 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / British English / July 2010Which or that
Many foreigners struggle with the distinction between non-restrictive relative clauses and restrictive relative clauses. The former is introduced with "which" or "who", the latter with "that". Non-restrictive: The picture, which is beginning to fade, is very old. (Meaning: The picture is very old. And, by the way, the picture is beginning to fade.) Restrictive: The picture that is beginning to fade is very old. (Meaning: The fading picture is very old.) But there are two cases where I feel tempted to break this rule: 1. I sometimes feel uncomfortable using "that" about people: "The man that is wearing a tie is my boss." I believe that in theory this is gramatically correct, but it still *feels* wrong. I would prefer to say, "The man who is wearing a tie is my boss" with no commas, but "who" instead of "that". 2. I feel uncomfortable using "that" twice: "The picture that is beginning to fade and that is hanging in my living room is very old." Here, I am very tempted to replace the second "that" by "which", even when "that is hanging in my living room" is a restrictive relative clause. Are my sentiments here reasonable, or are they the result of the fact that English is not my native tongue? (Please don't tell me that I can simply rephrase the sentences. I know that. The question is whether the two sentences that trouble me are actually good English.) -- Claus > Many foreigners struggle with the distinction between non-restrictive > relative clauses and restrictive relative clauses. The former is [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > say, "The man who is wearing a tie is my boss" with no commas, but > "who" instead of "that". That's perfectly OK. > 2. I feel uncomfortable using "that" twice: "The picture that is > beginning to fade and that is hanging in my living room is very old." > Here, I am very tempted to replace the second "that" by "which", even > when "that is hanging in my living room" is a restrictive relative > clause. I'd leave out the "that" at the beginning of the second relative clause - analogous to "The painting is beginning to fade and in hanging in my living room" - although I'd be more comfortable with the clauses in reverse order (not so much from a grammatical point of view but more because of teh syntax). > Are my sentiments here reasonable, or are they the result of the fact > that English is not my native tongue? > > (Please don't tell me that I can simply rephrase the sentences. I know > that. The question is whether the two sentences that trouble me are > actually good English.) In general you can use "who" or "which" instead of "that" in restrictive relative clauses - although I read once in a usage manual that statistically "who" is more common than "that" for persons but "that" is more common than "which" for things (I'm sorry I can't remember where I read that). The difference between the two types of clause is quite marked in speech - there is a slight pause before and after the non-restrictive clause (indicated by the comma because it's extra information inserted into the basic sentence). Non-restricitve relative clauses are much more common in wriiten language than in speech - written sentences tend to be longer and more complex that spoken ones. Re4gards, Einde O'Callaghan Thanks, Einde. -- Claus >Many foreigners struggle with the distinction between non-restrictive >relative clauses and restrictive relative clauses. The former is >introduced with "which" or "who", the latter with "that". I am totally uncomvinced that that is the correct rule for when to use "that" or "which/who". I have certainly never been taught it formally. >Non-restrictive: The picture, which is beginning to fade, is very old. >(Meaning: The picture is very old. And, by the way, the picture is >beginning to fade.) >Restrictive: The picture that is beginning to fade is very old. >(Meaning: The fading picture is very old.) >But there are two cases where I feel tempted to break this rule: >1. I sometimes feel uncomfortable using "that" about people: "The man >that is wearing a tie is my boss." I believe that in theory this is >gramatically correct, but it still *feels* wrong. I would prefer to >say, "The man who is wearing a tie is my boss" with no commas, but >"who" instead of "that". Exactly so. I always mark the distinction between the non-restrictive and restictive cases by inserting or not inserting those commas, and this still needs to be done even if you follow the supposed "that" vs "which/who" convention, In fact, I tend to use "which/who" in all cases regardless  SignatureCharles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 >> Many foreigners struggle with the distinction between non-restrictive >> relative clauses and restrictive relative clauses. The former is >> introduced with "which" or "who", the latter with "that". > > I am totally uncomvinced that that is the correct rule for when to use > "that" or "which/who". I have certainly never been taught it formally. Most native speakers don't need to be taught this rule because it comes automatically thorugh bein a native speaker - you automatically pause before adding extra information to a sentence. However, as a teacher of English as a foreign language I've had to confront teaching grammatical English to non-native speakers who don#t have an "instinctive" feel for what's correct. This means that I regularly consult grammar books and usage manuals to dig out the "rules" that native speakers never have to learn and I can assure you that in every one I've come across that deals with the different types of relative clause - this is only taught at a relatively advanced level (intermediate/upper intermediate or B1 on the EU scale) - points to this distinction in the usage of "that" and "who/which". I'll just mention two: Michael Swan: Modern English Usage and Thompson & Martinet: A Practical English Grammar (I think I've remembered the titles correctly), but these are only two of innumerable reference grammars that I've consulted over the years. Einde O'Callaghan >>> Many foreigners struggle with the distinction between non-restrictive >>> relative clauses and restrictive relative clauses. The former is [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >English to non-native speakers who don#t have an "instinctive" feel for >what's correct. Well it most certainly does not come naturally to _this_ native speaker, and the argument you give about pauses merely reinforces that commas should be present/absent in addition to whether some supposed convention regarding that/which is required. >This means that I regularly consult grammar books and usage manuals to >dig out the "rules" that native speakers never have to learn and I can [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >titles correctly), but these are only two of innumerable reference >grammars that I've consulted over the years. Then you have probably been reading the wrong books. A native speaker (well, certainly an English one) will naturally turn to Fowler for advice on such matters, and indeed he devotes 4 pages to the matter. Whilst he admits that some propose such a rule, and it might well be a desirable rule it it were indeed universally adopted, he adds: "Some there are who follow this principle now; but it would be idle to pretend that it is the practice either of most or of the best writers." Moreover, he points out that there are many cases in which it is plainly impossible to follow that rule, as in "The book about which I spoke to you ...". He than gives a page and a half of examples where he argues that 'which' is to be preferred. So I think it may be understood that Fowler does not believe that such a rule exists, at least not in any definitive sense. The only definitive rule, upon which all are agreed, is the proper use of commas in such cases. It seems that non-native speakers are looking for a definitive rule that they can always follow, and writers of texts are striving to provide such a rule in order to please them. But if the non-native speakers imagine that English is a logically organized language, then they are in for a rude awakening, as Fowler makes clear at the start of the article from which I was quoting. And try forcing a 'that' into that sentence :-). And, contrariwise, it is the French claim that their language is entirely logocally based, whereas the rest of us know that it is not :-). SignatureCharles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 >>>> Many foreigners struggle with the distinction between non-restrictive >>>> relative clauses and restrictive relative clauses. The former is [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > (well, certainly an English one) will naturally turn to Fowler for advice > on such matters, and indeed he devotes 4 pages to the matter. When you taslk about Fowler you shouldm specifiy which edition you're talking about. Only the first (1926 edition) was written by Henry Fowler). He made some corrections in the 1930 printing but died (in 1933) before the the 1937 printing that contained further corrections. A second edition, which was lightly revised and updated by Sir Edward Gowers, was published in 1965. A third edition edited by Robert Burchfield was published in 1996 and a revised version of this edition was published in 2004. The introduction to this admits that while "Fowler’s name remains on the title-page ... his book has been largely rewritten." The original Fowler was an essentially prescriptivist guide to usage, whereas the 1996/2004 versions are descriptivist guides based on extensive use of a corpus of contemporary written and spoken English. There is a 2009 reprint of the original 1926 edition but this has been updated by David Crystal. The grammar and uage books I mentioned are also based on the of a corpus of contemporary written and spoken English and they quite clearly point to a differentiation in the use of "that" and "who/which". I would contend that the usage referred to is more contemporary than the prescriptivist guidelines enunciated 84 years ago. > Whilst he > admits that some propose such a rule, and it might well be a desirable [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > impossible to follow that rule, as in "The book about which I spoke to > you ...". "That" isn't used when a preposition governing the relative pronounn is placed at the beginning of the clause - then the appropriate form is "which" or "whom". > He than gives a page and a half of examples where he argues that 'which' > is to be preferred. So I think it may be understood that Fowler does not [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > rude awakening, as Fowler makes clear at the start of the article from > which I was quoting. And try forcing a 'that' into that sentence :-). Quite simple: "The book that I spoke to you about ...", although in this case the use of "that" is optional, i.e. "The book I spoke to you about ..." is equally correct. This isn't to say that "The book about which I spoke to you ..." is incorrect - but I would denote it as being quite formal. > And, contrariwise, it is the French claim that their language is entir ely > logocally based, whereas the rest of us know that it is not :-). No language conforms to the rules of logic, no matter what the claims of its purist speakers might claim. And language isn't something that is written in stone, so to speak, but is in a state of constant change and development - otherwise we'd probably still be speaking the King's Anglo-Saxon of Alfred the Great's period if not that of Hengist and Horsa. There's a