# He is rich, <which> I am not



## ShirleyLing

> He is rich, *which *I am not.



Is it okay to use "which" to refer back to an adjective?


----------



## owlman5

It sure is.  That sentence of yours with "which" sounds fine.


----------



## sound shift

I don't know if it is 'good grammar', but it sounds strange to me. I would be surprised if I heard someone say it. "He is rich *but *I am not" is much more likely in my view.


----------



## ShirleyLing

But, I have always thought that "which" could only refer back to noun-sounding clauses.


----------



## owlman5

ShirleyLing said:


> But, I have always thought that "which" could only refer back to noun-sounding clauses.


Why have you always thought that?  Though Mr. Shift doesn't like it much, it sounds perfectly normal to me.  I use such statements from time to time:

She wants a blue pillow?  This one is green, which isn't exactly blue but is pretty close.
She's angry, which doesn't bother me at all.
He's big, which intimidates some people.

Now, some could argue that the last two sentences use "which" to refer to the whole clause.  That is, "which" means "The fact that he is big doesn't bother me at all."  However, the first sentence uses "which" to refer to "green".  In my book, that's an adjective.  I see nothing wrong with using "which" in that sentence, either.

Here's another example with an adjective and "which":

She's really long-winded, which isn't one of my favorite character traits.


----------



## ShirleyLing

I do understand that in street talk, anything goes.  But according to rigorous English, would my original example pass muster?


----------



## Alxmrphi

sound shift said:


> I don't know if it is 'good grammar', but it sounds strange to me. I would be surprised if I heard someone say it. "He is rich *but *I am not" is much more likely in my view.


Totally agree.


----------



## owlman5

ShirleyLing said:


> I do understand that in street talk, anything goes.  But according to rigorous English, would my original example pass muster?


I don't think that any of those examples sounds much like "street talk", Shirley Ling, at least not in the streets where I live.  All of them are normal English sentences.  

I have no idea who will be grading you on your exam.  Nor do I know what answers you will be expected to give.  However, I'm pretty comfortable with thinking about grammar, which is something I've spent a lot of time at.  I see nothing wrong with using "which" to refer to an adjective.


----------



## GreenWhiteBlue

I concur with owlman. I find nothing at all odd or improper about using "which" to refer to an adjective, and I find each of his examples natural and proper. There is nothing about any of his sentences that I would consider to be "street talk", or to be less than rigourously grammatical.


----------



## ShirleyLing

A lot of doubt seems to be coming from the British English speakers....


----------



## sound shift

Yes. Two from the US vs two from the UK ... Perhaps AE usage differs from BE here.


----------



## Alxmrphi

ShirleyLing said:


> A lot of doubt seems to be coming from the British English speakers....


We (BE speakers) were talking about how it sounded to us, not about what a strict grammarian might mark as correct in a test.
I certainly would never say anything like that, and wouldn't expect to hear it, and it seems another BE speaker agrees, that is all that we are saying.


----------



## Loob

Let me add my BrE voice to the AmE voices  - I find nothing odd about "he is rich, which I am not" either


----------



## Gwan

It also sounds very strange to me. However, I have no problems with owlman's examples of other times where you might use 'which' to refer back to an adjective. I think the adjective thing isn't the problem, it's the use of 'which' to contrast two states (rich and not rich). On the other hand 'this is green, which isn't blue' sounds okay to me...


----------



## Alxmrphi

Gwan said:


> It also sounds very strange to me. However, I have no problems with owlman's examples of other times where you might use 'which' to refer back to an adjective. I think the adjective thing isn't the problem, it's the use of 'which' to contrast two states (rich and not rich). On the other hand 'this is green, which isn't blue' sounds okay to me...


I didn't see those examples before, I think they were edited in, but I also have no problems with them so I think you're on the right track attributing the difference to be in a different aspect of the original construction.


----------



## boozer

Errrm, I'm sure I've seen many similar sentences.
_He says hunting is a nice way to waste time, which it definitely is._ 

No, I don't mind this example.


----------



## LV4-26

Normally, a relative pronoun substitutes a *noun* or *noun phrase*, which seems to rule out the sample sentence.

Owlman's first example....
_She wants a blue pillow? This one is green, which isn't exactly blue but is pretty close._
....is tricky.

One could argue that, in the relative clause, _green_ is no longer an adjective but a noun, i.e., the colour green.
When you say "green isn't exactly blue", both are obvioulsy nouns, aren't they?

...Just thinking aloud....


----------



## heypresto

Looking closely at the two sentences 'He is rich, which I am not' and 'He is rich, but I am not', I feel there may be a very subtle shade of difference.

The first is simply stating a fact. It amounts to saying 'He is rich _and_ I am not'. To me, the second carries with it a subtle emotion or value judgement, amounting to something like 'He is rich, and I wish I was too'. The difference is admittedly very subtle and others might not agree that it's there at all.


----------



## ShirleyLing

So, the original is not grammatical?


----------



## Loob

It's grammatical in my book, Shirley.

On the question of whether _which_ in a non-restrictive relative clause can refer back to an adjective, it might be useful if I quote an extract from the _Cambridge Grammar of the English Language_.  

