# Relative pronouns - York, <that, which> I visited last year ...



## majlo

_York, which I visited last year, is a nice old city.
York, that I visited last year, is a nice old city.
_Why is _that _incorrect in this relative clause?
Thanks in advance.


----------



## bartonig

_1. York, which I visited last year, is a nice old city._
_2. *York, that I visited last year, is a nice old city._

In sentence 1 the clause _which I visited last year_ adds some information but the clause does not identify the city. Your clause is an unrestricting one and such a clause does not restrict (ie. identify) its antecedent (York, in this case). The relative pronoun for unrestricting clauses has to be _who_ or _which_.

Restricting clauses can take _that_. For example _The train *that's standing at platform 1* leaves in 5 minutes._


----------



## panjandrum

Unrestricting clauses usually need commas, restricting clauses don't.
See bartonig's train example, or,
"The York *that I remember* wasn't swarming with school children on day trips."


----------



## river

_That_ introduces essential clauses; _which_ introduces nonessential (nonrestrictive) clauses. Your choice is between_ that_ and _comma-which._ If the comma seems out of place, that is your answer.


----------



## Sweet-Girl

How can I distinguish when should I use _*which*_ and when should I use _*that *_? Can I use them interchangeably or is there a slight difference between them ? please help me  !


----------



## Mr.Blue

I don't really know how to explain this but I'm going to do my best . I suppose *That *is preferred in clauses that restrict a thought. *Which* is nonrestrictive, adding subsidiary information. 

-The river _that_ forms the boundary between Texas and Maxico is the Rio Grande, _which_ has its source in Colorado.

If any further explanation crossed my mind , I will surely post it.


----------



## panjandrum

There are many previous threads on this question, but they are hard to find with a search as so many posts include both words 

Many people don't distinguish between which and that.

For those of us who do, that restricts, which defines/ describes.

If you look up which in the WR English Definitions Dictionary, you will find many more links. I expect there are more if you look up that instead.


----------



## river

_Which_ is set off by a comma or sometimes by a dash or with parentheses. If the comma seems out of place, _that_ is your answer.

*Fowler* reserves _which_ for nonrestrictive clauses and _that_ for restrictive clauses (one that is necessary to the meaning of the sentence).


----------



## Sabelotodo

*Which* is used to refer to animals and inanimate objects.  *That* may be used to refer to people, animals, or nonliving objects.  *Who* is only used to refer to people (or sometimes pets that are treated like humans.)

When introducing adjective clauses such as _"that forms the boundary between Texas and Mexico"_ and _"which has its source in colorado"_ the word _*that*_ is used to introduce essential clauses (central to the meaning of the sentence) and the word _*which*_ is used to introduce nonessential clauses.

Incidentally, nonessential clauses are separated from the main sentence with commas.  Whether or not a clause is essential may be a bit subjective.


----------



## TrentinaNE

panjandrum said:
			
		

> Many people don't distinguish between which and that.
> 
> For those of us who do, that restricts, which defines/ describes.


I didn't distinguish between them until the editor of a journal to which I had submitted a paper vehemently pointed out my repeated "misuse" (in his eyes) of "which."  I think many native-speakers (including some very good writers) are surprised to learn about the restrictive/nonrestrictive clause distinction.

Elizabeth


----------



## nycphotography

TrentinaNE said:
			
		

> I didn't distinguish between them until the editor of a journal to which I had submitted a paper vehemently pointed out my repeated "misuse" (in his eyes) of "which."  I think many native-speakers (including some very good writers) are surprised to learn about the restrictive/nonrestrictive clause distinction.
> 
> Elizabeth


 
Editors love to point out that which we must do.  The best way (well, before this forum at least) in which to perfect your usage, is to work for or with an editor that (which? who? whom?) will tirelessly correct you.

_Which_ and _that_ are two really hard ones to explain.  The uses go far beyond the simple "restrict" vs "explain" distinction.  Both words are used in various contexts as parts of speech, and it can be tricky to sort them out.


