# EN: that / which



## superromu

"Nevertheless, there may be vulnerabilities* that/which* are not in the list"
first i wrote which, then i change to that and now i do not know 

In which case should I use that or which ?
Thanks

*Moderator note:* Multiple threads merged to create this one.


----------



## la grive solitaire

Hi superromu,

It's "that":

Nevertheless, there may be vulnerabilities that are not on the list...

Here's an example with "which": Nevertheless, the vulnerabilities, which are not on the list, are...


----------



## SoupleCommeLeVent

I don't disagree with la grive solitaire but many native speakers would happily use either word without giving any thought to it.

However, may I suggest that the rest of the sentence doesn't sound quite right - I'm not quite sure what a vulnerability is?


----------



## Jabote

In fact, the only difference is that if you use "that" you don't need a comma before "that", and if you use "which", the comma is required before "which".


----------



## Gil

...and does it mean the same thing?


----------



## la grive solitaire

The use of the comma in a relative clause depends on whether the relative clause is restrictive ("that")  or non-restrictive ("which"). It's often called the "that/which opposition".

More explanations/examples:
https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/grammar/that_vs_which.html


----------



## Wordsmyth

Jabote said:
			
		

> In fact, the only difference is that if you use "that" you don't need a comma before "that", and if you use "which", the comma is required before "which".


Salut Jabote,

(Leaving aside the 'that/which' controversy, because I've seen so many conflicting arguments, none more authoritative than any other), here's a thought about "comma before which".

Consider:
(a) - The apples which are in the bowl are red.
(b) - The apples, which are in the bowl, are red.

(a) implies that there may be other apples (not in the bowl) that are green or yellow or ... . The sentence defines which apples we're talking about.

(b) implies no other apples, but tells us (as secondary but less essential information) where the apples are.

If you speak the sentences, with pauses for the commas, the difference is very clear. 

As you may guess, I'm a strong supporter of the principle that (at least in English) commas represent spoken pauses, and are not determined by artificial grammatical rules.

You'll notice, in that last sentence, that I used " , and". The traditionalist school forbids a comma before 'and' (presumably because it's traditional  -- I can't see any other reason). Modern usage accepts it, if you would pause before the "and" in speaking.

Aha, the joys of the English language : because there's no "Académie Anglaise" to make things rigidly right or wrong   

W 

PS. I've just seen la grive's post arrive while I was writing this. Merci la grive  . Sections 3 & 4 in the linked webpage comprehensively cover my 'apples' example (although favouring 'that' rather than 'which' -- I think there's a bigger preference for 'that' in AE than in BE  )


----------



## LV4-26

I like this thread. This is exactly what my "mémoire de maîtrise" was about a good many years ago. It was entitled "Relative Clauses in English" (Les propositions relatives en anglais contemporain). Funny, isn't it ? And a substantial part was about the difference between restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses (_déterminatives_ et _appositives)._ (Today I can't believe I managed to write 100 pages on _that. )_

So I strongly support Wordsmyth as far as relative clauses are concerned.

And also about commas and pauses in speech. 
And I think this is also valid for French. When I revise what I've translated, I often delete commas which force me to pause while I'm reading and often add some for the opposite reason. (don't ask me to word what the "opposite reason" is, my brains are too tired)


----------



## la grive solitaire

Wordsmyth said:
			
		

> Aha, the joys of the English language : because there's no "Académie Anglaise" to make things rigidly right or wrong
> PS. I've just seen la grive's post arrive while I was writing this. Merci la grive  . Sections 3 & 4 in the linked webpage comprehensively cover my 'apples' example (although favouring 'that' rather than 'which' -- I think there's a bigger preference for 'that' in AE than in BE  )



De rien, Wordsmyth.  Académie Anglaise--lol--it made me smile. You're right, "that" is much more in use here and I often wish it weren't. Grammar aside, to my ear there's a nice difference.


----------



## Ruthie

superromu said:
			
		

> "Nevertheless, there may be vulnerabilities* that/which* are not in the list"



Unfortunately, my generation was not taught the particulars of grammar throughout our primary or highshool education (other than basic punctuation).  Apart from causing me hellish difficulties in working out, for example, exactly what a subjunctive is (!) in terms of foreign language study, it means I mainly rely on what feels 'natural' and extensive reading to gain grammatical knowledge.

Now to the point!  It seems to me that in this context, the word 'which' is becoming far less frequently used in both spoken and written English, and even the word 'that' doesn't seem _quite_ right.

My preference in this sentence would be to say:
"Nevertheless, there may be vulnerabilities *that* are not *present* in the list."


