# which / that - restrictive and non-restrictive clauses



## Hontas

De donde viene el cafe que toman los americanos? 

Como se traduce esta frase al Ingles? Estoy preparando una exposicion acerca del cafe y esa es la frase para mi introduccion.

Las ideas que me pasan por la cabeza son:

Where does the coffee Americans drink come from?
Where does the coffee which Americans drink come from?
Where does the coffee that Americans Drink come from?

Gracias!


----------



## Aidanriley

The first and third are correct, the second is not.


----------



## Hontas

Thank you!


----------



## Agró

Aidanriley said:


> The first and third are correct, the second is not.


Why is the second incorrect, please?


----------



## Ynez

Agró said:


> Why is the second incorrect, please?



I think the answer is clear, Agró. It is incorrect because they don't use it.  


2 is grammatically correct, Aidanriley. 

But, don't worry, this is something we can learn in books. We just need you to tell us what is normal, as you did.


----------



## SevenDays

Hello

I think meaning, not grammar, makes #2 incorrect (in formal writing, at least)

A. Where does the coffee _that_ Americans drink come from?
Restrictive clause: _that americans drink_ is essential to the intended meaning.

B. Where does the coffee*,* _which_ Americans drink*,* come from?
Non-restrictive clause, or a clause that can be removed without altering the meaning. But if we _do_ remove _which Americans drink, _we change the meaning and are left with _where does the coffee come from?  _

My two cents....
Cheers


----------



## Ynez

_I didn't like the book (which / that) John gave me.
_


That example is on this page:
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/645/01/


Now Agró will continue with the explanation...


----------



## Áristos

SevenDays said:


> Hello
> 
> I think meaning, not grammar, makes #2 incorrect (in formal writing, at least)
> 
> A. Where does the coffee _that_ Americans drink come from?
> Restrictive clause: _that americans drink_ is essential to the intended meaning.
> 
> B. Where does the coffee*, *_which_ Americans drink*,* come from?
> Non-restrictive clause, or a clause that can be removed without altering the meaning. But if we _do_ remove _which Americans drink, _we change the meaning and are left with _where does the coffee come from?  _
> 
> My two cents....
> Cheers



Como tú muy bien resaltas, la aposición requiere dos hermosas comas para delimitarla. Es igual que en español.
Sin comas, significa otra cosa muy distinta.  Y la frase que nos ocupa no las lleva 

En el caso que nos ocupa en este hilo, "which" y "that" son equivalentes. No hay aposición.

Saludos

PS. *Ynez*, siento entrometerme


----------



## Ynez

Áristos said:


> PS. *Ynez*, siento entrometerme



Eres MUY bienvenido, porque no te puedes imaginar las ganas que tenía de explicar las oraciones de relativo en inglés.


----------



## Áristos

Ynez said:


> Eres MUY bienvenido, porque no te puedes imaginar las ganas que tenía de explicar las oraciones de relativo en inglés.



Por ahí he visto algún hilo de *habría* vs. *hubiera* (es en serio).
Ve para allá, quizás te apetezca más


----------



## Agró

Ynez said:


> _I didn't like the book (which / that) John gave me.
> _
> 
> 
> That example is on this page:
> http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/645/01/
> 
> 
> Now Agró will continue with the explanation...


I'll try.

From R. Murphy: _English Grammar in Use_.
"b) When we are talking about things, we use *that* (not *who*) in a relative clause. We use *that* instead of *it*/*they*:

Where are the eggs? - They were in the fridge
Where are the eggs *that were in the fridge*?
(...)

You can also use *which* for things (but not for people):

Where are the eggs *which* were in the fridge?

*That* is more usual than *which* in the sentences in this unit (here the author means "defining -or restrictive- relative clauses"). But sometimes you must use which -see Unit 91 (non-defining relative clauses)."

This is a defining/restrictive relative clause, so *which* is correct.


----------



## SevenDays

Áristos said:


> Como tú muy bien resaltas, la aposición requiere dos hermosas comas para delimitarla. Es igual que en español.
> Sin comas, significa otra cosa muy distinta. Y la frase que nos ocupa no las lleva
> 
> En el caso que nos ocupa en este hilo, "which" y "that" son equivalentes. No hay aposición.
> 
> Saludos
> 
> PS. *Ynez*, siento entrometerme


 
Pero si usa _which_ tiene que usar las comas, lo que cambia el significado.
Por eso es que la opción es _that_.
(I should add the "formal writing" disclaimer, and I think I just did)

Saludos


----------



## Agró

SevenDays said:


> Pero si usa _which_ tiene que usar las comas, lo que cambia el significado.
> Por eso es que la opción es _that_.
> (I should add the "formal writing" disclaimer, and I think I just did)
> 
> Saludos


Please see post #11.