----------



## river

See here http://www.grammarbook.com/grammar/whoVwhVt.asp


----------



## suzi br

Can someone please remind me what the difference is supposed to be in using that or which

 -- The context is:  microsoft's grammar checker asks me to check it almost everytime I use one or t'other

cheers!


----------



## maxiogee

Disable the pesky nuisance. 
It's a feckin' American anyway, so who'd want to pay attention to their grammar rulings?


----------



## suzi br

tsk!
I know that! The very idea of being told your grammar by a machine! 

BUT I need to know the idea behind it. It seems to be an American thing since people in the UK are generally bemused by it!


----------



## panjandrum

Sorry, suzi, but I have popped your question to the end of a thread on this topic.
This is the house that Jack built.
I live in the house that is painted pink.
I live in a pink house, which is really terracotta gone off in the sunshine.


----------



## suzi br

Thank-you Panj!
Having read these examples I will continue to puzzle over this - I just dont "get" the difference.. but thanks for trying!


----------



## panjandrum

New Fowler's Modern English Usage devotes half-a-page to this topic. It quotes the original 1926 Fowler:


> The relations between _that_, _who_ and _which_ have come to us from our forefathers as an odd jumble, and plainly show that the language has not been neatly constructed by a master-builder who could create each part to do the exact work required of it, neither overlapped nor overlapping; far from it, its parts have had to grow as they could.


He suggests that it would be really helpful if writers would consistently use that to introduce restrictive clauses, which to introduce parenthetical, non-restrictive clauses. He concludes:


> 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.


----------



## Edwin

The distinction between "that" and "which" has always puzzled me. However, I think I finally get the distinction described above between essential and inessential.  

Somewhere I read that people whose native language is English almost always use them correctly in speech. It is only when writing that they tend to get them mixed up. So when in doubt I try to say the sentence to myself and see how it comes out. I think the mistake for "natives" is usually to use "which" when they should use "that". (But I won't bet on it.  )


----------



## nombus

suzi br said:
			
		

> Can someone please remind me what the difference is supposed to be in using that or which
> 
> -- The context is: microsoft's grammar checker asks me to check it almost everytime I use one or t'other
> 
> cheers!


 
"To be or not to be, THAT is the question". Imagine it with WHICH!! Thot it was only the Spanish native speakers that or which (OMG!!)  had that problem. Feel much better now!! Murphy's English Grammar has a very good explanation. I shud know coz I resort to it evey single time!!  And I adhere to maxiogee's suggestion: Disable it!! Cheers, Nombus!!


----------



## Yôn

I know exactly when I am supposed to use _that_, and when I am supposed to use _which_, but that has never stopped me from intentionally placing the one I want exactly where I want it. Also, it has never stopped up anyone in reading what I write, and has never caught the eye of a teacher.

I generally find I subsitute _which_ for _that_, but never the other way around.

_The letter which arrived in the mail yesterday, was post-marked three years ago._




Jon


----------



## diogerepus

The following sentence is a question in a grammar book. The correct answer in the blank is 'that'. But why can't it be 'which'? Any ideas? 

Many companies are now experimenting with ways to reduce the amount of waste and pollution  __________  they produce, and also with ways to coexist with the environment.


----------



## LV4-26

I think strictly speaking there's no reason why it couldn't be _which.
_It could be either which, or that, or no pronoun at all.
I would go for no pronoun at all if I were given the choice, as follows :
the amount of waste and pollution they produce

I don't really know why I wouldn't use _which_ in your sentence, but I'm sure I wouldn't. (again, if I were given the choice. That doesn't mean I would reject _which_ altogether).

I guess it's a matter of usage. _That_ *tends to be preferred *in restrictive relative clauses while _which_ is strongly recommended in non restrictive ones.

Hold on. I only meant to start the ball rolling. You'll get more answers.


----------



## Nunty

With all due respect, I think that the use of "that" in restrictive clauses is pretty much obligatory. 

I forgot the grammatical name of "which-clauses", but they need to be set off by commas. "That-clauses" must not be set off by commas.