reasonably sensible discussion of the question in Wikipedia at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_relative_clauses> and an informative (but inevitably disputed) article about disputes about English grammar, of which this is one, at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disputes_in_English_grammar>. Einde O'Callaghan >>>> I am totally uncomvinced that that is the correct rule for when to use >>>> "that" or "which/who". I have certainly never been taught it formally. >> Then you have probably been reading the wrong books. A native speaker >> (well, certainly an English one) will naturally turn to Fowler for advice >> on such matters, and indeed he devotes 4 pages to the matter. >When you taslk about Fowler you shouldm specifiy which edition you're >talking about. Only the first (1926 edition) was written by Henry >Fowler). He made some corrections in the 1930 printing but died (in >1933) before the the 1937 printing that contained further corrections. >A second edition, which was lightly revised and updated by Sir Edward >Gowers, was published in 1965. A third edition edited by Robert >Burchfield was published in 1996 and a revised version of this edition >was published in 2004. The introduction to this admits that while >"Fowlers name remains on the title-page ... his book has been largely >rewritten." I was quoting from the Gower edition. Are you saying the Burchfield version has completely changed its position? >The grammar and uage books I mentioned are also based on the of a corpus >of contemporary written and spoken English and they quite clearly point >to a differentiation in the use of "that" and "who/which". I would >contend that the usage referred to is more contemporary than the >prescriptivist guidelines enunciated 84 years ago. So you are claiming English has "moved on" since Fowler wrote his original text, and now included deterministic rules that wre not previously acknowledged? I was not alive 84 years ago, but the English I was brought up to speak dates from that sort of period. And the guidelines you wuld adhere to are more, not less, "prescriptivist" that those from 84 years ago. >> Whilst he >> admits that some propose such a rule, and it might well be a desirable [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >placed at the beginning of the clause - then the appropriate form is >"which" or "whom". Yes, there are always workarounds for the awkward cases, but the result often sounds stilted and uncomfortable, such as leaving a prepostion at the end (which itself is not a hard and fast prohibition, but it better avoided wneh possible without contortion). But this supposed "rule" which you insist upon is clearly redundant (the presence/absence of the commas is sufficient of its own to indicate the distinction, as in the current sentence). It has to be worked around in the many cases where it is inapplicable. So what useful purpose does it serve (other than to provide fodder for pedants who like to air their prejudices against those off us who have been speaking perfectly good English for the past 70myears or so)? In fact, just the sort of pedants against whom Fowler's book was aimed. SignatureCharles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 >So what useful purpose does it >serve (other than to provide fodder for pedants who like to air their >prejudices against those off us who have been speaking perfectly good >English for the past 70myears or so)? The past 70 million years? Blimey, you've worn well. SignaturePhil C. >>So what useful purpose does it >>serve (other than to provide fodder for pedants who like to air their >>prejudices against those off us who have been speaking perfectly good >>English for the past 70myears or so)? > >The past 70 million years? Blimey, you've worn well. Perhaps an myear is a milliyear. So that would be approximately 0.365 days. So Charles has been speaking perfectly good English for approximately the past 24 days. SignatureJohn Hall "I don't even butter my bread; I consider that cooking." Katherine Cebrian >>>>> I am totally uncomvinced that that is the correct rule for when to use >>>>> "that" or "which/who". I have certainly never been taught it formally. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > I was quoting from the Gower edition. Are you saying the Burchfield > version has completely changed its position? I'm just pointing out that the original Fowler was prescriptivist and the Burchfield edition was descriptivist. I haven't got access to either at the moment. >> The grammar and uage books I mentioned are also based on the of a corpus >> of contemporary written and spoken English and they quite clearly point [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > adhere to are more, not less, "prescriptivist" that those from 84 years > ago. English is constantly moving on. Things that I was taught were incorrect when I was at school - on the basis of prescriptivist grammar books - are now considered quite acceptable. >>> Whilst he >>> admits that some propose such a rule, and it might well be a desirable [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > (which itself is not a hard and fast prohibition, but it better avoided > wneh possible without contortion). This is however something that is grammatically quite acceptable. You're now getting into questions of style, which is something quite different. > But this supposed "rule" which you insist upon is clearly redundant (the > presence/absence of the commas is sufficient of its own to indicate the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > English for the past 70myears or so)? In fact, just the sort of pedants > against whom Fowler's book was aimed. The question is: When do you use commas or not? - and how should non-natives know when to use commas? A native speaker who's been