----------



## Joelline

Wordsmyth said:


> As you may guess, I'm a strong supporter of the principle that (at least in English) commas represent spoken pauses, and are not determined by artificial grammatical rules.
> 
> You'll notice, in that last sentence, that I used " , and". The traditionalist school forbids a comma before 'and' (presumably because it's traditional  -- I can't see any other reason). Modern usage accepts it, if you would pause before the "and" in speaking.



In fact, the traditionalist school *requires* a comma before "and" if you have 2 independent clauses (to avoid the dreaded "comma splice"!): He liked the car, and he bought it.

On the other hand, the comma before "and" should be omitted if you have a compound verb (i.e., one subject governing 2 verbs): He saw the car and bought it.

And none of this is important if you're not a traditionalist, I suppose.


----------



## killerbelge

The results that are obtained with the Mastersizer are on the figure 14.

Les resultats qui sont obtenus avec le Mastersizer sont sur la figure 14.

Dois je utiliser that ou which?
Bye


----------



## captain_rusty

I think both are good. Or you could even omit it here (the results obtained...)
And it's "in figure 14"


----------



## Aupick

Sans pouvoir dire que "which" est faux, je préfère "that". Je crois que certains diraient que "which" ne s'utilisent que pour des propositions appositives (séparées par des virgules), mais je me perds un peu là, puisque dans la plupart des cas ils sont équivalents. Je trouve "that" un peu plus léger.

Ou bien tu pourrais éviter le problème en disant "The results obtained...".


----------



## qwix

Bonjour à tous.
Est-ce que quelqu'un pourrait m'expliquer la différence entre which et that.

Par exemple je voit des phrases du genre:


> Look the car which is blue


 et 


> Look the car that is blue



[...]

Je vous remercie d'avance.

Amicalement.


----------



## frenchaudrey

Bonjour

Bienvenue sur le Forum

Pour "which vs that" voici un site qui pourrait vous aider :


> *Rule 1.* _Who_ and sometimes _that_ refer to people. _That_ and _which_ refer to groups or things.
> *Rule 2a.* _That_ introduces what is called an *essential clause* (also known as a *restrictive* or *defining clause*). Essential clauses add information that is vital to the point of the sentence.
> *Rule 2b.* Which introduces a *nonessential clause* (also known as a *nonrestrictive* or *nondefining clause*), which adds supplementary information.
> *Rule 3.* If _that_ has already appeared in a sentence, writers sometimes use _which_ to introduce the next clause, whether it is essential or nonessential. This is done to avoid awkward formations.


----------



## Fany

Bonjour!

J'ai du mal à faire la différence en anglais entre "that" et "which".
Par exemple si je veux traduire: "Les entreprises qui recrutent des femmes vont bénéficier de...": 

"The companies that recruit women will benefit..."?
"The companies which recruit women..."?


----------



## hunternet

Tu peux utiliser les deux, mais si je ne m'abuse, "which" s'utilise spécifiquement avec le terme qui le précède, "that peut reprendre un ensemble plus large.


----------



## Benours

I don't know which word to choose between "which" and "that" in this sentence:

"*to permit access to the only station _which/that_ are close enough to use it."

Could you help me to choose and quickly explain why? Thank you!


----------



## Welshie

"Which" sounds better to me but both are fine:

...to permit access to the only station which *is* close enough to use it.


----------



## Asr

In our English classes long time ago they had taught us that if the subordinate clause is a must of the sentence, (i.e if your sentence wouldn't have any meaning without it) then you have to stick with "that". If it is merely giving additional descriptive info, which can be avoided, then you can also use "which". (And you should also put a comma before the word which) 

Well, of course it would be better if a native could confirm this.


----------



## mtmjr

I would agree with Welshie, both are fine. Personally, I would say:

_...to permit access to the only station *that's* close enough to use it._

As for Asr's observations...

I would say the comma is up to the speaker's preference as to how the sentence should be interpreted.  Without a comma, the sentence is read in one fluid motion. (In this case, "which" and "that" are interchangable...but I generally prefer "that".)  With a comma, though, the second clause seems more like an afterthought, something that the speaker decided to add only for description.  (Here, only "which" would make sense.)  So, I guess Asr's rule is mostly true.


----------



## MaLaet

Salut!
Ça fait longtemps que j'essaie de comprendre quand il faut introduire une subordonnée par "that" ou "which".

Exemple:
- It is a social utility that connects people...
- It is a social utility which connects people...

Laquelle de ces phrases est correcte et pourquoi?

Merci!!


----------



## L'Inconnu

I am not an expert in Grammar, but English is my native language. I can't say for sure which one is absolutely correct, but I have done some publishing in my profession. I am fairly certain that both sentences are acceptable.