----------



## Áristos

SevenDays said:


> Pero *si usa which tiene que usar las comas*, lo que cambia el significado.
> Por eso es que la opción es _that_.
> (I should add the "formal writing" disclaimer, and I think I just did)
> 
> Saludos



No, a ver, estás confundiendo compañero.

Debe usar las comas para realizar una aposición, una _non-defining relative clause_, y en ese caso sólo puede llevar "which".

(_I hate sports, which are boring_ = All sports are boring and I hate them)
(_The exercise, which is very easy, has to be done before Wednesday_ = There's only one exercise, it is very easy and it has to be done before Wednesday)

PERO también puede ir sin comas, como _restrictive relative clause_, y en ese caso es equivalente a "that".

(_I hate sports which/that are boring_ = Not all sports are boring; I only hate the boring ones)
(_The exercise which/that is very easy has to be done before Wednesday _= There are many exercises. Among them, there's one that is very easy and that has to be done before Wednesday)

Mis ejemplos son un poco ramplones, pero sólo pretendía que se viera claro.

Saludos


----------



## Agró

Áristos said:


> No, a ver, estás confundiendo compañero.
> 
> Debe usar las comas para realizar una aposición, una _non-defining relative clause_, y en ese caso sólo puede llevar "which".
> 
> (I hate sports, which are boring = All sports are boring and I hate them)
> 
> PERO también puede ir sin comas, como _restrictive relative clause_, y en ese caso es equivalente a "that".
> 
> (I hate sports which/that are boring = Not all sports are boring; I only hate the boring ones)
> 
> Mis ejemplos son un poco ramplones, pero sólo pretendía que se viera claro.
> 
> Saludos



Son perfectos. ¿Puedo apropiármelos para mis clases?


----------



## Áristos

Agró said:


> Son perfectos. ¿Puedo apropiármelos para mis clases?




Si pagas los correspondientes derechos, naturalmente jeje

P.S:He añadido luego otro ejemplo más mientras contestabas, y me gusta más que el primero


----------



## Ynez

Muchas gracias, amigos 

You've missed a little detail: you are giving examples where _that/which_ is the subject of the sentence, not the object, and probably our friend Aidanriley will be more comfortable with your examples (when _which_ is subject).

I took for him examples from google where _which_ is the object (like in the first  coffee sentence).

_Fleet Efficiency provides us with the pioneering opportunities to tackle the major overheads *which* our company carries on the ...

As far as I am aware it has been tested quite thouroughly with exception to the Business Closures *which* our company don't use at the moment. _

In these examples one can use *that*, *which *or *nothing*. It seems in this structure _which_ is only used in formal speech, and not in a normal informal sentence like the coffee example.


----------



## SevenDays

Áristos said:


> No, a ver, estás confundiendo compañero.
> 
> Debe usar las comas para realizar una aposición, una _non-defining relative clause_, y en ese caso sólo puede llevar "which".
> 
> (_I hate sports, which are boring_ = All sports are boring and I hate them)
> (_The exercise, which is very easy, has to be done before Wednesday_ = There's only one exercise, it is very easy and it has to be done before Wednesday)
> 
> PERO también puede ir sin comas, como _restrictive relative clause_, y en ese caso es equivalente a "that".
> 
> (_I hate sports which/that are boring_ = Not all sports are boring; I only hate the boring ones)
> (_The exercise which/that is very easy has to be done before Wednesday _= There are many exercises. Among them, there's one that is very easy and that has to be done before Wednesday)
> 
> Mis ejemplos son un poco ramplones, pero sólo pretendía que se viera claro.
> 
> Saludos


 
Hello

The ol' _that vs. which_ debate....

My view, for whatever it's worth:
A restrictive clause is _*essential*_ to the meaning of a sentence; a non-restrictive clause is not. Simply put, if you use _which, _you are introducing a non-restrictive clause, and you need commas (if the clause is in the middle of a sentence) or a single, preceding comma (if the clause comes at the end). With that in mind, you'll never go wrong. In other words, with _which_, think comma(s); with _that_, don't.

