I have been taken to task (quite rightly) over on Meader's site for a grammatical error. I describe myself, accurately, as a semi-educated man, and consequently I tremble at the possibility (probability?) of dropping a grammatical clanger. In particular, I always worry about the use of 'that' and 'which'. Fowler is almost incomprehensible on the subject, and anyway, the print is so tiny I can hardly read it. If any kind reader can explain the rule to me in plain English, I would be grateful. And I don't want any of you 'Trot-lot' rotters trying to sabotage me!
SPEAKERS CORNER
Recent Posts
- It's OK, I won't say I told you so - part VI: The second Renaissance and Enlightenment of Europe
- Chaos and climate - part1: Linear systems
- What have Egypt, Brexit, and Greta's Holocaust - the murder of 6m Africans over ten years - got in common?
- It's OK, I won't say I told you so - part V: Now there's a sentence
- Dear Lord
- It's OK, I won't say I told you so - The Prequel
- It's OK, I won't say I told you so - part IV: The foothills of oblivion
- Do only white men know slavery this well?
- It's OK, I won't say I told you so - part III: The desolation of Brexit
- It's OK, I won't say I told you so - part II: The Four Riders of the Apocalypse
Recent Comments
- AussieD on It's OK, I won't say I told you so - part VI: The second Renaissance and Enlightenment of Europe
- Doonhamer on It's OK, I won't say I told you so - part VI: The second Renaissance and Enlightenment of Europe
- Terrapod on It's OK, I won't say I told you so - part VI: The second Renaissance and Enlightenment of Europe
- Bob on It's OK, I won't say I told you so - part VI: The second Renaissance and Enlightenment of Europe
- Whitewall on It's OK, I won't say I told you so - part VI: The second Renaissance and Enlightenment of Europe
- JK on It's OK, I won't say I told you so - part VI: The second Renaissance and Enlightenment of Europe
- JK on It's OK, I won't say I told you so - part VI: The second Renaissance and Enlightenment of Europe
- Bob on It's OK, I won't say I told you so - part VI: The second Renaissance and Enlightenment of Europe
- JK on It's OK, I won't say I told you so - part VI: The second Renaissance and Enlightenment of Europe
- JK on It's OK, I won't say I told you so - part VI: The second Renaissance and Enlightenment of Europe
Search
My ratings of my links
Mostly PPE
Mostly Humorous
Mostly This 'n' That
Mostly Climate Science
Categories
- Africa (24)
- Almost Philosophy (401)
- Arts (936)
- Brit Affairs (2731)
- China (253)
- Crime & Punishment (703)
- Darwinism (35)
- East Asia (129)
- Euro Affairs (1234)
- Global Warming (322)
- History (728)
- Middle East (218)
- Odds & Sods (2082)
- Other People's Blogs (222)
- Religion (186)
- Science (346)
- Sports (240)
- War (730)
- World Affairs (510)
- Yank Affairs (1850)
« Just dit "Non" | Main | Street of Shame #4 »
Thursday, 02 June 2005
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
The comments to this entry are closed.
Can you give an example of a sentence in which you would worry about whether to use that or which? As far as I'm aware, they are pretty much interchangeable, except that the former can be used as a synonym for who, as in "The man that shot Liberty Valance". I doubt Fowler would approve, but if he can't make the distinction clear he has only himself to blame.
Posted by: Philip Challinor | Saturday, 04 June 2005 at 02:30
For example, the gravel on my path which/that is so small it sticks in the soles of my shoes.
Posted by: David Duff | Saturday, 04 June 2005 at 14:55
Hmm. I'd use "which" in that case, partly because I find "The gravel on my path that is so small..." ugly, but also because it seems to imply that the path, not the gravel, is what sticks. However, I'd use "The gravel that is so small..." and "The gravel which is so small..." interchangeably, so maybe it's the extra clause that makes the difference.
I think it also makes a difference whether you are specifying for the first time ("Let me tell you about the gravel which is so small...") or referring back to something already mentioned ("You remember I told you about the gravel that is so small...").
I don't know what Fowler says about it, but if you scroll down this page to section 5, "Relative pronouns", you might find it clearer than he is, and possibly more helpful than my stylistic prejudices.
http://members.fortunecity.com/leanora/gramch19.html
Posted by: Philip Challinor | Saturday, 04 June 2005 at 16:01
"That" limits meaning. "Which" enhances meaning.
Dogs that bite are mean. (limits meaning to a subset of dogs).
Irish setters, which are large dogs, are not as mean as most. (enhances meaning of setters).
Also it would merely be," The gravel on my path is so small..." (no "which" or "that" at all!)
But it would be, "Let me tell you about the gravel that is so small..." (limits the gravel to only small gravel)
Note also, that if you are talking about a person, use "who" in either case.
Posted by: JackSc | Tuesday, 07 June 2005 at 04:09