----------



## bloomiegirl

There _is_ a distinction between "that" and "which"_ in American English_, although not all Americans adhere to the rule. But still, it’s found in all the style books that are in my library... so here are a few references:

1. "Use that, not which, in a restrictive clause—a clause necessary to the reader’s understanding of the sentence. _The town that the pitcher calls home is tiny Hawley, Pa._ (The sentence serves no purpose without that the pitcher calls home.) Note that there are no commas around the clause. In a nonrestrictive clause—one providing added information, not essential to understand the sentence—use which, preceded by a comma: _Hawley, Pa., which the pitcher calls home, is tiny. _(The sentence is understandable without _which the pitcher calls home_.)" -- Siegal & Connolly, _The NY Times Manual of Style and Usage_, ©1999, p. 331.

2. Online, the Chicago Manual of Style FAQ contains an detailed discussion of the distinction between "that" and "which."

3. _The Elements of Style_, granddaddy of them all, first published by Strunk in 1918 and reissued (illustrated) in 2005 by Strunk & White (pp. 87-88), says, authoritatively:
"_That_ is the defining, or restrictive pronoun, _which_ the nondefining, or nonrestrictive.
"The lawnmower that is broken is in the garage. (Tells which one.)
"The lawnmower, which is broken, is in the garage. (Adds a fact about the only mower in question.)"
_The Elements of Style_ notes ambiguous practice of the rule and then adds: "But it would be a convenience to all if these two pronouns were used with precision. Careful writers, watchful for small conveniences, go _which_-hunting, remove the defining _whiches_, and by so doing improve their work." This discussion can be seen online in the 1918 edition -- search for "that. which."

4. Finally, Patricia O’Connor uses the same reasoning in _Woe is I,_ ©1999, pp. 3-4, and adds a cute little ditty:
"_Commas, which cut out the fat,_
"_Go with which, never with that._"

Edit: To return to MaLaet's original question... I think the entire sentence is needed to determine if the clause is meant to be restrictive or not. And the context would help too, since it's not clear if "it" is the real subject (referring to an antecedent in a previous sentence) or if it's being used in an impersonal construction. 

 Also, did I say? I don't think the that/which distinction is made by the Brits; it's a Yankee invention.


----------



## miou-pixel

Hello it's my first post ... erf i'm doing my homeworks and i have a question. I had to read a text and to answer to the questions ...<<( um there is it ok to say that? ;o )

What period of the narrator's life is mentioned?
>>> The period of the narrator's life *which* is mentioned is his childhood
Can i make which there? I have some problem with who / which...
 [...]


----------



## jann

You cannot use "who" here because it is for people, or perhaps animals (like dogs and cats, but not wild animals). 

This means you must choose between "which" and "that."  Even native speakers disagree about the "correct" use of these relative pronouns.  I have transferred this question into an existing discussion on that topic. 

Jann
member and moderator

PS.  "Homework" is always singular in English, and we must always capitalize the pronon "I."  And in English, the "question" is the COD of the verb "to answer" so you do not "answer to a question"... unlike French, where you say _répondre *à* une question.  _


----------



## Emilie Liliane

I am sure that at school in English lessons, we learnt the difference between using either WHICH or THAT as a relative pronoun to replace que, qui, ie: 
le chat que j'ai vu, le chien qui aboie.

The difference would be that 
- one of them (I can't remember if that is That or Which) would be used for QUI that is a subject in the sentence: Le chien qui aboie
- the other would be used for QUE that is an object: le chat que j'ai vu.

When I look at the translation of Which on Word Reference, it does not make that distinction, and it is used either as a subject or as an object in the sentence. Living in England I hear people using both with no particular rule. When I ask people to tell me which one is correct, they tell me there is no difference...

What is the correct use of Which and of That in English?


----------



## joueurdebasson

typically, 'that' corresponds to 'que', because it is followed by a 2nd subject.  'which' replaces 'qui', because it is still referring to the original verb. although in AE 'that' is very commonly used for both cases.
ex.
The cat that I saw.
or
The dog that barks.


----------



## krika-tew

Bonjour tout le monde! C'est mon premier poste... depuis le boulot! 

I have been cogitating about the matter and I came up with some easy way to remeber which one of "that" or "which" to stick in the phrase.

Is it right if I say "that" refers to a subject which is active, and "which" refers to to a passive subject?


----------



## bloomiegirl

_Bienvenue au forum, Krika-tew ! _



krika-tew said:


> [...] Is it right if I say "that" refers to a subject which is active, and "which" refers to to a passive subject?


But no, that is not correct.  The following sentences are both correct... but they have different meanings:

The lawnmower that is broken is in the garage.​The lawnmower, which is broken, is in the garage.​​For more information, see my previous post on this thread (#25).


----------



## Gil

Ce que je comprends:

The lawnmower that is broken is in the garage.  => proposition relative déterminative en français
The lawnmower, which is broken, is in the garage. => proposition relative explicative en français


----------



## bloomiegirl

Oui, c'est ça (coucou, Gil ), comme l'a dit Strunk en 1918 :

"*That. Which.* _That_ is the defining, or restrictive, pronoun, _which_ the nondefining, or nonrestrictive."​​Et ça marche toujours, du moins en anglais des USA.