Oh, were life so neat and simple.

I think I hear two arguments:
(1) Sometimes _that_ is the equivalent of _which_. I wouldn't argue with it; I'm sure there are plenty of examples where the meaning isn't altered by using _that_ and _which _interchangeably. But the question is whether _that _and _which_ mean the same _in the example at hand_. They do not. The point of a relative clause is it can be removed because it provides *non-essential* information:

A. _Where does the coffee which Americans drink come from?_
If you remove _*which Americans drink*_, a step allowed by non-restrictive clauses, you end up with:
B. Where does the coffee come from?

Do A and B mean the same?
No. Obviously, *Americans drink* is essential to the intended meaning, and so a _that_ restrictive clause is needed:

Where does the coffee _that Americans drink_ come from?

(2) _Which_ can start a restrictive clause.
Perhaps once upon a time grammarians kept _that_ and _which_ clauses strictly apart, and nowadays such rule is not so rigidly enforced. I'm sure there are plenty of examples where _which _works as a restrictive clause, but that's not the point of this thread. In our example, _which _gets in the way of the intended meaning. No one would be confused by the meaning of _where does the coffee that Americans drink come from? _But in _where_ _does the cofee which Americans drink come from_? a reader may well wonder, do you mean any coffee, or the coffee *that* Americans drink? If you mean _that,_ why not use it?

But it's only fair to let natives have a say.
Cheers


----------



## Ynez

SevenDays, you can learn about this on the page I already provided.


----------



## Spug

Agró said:


> This is a defining/restrictive relative clause, so *which* is correct.



Actually, I believe you've got it backwards. 

The basic rule is to use _that _with restrictive clauses and _which _with nonrestrictive clauses.

For example: 

"The cat that was in the grass ran after the bird."

"The cat, which was in the grass, ran after the bird."

I believe that Áristos explained the difference well in post #8.

Pero en todo caso... esto realmente es un caso de buscarle cinco patas al gato. En el habla moderna la distinción entre _that _y _which _casi no se observa, sean las que sean las reglas. En muchos casos son básicamente iguales en el lenguaje cotidiano. Tuve que aprender y observar la diferencia cuando era estudiante, pero eso fue hace bastante tiempo. Las cosas han cambiado. 

Saludos...


----------



## Agró

Spug said:


> Actually, I believe you've got it backwards.
> 
> The basic rule is to use _that _with restrictive clauses and _which _with nonrestrictive clauses.
> 
> For example:
> 
> "The cat that was in the grass ran after the bird."
> 
> "The cat, which was in the grass, ran after the bird."



No, I'm afraid you are wrong.  Would you claim that

"The cat *which* was in the grass ran after the bird" 

is wrong?

If so, lots of recent grammar books need thorough revision.
M. Swan, in _Practical English Usage_, says:

"identifying relative cluses
In identifying relative clauses, we very often use *that* instead of the other relative pronouns, especially in a conversational style.
_Where's the girl that sells the tickets? (=...who sells...)
He's a man that people like at first sight. (=...whom people like...)
Could you iron the trousers that are hanging up behind the door? (...*which* are hanging...)
I've lost the bananas that I bought this morning. (...*which* I bought...)."_


----------



## macame

I agree with Agró.
I think all of them are defining relative clauses, so we can use that/which or leave them out.


----------



## Agró

macame said:


> I agree with Agró.
> I think all of them are defining relative clauses, so we can use that/which *or leave them out*.



Not in this case, as *that/which* is the subject of the relative clause.


----------



## SevenDays

Agró said:


> No, I'm afraid you are wrong.  Would you claim that
> 
> "The cat *which* was in the grass ran after the bird"
> 
> is wrong?
> 
> If so, lots of recent grammar books need thorough revision.
> M. Swan, in _Practical English Usage_, says:
> 
> "identifying relative cluses
> In identifying relative clauses, we very often use *that* instead of the other relative pronouns, especially in a conversational style.
> _Where's the girl that sells the tickets? (=...who sells...)
> He's a man that people like at first sight. (=...whom people like...)
> Could you iron the trousers that are hanging up behind the door? (...*which* are hanging...)
> I've lost the bananas that I bought this morning. (...*which* I bought...)."_



Hello

Spug isn't wrong; there is plenty of support for the basic rule that he pointed out.  It seems Mr. Swan is among those who don’t see a problem using _*which*_ to introduce a restrictive clause.  Fair enough, but it is worth noting that others don’t agree.  