_1. The company, which is one of the largest in the country, makes widgets.
2. The company that makes widgets is one of the largest in the country._

We can take the which-clause out of the first sentence without changing the meaning at all.

In the second sentence we understand that there is at least one other company in question here, one that does not make widgets. We need the that-clause to understand which company we are discussing.

I hope I didn't just muddy the waters...


----------



## desktopbob

In spoken english (at least in the USA) LV-26 is correct; you can use _that_ or _which_ or nothing at all. There's probably some nit-picky grammar rule that nobody knows governing it but native English speakers would have no problem using any of the 3 and, truthfully, I can't say any of the 3 "sound" more correct than any other.


----------



## Nunty

I agree with desktopbob that in spoken English the distinction is much less clear, maybe even nonexistent. But since diogerepus asked about a sentence in a grammar book, I thought an explanation of the nitpicky rules of the written language might be in order.


----------



## A90Six

I agree with Nun-Translator. the awnswer to the question is that. I should point that, *that* can be omitted where the omission makes no difference to the meaning of the sentence; mostly when it is used as a conjuction, and sometimes when it is serves as the object rather than the subject of the relative clause:
Many companies are now experimenting with ways to reduce the amount of waste and pollution they produce, and also with ways to coexist with the environment.​


----------



## mnhlsk

Hi.


I would like to ask if 'that' and 'which' in restrictive rel.cl. are interchangable. As far as I remember, we were taught so. What about sentences below?

1. I kicked the dog which bit me.
2. I kicked the dog that bit me.

Could 2. mean, that the dog bit me first and I kicked it(him?) afterwards, whereas in 1. it would be vice versa?

Thank you.


----------



## panjandrum

Many people make no distinction between that and which.

For those of us who do, your two sentences are quite different and one of them is missing a comma.

I kicked the dog, which bit me.
I kicked the dog, then the dog bit me.

I kicked the dog that bit me.
The dog bit me.  Later, I kicked that dog.

Your understanding is correct.


There are other threads on this topic - look at the dictionary entries for that or which and at the bottom you will see a list of previous threads.


----------



## zena168

I think the distinction is that the first sentence is ambiguous about when the dog actually “bit” you.  It can be before or after you performed your action.  On the other hand, you can differentiate “before” or “after” by the way you speak it.  But the second one strongly indicates that the dog “bit” you first.


----------



## skatoulitsa

The ambiguity though can be eliminated by the use of the comma. So, as panjandrum said:
 I kicked the dog, which bit me = I kicked the dog, then the dog bit me

But if you omit the comma, then:
 I kicked the dog which bit me =  I kicked the dog that bit me =  The dog bit me.  Later, I kicked that dog.


----------



## mnhlsk

Thank you very much for your help.

m.


----------



## mnhlsk

Hi,

To sum it up:

1. I kicked the dog, which bit me.
   - non-restrictive rel.cl, _which _the only possibility, the dog regarded as non-human
-----------------------------------------------------
2. I kicked the dog that bit me.
   - restrictive rel.cl.

If I used _which_ in 2., would it be grammatically incorrect or is _that_ just the preferred one?

Thank you.


----------



## skatoulitsa

I don't think it's incorrect.


----------



## mnhlsk

skatoulitsa said:
			
		

> I don't think it's incorrect.



So, is _that_ the one preferred?


----------



## panjandrum

The standard form is to use which for non-restrictive clauses and to use a comma before the which.

Use that for restrictive clauses and do not use a comma.

Post #27 follows that "correct" pattern.

There are many who do not make any distinction between that and which, but some still do.

I'm adding this thread to the end of a previous thread that covered the topic well.


----------



## mnhlsk

panjandrum said:
			
		

> The standard form is to use which for non-restrictive clauses and to use a comma before the which.
> 
> Use that for restrictive clauses and do not use a comma.
> 
> Post #27 follows that "correct" pattern.
> 
> There are many who do not make any distinction between that and which, but some still do.
> 
> I'm adding this thread to the end of a previous thread that covered the topic well.