----------



## Forero

The matter of how to translate _qui_ and _que_ can be very complicated, and involves also when the _qui_ or _que_ is not even expressed in English (e.g. "companies recruiting women", "vulnerabilities not on the list") and when it is expressed with _that_, _which_, _who_, or _whom_.

First, a brief note about the commas, parentheses, or other punctuation used to set off a nonrestrictive relative clause.  They are not used arbitrarily but serve the same purpose as intonation and rhythm in speaking, which are obviously absent in writing.  As used by skilled speakers and writers, it is intonation, rhythm, or punctuation that signals a nonrestrictive (parenthetical) relative clause.

In regard to _which_ vs. _that_ in translating _qui_, the truth is that for a person new to the language, the rule of _which_ for nonrestrictive, _that_ or nothing for restrictive, can go a long way, but in native sentences written by expressive authors outside of an employer's dictates, either _which_ or _that_ can be used in a restrictive or nonrestrictive relative clause.  The main issue between whether to use _which_ or _that_ is a matter of style, not grammar.  _Which_ tends to slow down a sentence, and this makes it useful for accompanying the commas, parentheses, dashes, etc. that signal the suspension of a clause, but sometimes _that_ can be used to advantage in the same context.  Similarly, _that_ (or especially the absence of a relative pronoun) can be used to help keep a sentence moving.

A special case is the cleft sentence.  Cleft sentences are more common in French than in English, but when they occur in English, they generally use _that_ (and sometimes nothing), rather than _which_:

Qu'est-ce qui est là?
_What is there?
_ou _What is it __that__ is there?_ [pas _which_, et rarement sans pronom relatif]

C'est le bureau qui me plaît le plus.
_ It's the desk _(_that_)_ I like most._ [pas _which_]


----------



## bloomiegirl

molpy said:


> in fanny's case i would use "which" because  a company is a thing


It depends on the meaning of the sentence...

"The companies that recruit women will benefit" means: The companies that will benefit are those that recruit women. [defining or restrictive clause]

"The companies, which recruit women, will benefit" means: The aforementioned companies will benefit. And by the way, they recruit women. [nondefining or nonrestirctive clause]


----------



## Mauvais sang

It is only until relatively recently that grammatarians have insisted that we use "which" only if there is a comma (e.g. "the lawnmower, which is broken, is in the garage.")

I really dislike this rule, because if you read the classics like Shakespeare or Byron, up until even the 20th century, you will see that "which" and "that" were used interchangeably. 

So follow the rule if you don't want some professor snob to correct you. I personally don't see the need for the rule (in fact, I think in some cases it can lead to confusion), so I don't follow it.


----------



## bloomiegirl

Welcome to the forum, Mauvais sang! 

I don't mean to spread bad blood, but if you write: "The lawnmower which is broken is in the garage," without commas, I don't know which of the following you mean:

The lawnmower that is broken is in the garage. (Tells which one.)​The lawnmower, which is broken, is in the garage. (Adds a fact about the only mower in question.)​​Some people say "which" universally: with pauses when they really mean "which," and without pauses when they mean "that." Commas are just a mechanism to indicate the pause in written English.

But you're right, people don't always follow grammar rules. Even masterful writers don't always follow them; but then, that's not their job... That's why we have... grammarians. 

Finally, Strunk's Elements of Style (online) was first published in 1918. I'll grant that as "recent" in the history of language, but not in my lifetime...  

EDIT: That was apparently not my final word on this. I just found this link: which repeats the rules for restrictive and nonrestrictive clauses. Interestingly, the link is for Chicago-Kent College of Law... The presence or absence of a comma can make a material difference in a legal contract. It's not just "professor snobs" who care about these distinctions.


----------



## Wordsmyth

I heartily agree with _Mauvais sang. _Artificial rules (by which I mean those that make no sense or serve no purpose) are pointless.

One of the most pertinent points in this thread, to my mind, is in Forero's post #34. It is the punctuation that shows whether a relative clause is restrictive or non-restrictive. Thereafter the choice of _that_ or _which_ can affect the flow or balance of the sentence.

This is a choice that many native speakers make instinctively, and which doesn't change the meaning of the sentence — although in some cases it can avoid confusion over the different uses of _that_.

PS. I've just done a "which-hunt" on what I've written above. Score: _'which'_ 2, _'that'_ 3 ... by pure instinct, and I wouldn't change any of them in retrospect.

Ws


----------



## bloomiegirl

I agree with you completely, Wordsmyth. But not everyone has an instinctive grasp of "that" and "which." Grammar rules exist to help those of us who need some help with normative usage, and -- apparently -- lawyers.  (In fact, I know a lawyer who got his client a very large settlement, all based on the placement of a comma in the sentence.)