The problem with _the cat which was in the grass ran after the bird_ is that a careful reader would likely pause before *which* (as if there was a comma) and assume therefore that the clause is non-restrictive.  If what you had in mind was a restrictive clause, then use _*that*_: _the cat *that* was in the grass ran after the bird._  There is no pause before _*that*_ and no risk that the reader will misunderstand the nature of the clause. 

Among those who see a distinction between _*that*_ and _*which*_:

Oxford American Writer’s Thesaurus, p. 921:
For writers, the abstract rule that *that* introduces restrictive elements and _*which*_ introduces non-restrictive elements is probably less helpful than the following simple test: if there needs to be a comma before the relative pronoun, you need *which*; otherwise, you need _*that*_.

Garner’s Modern American Usage, p. 782:
…what’s the rule? The simplest statement of it is this: if you see a _*which*_ without a comma (or preposition) before it, nine times out of ten it needs to be a *that*.  The one other time, it needs a comma.

The Chicago Manual of Style, p. 230:
In polished American prose, _*that*_ is used restrictively…._*which*_ is used non-restrictively…_*Which*_ should be used restrictively only when it is preceded by a preposition (the situation *in which* we find ourselves)… In British English, writers and editors seldom observe the distinction between the two words.

I suppose we can all take sides now.  I just think there is something to be said for keeping _*that*_ and _*which*_ strictly apart: it adds precision and clarity to your writing.

Cheers


----------



## Ynez

Now you've finally started saying things related to this topic. 



Probably it is useful for us to use it the way it is recommended in your cites, but as you can see, *which* is always correct in a restrictive sentence according to all grammatical sources, both American (the one I linked) and British (our grammar books). So we cannot say it is incorrect, and we must be prepared to find it in formal contexts.


*If the discussions in many of the handbooks are complex and burdened with exceptions, the facts of usage are quite simple. Virginia McDavid's 1977 study shows about 75 percent of the instances of which in edited prose introduce restrictive clauses; about 25 percent, nonrestrictive ones.

We conclude that at the end of the 20th century, the usage of which and that -at least in prose- has pretty much settled down. You can use either which or that to introduce a restrictive clause -the grounds for your choice should be stylistic- and which to introduce a nonrestrictive clause.
*
Merriam-Webster's dictionary of English usage, page 894-896

You can read it in books.google.com

That is the same information we can read in our British grammar books.


----------



## macame

Agró said:


> Not in this case, as *that/which* is the subject of the relative clause.


 Maybe it's a bit late, but I was talking about the coffee phrases.


----------



## Agró

macame said:


> Maybe it's a bit late, but I was talking about the coffee phrases.



Nunca es tarde, si la dicha es buena.

Para las frases del café, de acuerdo.

Saludos.


----------



## Spug

Agró said:


> No, I'm afraid you are wrong.  Would you claim that
> 
> "The cat *which* was in the grass ran after the bird"
> 
> is wrong?


Yes, I certainly would.

However, you could make it correct by adding commas to indicate that the clause is in nonrestrictive apposition.

"The cat, which was in the grass, ran after the bird."

"The cat that was in the grass ran after the bird." In this sentence, the subordinate clause provides information that is specific to the cat in the grass. We are talking about the cat that is in the grass (and not, for example, about the cat that is in the tree).

At any rate, as more than one of us has pointed out, in American usage, the distinction between the two conjunctions has become increasingly blurred over time. I continue to observe it because it is what I was taught many years ago, and introducing restrictive clauses with _which _simply sounds wrong to me. But it is acceptable in modern usage.


----------



## Ynez

*... but in formal American English it is generally recommended to use only that,[4] or to reduce to a zero clause. This rule was recommended in 1926 by H.W. Fowler, who observed, "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."[5] According to Stanford linguist Arnold Zwicky, "Most linguists—especially sociolinguists—think this a really silly idea."[6]*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_relative_clauses

Searching around, I found a page called _The Great Which Hunt_. 

http://clubtroppo.com.au/2008/11/30/the-great-which-hunt/


----------