Thank you,Panjandrum.

The fact is, that I was taught that, when talking about things, I should use only _which_ in non-restr. clauses and _which _OR _that_ in restr. cl. I always wondered if there were any difference between them.
Moreover, here´s a sentence from OxDictionary:

I sit at the desk *that* faces the window OR I sit at the desk *which* faces the window. (formal)

Now I know that _that_ will be used.

Thank you indeed.


----------



## modus.irrealis

Just to add to the confusion, I thought I should point out that in formal contexts, "which" has to be used in restrictive clauses with a preposition, e.g.

The country to which they fled was at war.

You can say

The country (that) they fled to was at war.

but I think more people find something wrong with that than do with "which" in any restrictive clause.


----------



## foxfirebrand

Let's not forget "that which," in other words _what,_ which of course will eventually become the predominant pronoun, both relative and demonstrative.  So here's a little much-needed "what" relief, for those who still don't get "what" this nitpicking is all about.

It were him what done it.

What's done cannot be undone.

To be or not to be-- what was the question?

Them as gots will have, them what's not will lose-- so the Bible says, and it still is news.

God bless the child what's got is own.

I know what's what, and what ain't.

Say what?
.


----------



## narmoriel

Hi,
I haven't understand the rule about the use of thet and which. For example  in this phrase:
"If you have the chance you should taste a smalll piece of this fruit, which is rich."
Could anybody explain to me the rule?
Thank you.
Narmoriel


----------



## SweetSoulSister

Hi Narmoriel

I'm not sure about a rule, but I think that in your sentence, I would say "..fruit, it is rich."


----------



## narmoriel

Hi, this phrase  was in a exercise book, soIthink it was correct.
Namoriel


----------



## Stellar7225

Hey,
The key to this comes with the use of clauses. In the sentence you used, "If you have a chance, you should taste a small piece of this fruit" is one idea and "it is rich" is another idea. "Which" joins the two ideas into one sentence. Think of it as an addition to a description of something. 
If you were to use "that," it usually is in a sentence that requires a description afterwards. The word "that" is used when a sentence cannot be complete without a description afterwards. For example, "I really like the shirt that you wore yesterday." You couldn't say "I really like the shirt" and have nothing afterwards because people wouldn't know what shirt you were talking about. 
In the fruit sentence, people would understand that the fruit was good by the way you stated that they should try it. "It is rich" is just an addition to describe the fruit and not necessarily a needed statement.
So basically, "which" is used when you're just adding description and "that" is used when it is necessary description.
Sorry if this is so confusing! I didn't know how else to describe it.
-Lauren


----------



## narmoriel

Hi,
Thank you very mauch. I began to understand.  Indeed in this reading exercise you have to choose the correct word to complete a phrase. In this phrase you had  to choose between which, that, this and what. The phrase is complete. " which is rich " is an additional information.
Excuse my english. Correct my mistakes please. 
Thanks again
Narmoriel


----------



## sunyaer

TrentinaNE said:


> I didn't distinguish between them until the editor of a journal to which I had submitted a paper vehemently pointed out my repeated "misuse" (in his eyes) of "which."  I think many native-speakers (including some very good writers) are surprised to learn about the restrictive/nonrestrictive clause distinction.
> 
> Elizabeth





Edwin said:


> ...
> 
> I think the mistake for "natives" is usually to use "which" when they should use "that". (But I won't bet on it.  )





Yôn said:


> ...
> 
> I generally find I subsitute _which_ for _that_, but never the other way around.
> 
> _The letter which arrived in the mail yesterday, was post-marked three years ago._






skatoulitsa said:


> The ambiguity though can be eliminated by the use of the comma. So, as panjandrum said:
> I kicked the dog, which bit me = I kicked the dog, then the dog bit me
> 
> But if you omit the comma, then:
> I kicked the dog which bit me =  I kicked the dog that bit me =  The dog bit me.  Later, I kicked that dog.



I would like to ask, as a native speaker, which would you say:

"I kicked the dog which bit me" or  "I kicked the dog that bit me"?