----------



## Mauvais sang

Hello bloomiegirl! 

Exactly: by "recently" I mean 20th century.

As to the lawnmower example, you make a good point (but is there really a difference in meaning?).

It is interesting to note that we do find historical cases in which "that" is used to introduce a clause stating something _additional_ about the antecedent. For example:

Chaucer: _Smale foweles maken melodye, That slepen al the nyght with open eye_

Likewise, we can find examples where "which" is used defining the antecedent to complete the sense:

Newman: _This is the path which leads to death_

Supposedly the modern rule helps clarify ambiguity, but I find the rule confusing in for example:

_There are so many machines that ....._

According to the rule, you MUST use "that" in this sentence as a relative pronoun. But the sentence can continue in 2 different ways:

1) _There are so many machines that break down after a month_

2) _There are so many machines that I think I'll go mad!_

The slight confusion can be removed if you simply use "which" (for the first version):

_There are so many machines which break down after a month_

For it would simply be incorrect to say:

*There are so many machines which I think I'll go mad!*

So you see, in my opinion the rule can actually slow down reading.

I prefer pre-20th century writing, in which the choice between that/which seems to have simply depended on _what sounds nicer_, from a purely aesthetic point of view. Take the following lines from Keats:

_Save from one gradual solitary gust
Which comes upon the silence_

How ugly it would have sounded, had Keats used "That!"

_Save from one gradual solitary gust
*That* comes upon the silence_

See what I mean?


----------



## bloomiegirl

I'll skip the use of English by Chaucer et al. (especially its poetic use). But thank you for the references, and yes, I like the Keats.

I think your sample sentences are correct and unambiguous, but illustrate different usages of "that." 
_There are so many machines that break down after a month_
_There are so many machines that I think I'll go mad!_

Only the first one uses "that" as a relative pronoun.  I don't understand why you're tempted to try the non-restrictive "which" in this sentence. (In which case, the sentence would be incomplete as it stands.)
In the second sentence, "that" is a conjunction... there should be no confusion with "which," which is only a pronoun.


----------



## Wordsmyth

bloomiegirl said:


> [...] if you write: "The lawnmower which is broken is in the garage," without commas, I don't know which of the following you mean:
> The lawnmower that is broken is in the garage. (Tells which one.)
> The lawnmower, which is broken, is in the garage. (Adds a fact about the only mower in question.​


 
But bloomiegirl, wouldn't "without commas" tell you that it's the first one (tells which one)?

If there's a rule involved in this, that apparently nobody is contesting, it's the use of commas around non-restrictive clauses. It's a rule which is based on reality (the written form represents the way people actually do distinguish in speech). Given that you have one rule, why would you need a second, especially as (Strunk or no Strunk) there's a strong swell of opinion that it doesn't represent a universal reality?

You may have noticed (though many would not ) that I broke the "that/which rule" twice in the paragraph above, while respecting the "commas or not" rule. I don't think the meaning suffered. 

Ws


----------



## Maître Capello

Wordsmyth said:


> You may have noticed (though many would not ) that I broke the "that/which rule" twice in the paragraph above, while respecting the "commas or not" rule. I don't think the meaning suffered.


I fully agree. By the way, when talking about *people*, you only have one choice—*who*—and the only thing that makes the relative clause restrictive or not is the pair of commas…


----------



## Mauvais sang

bloomiegirl said:


> I'll skip the use of English by Chaucer et al. (especially its poetic use). But thank you for the references, and yes, I like the Keats.
> 
> I think your sample sentences are correct and unambiguous, but illustrate different usages of "that."
> _There are so many machines that break down after a month_
> _There are so many machines that I think I'll go mad!_
> 
> Only the first one uses "that" as a relative pronoun.  I don't understand why you're tempted to try the non-restrictive "which" in this sentence. (In which case, the sentence would be incomplete as it stands.)
> In the second sentence, "that" is a conjunction... there should be no confusion with "which," which is only a pronoun.



Yes, I know. But my point is that _while_ reading the reader may be confused. Perhaps you never experience this, but when I'm reading I often feel like "that" can be distracting in cases where you're not sure whether it is about to be used as a conjunction or as a pronoun. It causes me to pause and think "Okay, is this 'that' about to be used as a conjunction, or as a pronoun?" I know, it's a very minor quibble, but it affects the flow of the text - a matter which is of great concern to me. 

I can think of yet another reason why we should abandon the rule of which/that, and it also involves a question of flow and readability. Take the following sentences:

"The Impressionists followed contemporary theories of color _that_ demonstrated _that_ sunlight contains within it all the colors _that_ fall into the spectrum."