taught anything about comma placement knows that you put commas before and after extra information inserted into a sentence - this being indicated in speech by a short pause. But non-natives get confused because in other languages there's no distinction between the two types of relative clause - in German, for example, both types are enclosed by commas. I'll be happy if you can provide me with a single acceptable example in a modern English text where a relative clause introduced by "that" is enclosed in commas - by saying "acceptable" I mean I'd like to exclude any examples where the author clearly doesn't understand the proper usage of commas. One final general comment - a lot of heat is generated in many of these discussions where questions of style are confused with questions of grammar. Many of the disputed questions in discussions about grammar aren't really about correct grammatical usage but to do with an aesthetic feeling that certain usages are "ugly" or a result of "degeneration" of the language - and in fact in a great many cases where a particular usage is decried as being an ugly modernism you can find examples in literature going back to the times of Shakespeare or even Chaucer. Einde O'Callaghan >> I was quoting from the Gower edition. Are you saying the Burchfield >> version has completely changed its position? >> >I'm just pointing out that the original Fowler was prescriptivist and >the Burchfield edition was descriptivist. I haven't got access to either >at the moment. I think maybe you have got those the wrong way around. I would not regard Fowler as "prescriptivist", except perhaps in cases where some practice was essential to convey the correct meaning. In the passage I quoted, he was complaining of others who wished to prescribe a rule that he considered,at best, to be of dubious merit. And he does the same at many other places in his book (again, it it the Gower version that I am familiar with). >> But this supposed "rule" which you insist upon is clearly redundant (the >> presence/absence of the commas is sufficient of its own to indicate the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >other languages there's no distinction between the two types of relative >clause - in German, for example, both types are enclosed by commas. Then I presume German has other means of indicating the distinction, or else it does not consider the distinction necessary. >I'll be happ if you can provide me with a single acceptable example in >a modern English text where a relative clause introduced by "that" is >enclosed in commas - by saying "acceptable" I mean I'd like to exclude >any examples where the author clearly doesn't understand the proper >usage of commas. But that is NOT what I am suggesting. In my view (and in the Fowler/Gower view), all the following are correct: 1. "The book that I bought yesterday is ..." 2. "The book which I bought yesterday is ..." 3. "This book, which I bought from Amazon, is ..." [4. "This book, that I bought from Amazon, is ..."] In the first two, where the clause is defining, there are no commas. In the third, which is not defining, commas are present (and the piece between them could be omitted without serious change to the meaning of the sentence). It would be quite wrong to use commas in either of the first two. I believe the 4th example is gramatically correct, but it is poor style. Now if the supposed rule about when to use "that" was purely a matter of style, then that might be fine, but I believe you are claiming it is a matter of grammar. SignatureCharles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 >>> I was quoting from the Gower edition. Are you saying the Burchfield >>> version has completely changed its position? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > other places in his book (again, it it the Gower version that I am > familiar with). Most modern linguists who concern themselves with the matter regard the original fowler as a moderate and critical prescriptivist, as distinct from the Burchfield edition which is descriptivist. >>> But this supposed "rule" which you insist upon is clearly redundant (the >>> presence/absence of the commas is sufficient of its own to indicate the [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Then I presume German has other means of indicating the distinction, or > else it does not consider the distinction necessary. It dowsn't consider the distinction necessary because the grammar is identical. >> I'll be happ if you can provide me with a single acceptable example in >> a modern English text where a relative clause introduced by "that" is [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > style, then that might be fine, but I believe you are claiming it is a > matter of grammar. That's the nub of the matter as it is depicted in modern grammar books used in teaching English today. Einde O'Callaghan There seems to be claims to the effect that Enbglish is a dynamic language and prescriptive rules do not apply to them. Believe me, so is every other world language. Description is what we can indulge in. Statistical analysis, if possible, is not such a bad idea, but the data will need to be periodically rechecked. Language exists in a state of flux. > There seems to be claims to the effect that Enbglish is a dynamic > language and prescriptive rules do not apply to them. Believe me, so > is every other world language. Description is what we can indulge in. > Statistical analysis, if possible, is not such a bad idea, but the > data will need to be periodically rechecked. Language exists in a > state of flux. There are, however, differences between lanugaes that are primarily spoken languages that are also written but have no "academy" or other final definitive arbiter of correctness (i.e. the only arbiter is "educated" usage, however that