----------



## DonnyB

Without bothering to wade through three pages of an eight-year old thread, I'd use "that".  But I'd say it as "*I kicked the dog that had bitten me*" to make it clear that the dog bit me first.


----------



## sunyaer

sunyaer said:


> I would like to ask, as a native speaker, which would you say:
> 
> "I kicked the dog which bit me" or  "I kicked the dog that bit me"?





DonnyB said:


> Without bothering to wade through three pages of an eight-year old thread, I'd use "that".  But I'd say it as "*I kicked the dog that had bitten me*" to make it clear that the dog bit me first.



 My question is not about which one is the most clear choice, rather about whether or not native speakers would substitute "which" for "that" or make no distinction in this context,  as I would do sometimes. If even native speakers would say either of them, as using the language as a communication tool and a second language, why people bother making a clear cut between them, especially in conversation, let the context explain something that language is missing, or further words clear up the confusion.


----------



## DonnyB

Sorry. I'm confused. 

I answered the question you asked, which was





> I would like to ask, as a native speaker, which would you say:
> 
> "I kicked the dog which bit me" or  "I kicked the dog that bit me"?


----------



## JulianStuart

This native uses only _which_ if a comma has been used, but doesn't care which word is used if there is no comma. 

First I consider whether the sense is restrictive/defining (required identification about the identity of the dog) = no comma, followed by that or which (choice now irrelevant since the comma has defined the structure);  If it's additional, but not required information, then = yes comma followed by which.  (Its meaning is then  ", which (by the way) ...").

Other native speakers use a more restrictive rule that, because _which_ follows a comma, _that_ must be used if there is no comma.


----------



## sunyaer

JulianStuart said:


> This native uses only _which_ if a comma has been used, but doesn't care which word is used if there is no comma.
> 
> ...



How to indicate whether or not there is a comma in speaking, a small pause?

 Would you see that native speakers like you who don't care which word is used regarding the use of "that" and "which" when introducing a clause without a comma account for a large number?


----------



## Loob

sunyaer said:


> How to indicate whether or not there is a comma in speaking, a small pause?


Yes.  But there would also probably be a difference in intonation.


sunyaer said:


> Would you see that native speakers like you who don't care which word  is used regarding the use of "that" and "which" when introducing a  clause without a comma account for a large number?


Yes, I would say so.  But I have the impression from previous threads here that AmE-speakers are taught much more particular rules about "who"/"which"/"that" in restrictive relative clauses than BrE-speakers are.  (I don't recall being taught _anything_ about this.)

For me, and I think for BrE speakers generally, "the x which..." is more formal than "the x that", just as (for people) "the x who..." is more formal than "the x that..."


----------



## sunyaer

At world wide words web site, I found an article titled _Which versus that_ talking about these two words introducing clauses 

http://www.worldwidewords.org/articles/which.htm

In this article, it states:

"Clauses that refer back to the words _anything_, _nothing_, _something_, or _everything_ have a slight preference for _that_ over _which_: 'Can you think of anything that still has to be done?' "

"Clauses that follow a superlative also tend to prefer _that_: 'Thank you for the most superb dinner that I’ve ever eaten'".

My question is that, are the above two points a rule or a preference? Would native speakers not follow the rule or preference?


----------



## Loob

Native speakers don't, in general, consciously learn "rules", sunyaer - and if they do, those rules are quite likely to be wrong...

But yes, the WorldWideWords article is right.

With _anything_ etc, I think we do prefer "that" over "which".

With superlatives, I'd say it's more than a preference.  I can't imagine saying "It is the best film which I have ever seen".


----------



## JulianStuart

"A slight preference" and "tend to" indicate that it is fairly evenly balanced when someone analyses the practices of native speakers. It is from such studies that linguists deduce whether there is a strong rule or not. Thus, with balanced practices, there is no "rule" to follow" and people will do what they, as individuals, prefer  The two tendencies you cite sound reasonable to my ears.