There are simply too many "thats"! It's distracting. Now take a revised version:

_The Impressionists followed contemporary theories of color which demonstrated that sunlight contains within it all the colors that fall into the spectrum_

I personally prefer the 2nd version, and I don't think it is ambiguous at all. But feel free to disagree!  I hope you don't think I'm arguing.


----------



## Wordsmyth

bloomiegirl said:


> [...] Only the first one uses "that" as a relative pronoun. I don't understand why you're tempted to try the non-restrictive "which" in this sentence. (In which case, the sentence would be incomplete as it stands.)
> In the second sentence, "that" is a conjunction... there should be no confusion with "which," which is only a pronoun.


 
_Bloomiegirl_, your grammatical analysis is perfect. And if every reader of _Mauvais sang's_ sentence were a grammarian, or at least conducted a pre-scan for relative pronouns and conjunctions, there'd be no problem.

But most people don't. They read words as they come. So "_There are so many machines that ..."_ could continue with either of the two constructions; there's a 50% chance that the brain gears up for the wrong one, gets further along the sentence, realises it's nonsense, goes back and gets it on the second shot. That may take only a few milliseconds, but, as _Mauvais sang_ says, "the rule can actually slow down reading".

Ws



Maître Capello said:


> I fully agree. By the way, when talking about *people*, you only have one choice—*who*—and the only thing that makes the relative clause restrictive or not is the pair of commas…


 
En effet, MC; and there are other examples to support punctuation as the real indicator:

"_The means by which we achieve ..._", although restrictive, could not be "... _by that we achieve ..._".

Similarly for "_The bag from which I took an apple was third from the left_" (restrictive)

... and any others where '_which_' is preceded by a preposition.

Ws


----------



## Mauvais sang

Wordsmyth said:


> But most people don't. They read words as they come. So "_There are so many machines that ..."_ could continue with either of the two constructions; there's a 50% chance that the brain gears up for the wrong one, gets further along the sentence, realises it's nonsense, goes back and gets it on the second shot. That may take only a few milliseconds, but, as _Mauvais sang_ says, "the rule can actually slow down reading".


Ah, you explained my point perfectly!


----------



## bloomiegirl

Hello again... What a relief (whew!) that we all agree on the offsetting commas for nonrestrictive clauses.And of course the Maître is right, "who" is used for restrictive and nonrestrictive clauses alike; only the punctuation indicates the difference. So I was trying to figure out why the hairs stand up on the back of my neck every time I see a nonrestrictive "that" or a restrictive "which." Reading the posts by Mauvais sang and Wordsmyth... and then I hit "realises"!!! And it came to me, in a flash: What we have here is American usage vs. British usage. Did you guys not notice the last line of my August 16 post (#34)? Well here it is again:


bloomiegirl said:


> Also, did I say? I don't think the that/which distinction is made by the Brits; it's a Yankee invention.


And we do our quote marks differently too.


----------



## Forero

Restrictive _which_ and nonrestrictive_ that_ are fine with me, and I am an American.  Is it a Yankee thing (i.e. north of the Mason-Dixon line)?

(I am particular about the commas though.  The extra one in the second Amendment bothers me every time I run across it.)


----------



## bloomiegirl

Forero said:


> Restrictive _which_ and nonrestrictive_ that_ are fine with me, and I am an American.  Is it a Yankee thing (i.e. north of the Mason-Dixon line)? [...]


Not according to the U of Alabama, Sweet Briar, Texas A&M, and the U of North Texas.
And if that's too academic a crowd for you (but who else would be writing about grammar?), then there's the CDC and NASA.
Perhaps we should agree to disagree on this one.


----------



## alatien34

Hello everyone!

I would like to know what is the best way to phrase the following:

"In order to create objects *that are* aligned and therefore, obtain a more readable workflow, you have three possibilities..."

OR

"In order to create objects *which are* aligned and therefore, obtain a more readable workflow, you have three possibilities..."

Thanks a lot!

Bye


----------



## cropje_jnr

For me either is acceptable.


----------



## misterk

"that are" would be considered proper English grammar in your sentence, but as cropje_jnr says, you will hear people saying both.


----------



## Keith Bradford

Both your sentences are perfectly good English.  

That is, except for the position of the comma.  Place it after _aligned_, not after _therefore_.


----------



## cropje_jnr

To be honest, when I re-read the sentence, I feel the comma is redundant.


----------



## Blair en France

DernierVirage said:


> bastin.vincent said:
> 
> 
> 
> J'aimerais  traduire en anglais: "Ce sont  quelques questions *auxquelles* nous allons tenter de répondre".
> 
> Ma suggestion : "These are some questions we are going to try to  answer".
> 
> 
> 
> "These are some questions which we are going to  try to answer".
> 
> When speaking, we also sometimes say "that" instead of "which" and, even  worse "and" instead of "to", but I suggest you stick to my first  suggestion !
Click to expand...

