
associated with the inanimate entity.

Signature

Bob Cunningham, Southern California, USA. Western American English

Reply to this Message

Discussion Groups / English Usage / November 2008

THAT not which