might be defined - this being the source of a majority of the debates about "correctness") and languages that are primarily standardised written languages that are also spoken such as French (where the final arbiter is the Academie Francaise) or German (where the final official arbiter is an inter-governmental body of academics but correct usage has traditionally been codified in the reference works of the Duden publishing house). Regards, Einde O'Callaghan >That's the nub of the matter as it is depicted in modern grammar books >used in teaching English today. Which raises the interesting question of whether you are discussing grammar books intended for non-native speakers, or those intended for native speakers (which, in the case of English, are conspicuous by their absence in current schools, where grammar is hardly taught at all, in contradistinction to the schools I attended 65 years ago where is was a serious subject of study - and where I remember being taught that 'that' and 'which' were esentially interchangable). And I think part of the problem is that in France and Germany where, as you say in another article, there are means to declare what the "official" form of the language is (with some expectation that those rules will be taught and followed), students become accustomed to the idea that "grammar books" speak from some form of authority, and expect to find such books to assist them when learning English. And, naturally, the market place is happy to provide such books - the question is whether or not those books can then lay any valid claim to being "authoritative". SignatureCharles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 >> That's the nub of the matter as it is depicted in modern grammar books >> used in teaching English today. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > serious subject of study - and where I remember being taught that 'that' > and 'which' were esentially interchangable). The main grammar books I use are aimed at non-native learners of English. However, they are written by some of the leading linguists and grammarians working in British and American universities and published by such authorative publishers as Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, Macmillan, Longman etc. This makes me sure that they reflect the latest state of langaugte research in universities such as Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Yale, etc. > And I think part of the problem is that in France and Germany where, as > you say in another article, there are means to declare what the "official" [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > happy to provide such books - the question is whether or not those books > can then lay any valid claim to being "authoritative". Since they are the result of the latest research at the most prestigious universities in the English-speaking world I would imagine that they can be called "authoritative". I cite from the online Oxford Dictionary: "5 Pronunciation:/ðət/ (plural that)[relative pronoun] used to introduce a defining clause, especially one essential to identification: - instead of ‘which’, ‘who’, or ‘whom’: the woman that owns the place" And from the usage guidance on the same page: "3 Is there any difference between the use of *that* and *which* in sentences such as *any book that gets children reading is worth having*, and *any book which gets children reading is worth having*? The general rule is that, in restrictive relative clauses, where the relative clause serves to define or restrict the reference to the particular one described, *which* can replace *that*. However ,in non-restrictive relative clauses, where the relative clause serves only to give additional information, *that* cannot be used: *this book, /which/ is set in the last century, is very popular with teenagers* but not *this book, /that/ is set in the last century, is very popular with teenagers*. In US English it is usually recommended that *which* be used only for non-restrictive relative clauses." You'll find these entries at <http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0856500#m_en_gb0856500> or <http://tinyurl.com/36jlm9c> This dictionary is not aimed primarily at non-native apeakers. Einde O'Callaghan >I cite from the online Oxford Dictionary: >"5 Pronunciation:/ðÉt/ > (plural that)[relative pronoun] used to introduce a defining >clause, especially one essential to identification: > - instead of âwhichâ, âwhoâ, or âwhomâ: the woman that owns the place" >And from the usage guidance on the same page: >"3 Is there any difference between the use of *that* and *which* in >sentences such as *any book that gets children reading is worth having*, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >teenagers*. In US English it is usually recommended that *which* be used >only for non-restrictive relative clauses." All of which rather confirms my position. The use of 'which' in restrictive relative clauses is permissable, though perhaps bad style. And in the US it is regarded as downright incorrect (but the Americans have done all sort of silly things with "real" English :-( ). The use of 'that' in non restrictive clauses is indeed deprecated. I might not agree with that myself, but I would certainly regard it at least as bad style (as I said earlier in this thread). But that still leaves the position where the use of 'which' in ALL cases is, at worst, dubious style. I agree that the Oxford English Dictionary carries much weight (but remember that it was Fowler who had charge of it in its earlier days). SignatureCharles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 >> I cite from the online Oxford Dictionary: > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > in the US it is regarded as downright incorrect (but the Americans have > done all sort of silly things with "real" English :-( ). I'm not certain if you've read that properly - I quote again the relevant sentence: >> described, *which* can replace *that*. However ,in non-restrictive >> relative clauses, where the relative clause serves only to give >> additional information, *that* cannot be used: *this book, /which/ is >> set in the last century, is very popular with teenagers* but not >> *this book, /that/ is set in the last century, is very popular with >> teenagers*. The operative word is "cannot" in the third line. What Americans may or may not have done to the language is irrelevant to the question under discussion - although it should be noted that they make up the great majority of NATIVE English speakers - more thatn all the other groups together. > The use of 'that' in non restrictive clauses is indeed deprecated. I might > not agree with that myself, but I would certainly regard it at least as > bad style (as I said earlier in this thread). It's not deprecated - it explicitly says it CANNOT be used - which is precisely the position I've been arguing. > But that still leaves the position where the use of 'which' in ALL cases > is, at worst, dubious style. Constant use of "which" would be bad style and doesn't correspond to usage either - one source I've read says that the corpus indicates that the use of "that" is more common than the use of "which" for things and that the use of "who" is more common than the use of "taht" for persons. I'm sorry I can't give a reference for that but it was in a discussion of the construction of textbooks for teaching English as a foreign language (more precisely, a discussion of which examples of real speech should be used to introduce the teaching of "relative clauses"). > I agree that the Oxford English Dictionary carries much weight (but > remember that it was Fowler who had charge of it in its earlier days). That was some time ago - he died nearly 80 years ago and all living languages are in a constant process of change and development. Each generation tends to have at least a faction that thinks that the following generations are prone to misusing and abusing the language - whatever the language is. Einde O'Callaghan >>> "3 Is there any difference between the use of *that* and *which* in >>> sentences such as *any book that gets children reading is worth having*, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >I'm not certain if you've read that properly - I quote again the >relevant sentence: > >> described, *which* can replace *that*. However ,in non-restrictive > >> relative clauses, where the relative clause serves only to give > >> additional information, *that* cannot be used: *this book, /which/ is > >> set in the last century, is very popular with teenagers* but not > >> *this book, /that/ is set in the last century, is very popular with > >> teenagers*. >The operative word is "cannot" in the third line. >> The use of 'that' in non restrictive clauses is indeed deprecated. I might >> not agree with that myself, but I would certainly regard it at least as >> bad style (as I said earlier in this thread). >> >It's not deprecated - it explicitly says it CANNOT be used - which is >precisely the position I've been arguing. OK, I was using "deprecated" as a synonym for "cannot", which is maybe a slight overstretch. But it is the restrictive cases I am mostly concerned about, and the use of "which" within them >Constant use of "which" would be bad style and doesn't correspond to >usage either - one source I've read says that the corpus indicates that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >language (more precisely, a discussion of which examples of real speech >should be used to introduce the teaching of "relative clauses"). Yes, but that is all about style, not about correctness. I claim, and you have shown no evidence to the contrary, that "which" in restrictive clauses is not incorrect. I tend to use it, and if my "style" is bad, then so be it. The fact that "who" is widely used in such clauses confirms the correctness issue. >> I agree that the Oxford English Dictionary carries much weight (but >> remember that it was Fowler who had charge of it in its earlier days). >> >That was some time ago - he died nearly 80 years ago and all living >languages are in a constant process of change and development. Yes, but his influence is still there behind it. SignatureCharles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 <snip> > Yes, but that is all about style, not about correctness. I claim, and you > have shown no evidence to the contrary, that "which" in restrictive > clauses is not incorrect. I've never claimed that the use of "which" in restrictive clauses is grammatically incorrect. Indeed I've given examples to the contrary. > I tend to use it, and if my "style" is bad, then > so be it. The fact that "who" is widely used in such clauses confirms the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Yes, but his influence is still there behind it. Maybe - but there are lots of other more modern influences. And teh definitive editor was James Murray, who was responsible for half of the first edition published up to his death in 1915. His successor was Henry Bradley, who died in 1923. The third editor was William Craigie and the fourth was C.T. Onions. Fowler was never ever editor of the OED. He did help to complete the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (SOED) (the letters U, X, Y and Z) under the direction of Onions and he co-edited the first (1911) and third (1934) editions of the Concise Oxford Dictionary (COD) and edited the second (1929) edition on his own. The COD was a much shorter adaptation of the OED (except in the 1st edition for the letters S-Z, which hadn't yet been finished in the OED). Einde O'Callaghan |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.