In written English, you would use "that" because it is a restrictive clause.  In spoken English, I'd omit it.


----------



## DernierVirage

Blair en France said:


> In written English, you would use "that" because it is a restrictive clause. In spoken English, I'd omit it.


 
Is "which" a no-no in this context ?


----------



## Blair en France

Absolutely.  You would use "which" only if you could omit the clause and retain the sense of the sentence.  A few examples: The dog that bit me has rabies.  The rabies shot that I had last year is no longer effective.  So, I went to my doctor's office, which is next door to a great bakery, and got another rabies shot.  I told the police that the dog that bit me is brown with white spots.  They caught the wrong brown dog, which belongs to my neighbor.

A little sidebar:  we use commas around unrestrictive clauses and never use a comma before a restrictive comma, to signal again that it is essential to the meaning of the sentence.


----------



## born in newyork

Blair en France is absolutely correct as a matter of grammatical rules.  But, as a practical matter, native English speakers ignore the that/which distinction all the time.


----------



## Lacuzon

Hi,

I knew the restrive/non restrictive rule, nevertheless I thought that with a sentence beginning with _that/this is_ or _those/these are _which was nedeed.

Could you enlight me about it?


----------



## born in newyork

I'm not sure why the beginning of a sentence would make any difference. If you're following the non-restrictive/restrictive rule, you would say: *These are the sheep that my brother purchased. * (This sentence identifies the sheep as being the ones the brother purchased as opposed to the sheep someone else purchased).


----------



## Lacuzon

Good evening,

Could you take a look there http://www.grammarbook.com/grammar/whoVwhVt.asp. It is about rule 3 :


> If _this_, _that_, _these_, or _those_ has already introduced an essential clause, you may use _which_ to introduce the next clause, whether it is essential or nonessential.


----------



## Blair en France

Born in New York is exactly right.  Native English speakers ignore the that/which rules when speaking, but I think that people expect more rigor in written work and would look askance at prose that confuses that and which.  At least I would!  (And my editors certainly would consider this an error.)  As for the Blue Book of Grammar's distinction about sentences that begin with "That is" or "There are," I can't agree.  In spoken English, yes, people are more relaxed, but for written English, I'd find it sloppy.


----------



## bloomiegirl

Lacuzon said:


> [...] I knew the restrictive/non restrictive rule, nevertheless I thought that with a sentence beginning with _that/this is_ or _those/these are_, "which" was nedeed. [...]





Lacuzon said:


> [...] Could you take a look there http://www.grammarbook.com/grammar/whoVwhVt.asp. It is about rule 3 :


I agree with Born in Newyork and Blair en France; I would use the restrictive "that" -- and so do most Google hits* -- in this case. 

But I can see a case for "which" based on euphony backed by British usage.

* Try googling "That is the question that" and "That is the question which" [with quote marks as shown].


----------



## Forero

_That which does not kill us makes us stronger. _
_That that does not kill us makes us stronger. _

_That is the very box in which I left my keys yesterday. _
_That is the very box in that I left my keys yesterday. _

_These are the sheep that my brother purchased. _
_ 
_


----------



## LV4-26

The first example looks like a perfect illustration of what bloomiegirl said in her post #70


bloomiegirl said:


> But I can see a case for "which" based on euphony backed by British usage.


The second one is exactly what I was about to point out:  _that _doesn't work after a preposition
Another example
You, who are on the road, must have a code that you can live by  ((_Teach your children_ - CS&N))
You, who are on the road, must have a code by that you can live 
You, who are on the road, must have a code with which you can live.


----------



## bloomiegirl

LV4-26 said:


> Forero said:
> 
> 
> 
> _That which does not kill us makes us stronger. _ [...]
> 
> 
> 
> The first example looks like a perfect illustration of what bloomiegirl said in her post #70 [...]
Click to expand...

Actually not. In Forero's first sentence, "That [which]" is the subject of the sentence, not a (restrictive or non-restrictive) subordinate clause. I think it's the latter that is meant to be the subject of this thread, and which bedevils so many people.


----------



## Forero

bloomiegirl said:


> Actually not. In Forero's first sentence, "That [which]" is the subject of the sentence, not a (restrictive or non-restrictive) subordinate clause. I think it's the latter that is meant to be the subject of this thread, and which bedevils so many people.