To add to what Loob said, I also experienced no training in the "rules" about choice of which/that growing up in the UK.  When I arrived in the US, it became apparent that such teaching is quite common here.


----------



## sunyaer

Loob said:


> ...
> 
> But yes, the WorldWideWords article is right.
> 
> With _anything_ etc, I think we do prefer "that" over "which".
> 
> ...





JulianStuart said:


> ...
> 
> The two tendencies you cite sound reasonable to my ears.
> 
> ...



I would like to make my question more clear:

Have you ever heard native speakers say any of  these: 

"I have something which you would like to see", 

"I don't have anything which you would like to see", 

"I have nothing which you would like to see" or 

"I have everything which you want" ?

If you hear these, do they sound natural to your ears?


----------



## Loob

sunyaer said:


> I would like to make my question more clear:
> 
> Have you ever heard native speakers say any of  these:
> 
> "I have something which you would like to see",
> 
> "I don't have anything which you would like to see",
> 
> "I have nothing which you would like to see" or
> 
> "I have everything which you want" ?
> 
> If you hear these, do they sound natural to your ears?


I think I probably have heard most of those, sunyaer.

Which is why I said earlier that I agreed that "anything [etc] that" is a preference.

(unlike "which" after a superlative...)


----------



## JulianStuart

To be honest, in all those examples, I would omit the word in question and then they would all sound (the most) natural.  The second place goes to _that_ and third place goes to _which._

I hope you have everything you want. Very natural, idiomatic.
I hope you have everything that you want.  Sounds fine, a bit more formal.
I hope you have everything which you want.  Sounds a little strange.

Hence my "preference".
Cross-posted


----------



## sunyaer

JulianStuart said:


> This native uses only _which_ if a comma has been used, but doesn't care which word is used if there is no comma.
> 
> ...




What about this sentence:

"He approaches the issue in a way that / which makes every party feel considered."

I usually use "that" rather than "which" in the above sentence as taught in school, but as JulianStuart points out, "which" would not be considered wrong here, is that correct?


----------



## JulianStuart

_I_ would not consider it "wrong".  Others may have different preferences or even  tendencies.  I was not taught to use "that" - while you may have been, with your teacher possibly having been taught in the US.  That reflects different teaching styles/rules/preferences/tendencies, rather than "correctness".


----------



## sunyaer

Another sentence to be confirmed:

"A car that / which isn't running properly is dangerous."

Can "which" be used in the above sentence?


----------



## JulianStuart

There _I_ have no great preference or tendency.  I would use either and they both sound (again I stress, to me) natural, idiomatic etc.  Which 55, That 45, ish. 

I might even go so far as to say the local "structure" _may_ influence it
"A car that's not running ..."
"A car which isn't running ..."


----------



## sunyaer

JulianStuart said:


> There _I_ have no great preference or tendency.  I would use either and they both sound (again I stress, to me) natural, idiomatic etc.  Which 55, That 45, ish.
> 
> I might even go so far as to say the local "structure" _may_ influence it
> "A car that's not running ..."
> "A car which isn't running ..."



What is "ish" here?

Also, what does "the local 'structure'" refer to?


----------



## JulianStuart

The local sentence structure.  In one I contracted isn't , and in the other I contracted that's.  I wouldn't contract which's.

Ish means that whatever was said/written just before it is to be considered approximate. It started life as a suffix -ish and now gets used informally to refer to whole statements.  It is recent coinage


----------



## sunyaer

panjandrum said:


> Many people make no distinction between that and which.
> 
> For those of us who do, your two sentences are quite different and one of them is missing a comma.
> 
> ...





panjandrum said:


> The standard form is to use which for non-restrictive clauses and to use a comma before the which.
> 
> ..
> 
> There are many who do not make any distinction between that and which, but some still do.
> 
> ...





JulianStuart said:


> There _I_ have no great preference or tendency.  I would use either and they both sound (again I stress, to me) natural, idiomatic etc.  Which 55, That 45, ish.
> 
> ...