The restrictive subordinate clause in that sentence is "which does not kill us", and it modifies "that". Here are some examples with "which" restrictive clauses modifying a direct object:

_That which does not kill us we can use to make us stronger._
_We can choose to ignore that which does not threaten us._

To me, only "that that" is problematic this way, not (for example) "those that". Both of these sound fine to me:

_The ones we can choose to ignore are those that do not threaten us._
_The ones we can choose to ignore are those which do not threaten us._

The fact is that there are multiple factors that affect our choice of _that_ over some other relative pronoun. _That_ is not for restrictive clauses only, nor is it limited to use with things as opposed to persons. The other relative pronouns (_who_, _whom_, _what_, and _which_) are more restricted in use, but the rules are not simple. Neither are the rules simple for when to omit the relative pronoun.


----------



## bloomiegirl

OK, Forero, I see your point. But I doubt that any native English speaker (or even a non-native speaker) would be tempted to say "_That that does not kill us we can use to make us stronger_."

But the choice appears less obvious when the referent is other than "that." For instance, "The ordeal that does not kill us we can use to make us stronger" vs. "The ordeal, which does not kill us..." [staying as close as possible to your example]. Some of us use the that/which distinction to differentiate between restrictive and non-restrictive clauses. 

There are more rules for other relative pronouns, but I think this thread is about the "that/which" conundrum.


----------



## Forero

To me, "the ordeal which <rest of restrictive clause>" is grammatical but almost sounds too definite to mean "any ordeal that ...". It seems to me to suggest a particular ordeal instead of just any non-lethal ordeal whatever:

_ Any ordeal that does not kill us we can use to make us stronger. 
Any ordeal which does not kill us we can use to make us stronger. 
__The ordeal that does not kill us we can use to make us stronger._ * [Any non-lethal ordeal]*
_The ordeal which does not kill us we can use to make us stronger. _* [Maybe a particular non-lethal ordeal]

*The original sample sentence in Post #1 is similar. Did the original poster mean to refer to generalized possible vulnerabilities or to specific ones? "Vulnerabilities which are not on the list" to me might be more specific than "Vulnerabilities (that are) not on the list":

_Nevertheless, there may be vulnerabilities which are not in the list: _(_to wit_)_ ...._

I don't mean I see a hard and fast rule here, but I mention specificity as one of the many factors I was referring to in Post #74.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Mauvais sang said:


> It is only until relatively recently that grammatarians have insisted that we use "which" only if there is a comma (e.g. "the lawnmower, which is broken, is in the garage.")
> 
> I really dislike this rule, because if you read the classics like Shakespeare or Byron, up until even the 20th century, you will see that "which" and "that" were used interchangeably.
> 
> So follow the rule if you don't want some professor snob to correct you. I personally don't see the need for the rule (in fact, I think in some cases it can lead to confusion), so I don't follow it.



This seems to indeed be a firm North AmE/BE difference. No professor snob should correct you, unless he/she wishes to dispute the validity of the OED.



> In British English, restrictive relative clauses can be introduced by _that_ or _which_ when they are referring to things rather than people:
> 
> The coat that/which Dan had on yesterday was new.​
> 
> In this sentence, the writer is identifying the coat by saying it’s the one Dan was wearing yesterday, as opposed to any other coats he might own.
> 
> Non-restrictive relative clauses must always be introduced by _which_ and never by _that_:
> 
> The coat, which Dan had on yesterday, was made of pure alpaca and cost a bomb.​



Or see Plato (as quoted in A History of Western Philosophy):



> There is one kind of being which is always the same - indestructible, never receiving anything into itself from without, nor itself going out to any other, but invisible and perceptible by any sense, and of which the contemplation is granted to intelligence only.



Imagine the King James Bible saying: "*And the Lord said, 'Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which that I do*?' or '*Behold the blood of the covenant which that the Lord hath has made with you.*'"  

There are many instances, perhaps a majority, where I prefer "which" to "that" as regards restrictive clauses, as the above examples attest to. The great English writers of the past: Locke, Churchill, Russell et al., almost all do likewise. "Which" can often sound far more erudite than a simple "that", depending on context.

This is an American-backed (with no disrespect to my U.S. friends) rule which I sincerely hope does not overwhelm British English.


----------



## olipra

Hi,
Trying to decide between "that" and "which" in the following instance :

" the all-in-one solution which does the heavy lifting." or "the all-in-one solution that does the heavy lifting."

My hunch tells me to go with "which", but it might tell me wrong.

Any other hunches?

Best, and thank you

O

[Ce fil] porte à confusion, car on y mentionne le nécessité d'écrire "that" s'il sépare des éléments incontournables, et "which" s'il précède un segment qui n'est pas un incontournable de la phrase. Dans le cas de ma phrase, "does all the heavy lifting" est assez incontournable, mais je n'en suis pas certain. Voilà désolé d'être vague.


----------



## Maître Capello

Sans davantage de contexte, les deux sont a priori possibles. Il est en effet impossible de savoir si la proposition relative est restrictive ou seulement descriptive sans plus d'information. Il nous faudrait au moins la phrase complète pour pouvoir trancher.


----------