When those native speakers who make distinction between that and which hear you say "a car which isn't running...", how would they react with regard to your use of "which" rather than "that" here? You sound like a non-native speaker, or a native speaker but not well educated? Or most native speakers realize that is just a preference?


----------



## JulianStuart

sunyaer said:


> When those native speakers who make distinction between that and which hear you say "a car which isn't running...", how would they react with regard to your use of "which" rather than "that" here? You sound like a non-native speaker, or a native speaker but not well educated? Or most native speakers realize that is just a preference?


I live in the US and they already know, both from my accent and history, that I came from the UK, so no-one has ever commented on it.  It seems to be a non-issue in the category of AmE vs BrE differences that pass, usually, unremarked.  Education level has never been a topic


----------



## TrentinaNE

> Another sentence to be confirmed:
> 
> "A car that / which isn't running properly is dangerous."
> 
> Can "which" be used in the above sentence?​



It wouldn't pass muster in, say, a journal article or legal brief, but I think it passes in conversation and casual writing.  I had forgotten the _that/which_ distinction until a journal editor pointed it out to me (repeatedly) about 15 years ago.


----------



## Ben Jamin

JulianStuart said:


> The local sentence structure.  In one I contracted isn't , and in the other I contracted that's.  I wouldn't contract which's.
> 
> Ish means that whatever was said/written just before it is to be considered approximate. It started life as a suffix -ish and now gets used informally to refer to whole statements.  It is recent coinage


What do you mean by "contracted" here?


----------



## sunyaer

Ben Jamin said:


> What do you mean by "contracted" here?



"isn't" is contracted form of "is not".


----------



## JulianStuart

TrentinaNE said:


> It wouldn't pass muster in, say, a journal article or legal brief, but I think it passes in conversation and casual writing.  I had forgotten the _that/which_ distinction until a journal editor pointed it out to me (repeatedly) about 15 years ago.


Just to re-iterate, your comment applies to American English editors; it's not necessarily the same in British English.  I first heard of it when I moved from the UK to the US after my doctoral degree.


----------



## Lark-lover

What I've understood from the whole discussion is this:

_[ York ], which I visited last year,[  is a nice old city ].
[ York that I visited last year ] is a nice old city_
What in brackets are treated is a single lexical unit

Correct me, please.


----------



## Loob

JulianStuart said:


> Just to re-iterate, your comment applies to American English editors; it's not necessarily the same in British English.  I first heard of it when I moved from the UK to the US after my doctoral degree.


Yes.  I have the feeling I remember wandle saying in a previous thread that the AmE view on restrictive _which/that_ is down to something said by Mr Strunk - or was it Mr White?  I'll see if I can find the thread.  

*EDIT*: I've found it, here: Use of 'which' with defining relative clauses.

And it was e2efour that mentioned Strunk & White - apologies, e2.


Lark-lover said:


> What I've understood from the whole discussion is this:
> 
> _[ York ], which I visited last year,[  is a nice old city ].
> [ York that I visited last year ] is a nice old city_
> What in brackets are treated is a single lexical unit
> 
> Correct me, please.


You need a non-restrictive relative clause  here, since "York" is already 'defined' by the name "York".  So only the  first of your sentences is correct.
_[ York ], which I visited last year,[  is a nice old city ].
[ York that I visited last year ] is a nice old city_


----------



## Lark-lover

Loob said:


> Yes.  I have the feeling I remember wandle saying in a previous thread that the AmE view on restrictive _which/that_ is down to something said by Mr Strunk - or was it Mr White?  I'll see if I can find the thread.You need a non-restrictive relative clause  here, since "York" is already 'defined' by the name "York".  So only the  first of your sentences is correct.
> _[ York ], which I visited last year,[  is a nice old city ].
> [ York that I visited last year ] is a nice old city_


Thanks, Loob.

Then, it would have to be [ York that I visited last year is a nice old city ] ?


----------



## Loob

No, sorry, Lark-lover, it needs to be a non-restrictive (non-defining) relative clause, using _which_ and commas:
_York, which I visited last year, is a nice old city._


----------