Comparing the two sentences: 
_....i Pat is afraid of snakes, which I'm sure Kim is too
....ii Pat is afraid of snakes, which doesn't surprise me at all_
the  CGEL comments: 





> The antecedents for _which_ here are an AdjP* in  _ and a whole clause in [ii], the relative clauses being interpreted  as "I'm sure Kim is afraid of snakes too" and "That Pat is afraid of snakes doesn't surprise me at all_


_
* = Adjective Phrase_


----------



## George French

ShirleyLing said:


> I do understand that in street talk, anything goes.  But according to rigorous English, would my original example pass muster?



Don't ask us, just ask your teacher. He/she is more likely to know how the examiners will mark it....

GF..

I could easily use it... But then I am not a grammarian...


----------



## boozer

LV4-26 said:


> Normally, a relative pronoun substitutes a *noun* or *noun phrase*, which seems to rule out the sample sentence.


Perhaps many people will happily accept that. 
But then how about this one:
_She says I'm throwing tantrums, which I'm not._

Is this bad English? Because "which" stands for a verb phrase here.


----------



## owlman5

LV4-26 said:


> Normally, a relative pronoun substitutes a *noun* or *noun phrase*, which seems to rule out the sample sentence.
> 
> Owlman's first example....
> _She wants a blue pillow? This one is green, which isn't exactly blue but is pretty close._
> ....is tricky.
> 
> One could argue that, in the relative clause, _green_ is no longer an adjective but a noun, i.e., the colour green.
> When you say "green isn't exactly blue", both are obvioulsy nouns, aren't they?
> 
> ...Just thinking aloud....


That's an interesting thought, LV4-26, and one that was worth having.  It may well be that many or all of these "...adjective, which..." sentences do, through the magic of language, turn the adjective back into a noun in the second clause.  I'll start poking around in the corpora to check that idea.



heypresto said:


> Looking closely at the two sentences 'He is rich, which I am not' and 'He is rich, but I am not', I feel there may be a very subtle shade of difference.
> 
> The first is simply stating a fact. It amounts to saying 'He is rich _and_ I am not'. To me, the second carries with it a subtle emotion or value judgement, amounting to something like 'He is rich, and I wish I was too'. The difference is admittedly very subtle and others might not agree that it's there at all.


Your point makes sense, Hey Presto.  I agree that those two versions tell us something very slightly different.  I'm not sure exactly what "which" does for that sentence, but I like it.   The more ordinary-sounding "He is rich, but I am not" doesn't seem to contrast the two states as completely as the ", which I am not" clause does.


----------



## sound shift

Loob said:


> It's grammatical in my book, Shirley.
> 
> On the question of whether _which_ in a non-restrictive relative clause can refer back to an adjective, it might be useful if I quote an extract from the _Cambridge Grammar of the English Language_.
> 
> Comparing the two sentences:
> _....i Pat is afraid of snakes, which I'm sure Kim is too
> ....ii Pat is afraid of snakes, which doesn't surprise me at all_
> the  CGEL comments:
> * = Adjective Phrase


You can always rely on Loob to do plenty of research, _but _there is a "not" at the end of the sentence in post 1. "Pat is afraid of snakes, which I'm sure Kim is *not*" would sound very odd to me. Even if that type of sentence receives a seal of approval from some book of grammar somewhere I shall not be adopting it.


----------



## owlman5

sound shift said:


> You can always rely on Loob to do plenty of research, _but _there is a "not" at the end of the sentence in post 1. "Pat is afraid of snakes, which I'm sure Kim is *not*" would sound very odd to me. Even if that type of sentence receives a seal of approval from some book of grammar somewhere I shall not be adopting it.


That's interesting, SS.  Do you have any idea why?  This is another sentence that sounds normal to me.  I can think of quite a few similar examples now that Loob has opened the door by using an adjective phrase:  She's crazy about Elvis, which I am not.  He's mad at the world, which never does any good. (Does this one count?)  I'm not sure how to identify "which's" that truly refer only to the adjective phrase and those that refer to the whole clause.  He's fond of raw shellfish, which some doctors claim is a dangerous taste. (Here, LV4-26, I freely admit to having turned an adjective phrase into a noun phrase).


----------



## LV4-26

boozer said:


> Perhaps many people will happily accept that.
> But then how about this one:
> _She says I'm throwing tantrums, which I'm not._
> 
> Is this bad English? Because "which" stands for a verb phrase here.


Old debate.

I guess some would call it "loose" grammar.
Some others will call it "non-traditional" grammar. 
But neither makes it bad English.

Your example is interesting. I'm sure I've heard similar sentences.
I wouldn't say _which_ stands for the whole verb phrase. It only refers to the _throwing_ part.

The sentence Loob quoted from the CGLE (which advocates for non-traditional grammar, by the way) is interesting too.
_Pat is afraid of snakes, which I'm sure Kim is too._

Is it only me or do others see a difference between that sentence and the following
_Pat is afraid of snakes, which Kim is too_.
?

I, for one, find the former (much?) more acceptable. I'm not sure why, though.


----------



## owlman5

The second version sounds hastier, LV4-26, but I'd sure accept it in any context where informal or colloquial style was acceptable.

How about this one?  It sounds natural to me, and I think I've avoided the "adjective becomes a noun" problem.  To understand this one as a noun, I have to rely on ellipsis (...foxy, which is a word that means attractive) I'm not sure that adjective really has become a noun here:

They said she was foxy, which means attractive.  It would be easy to turn this one into something similar to Shirley's first example:  Sheila is foxy, which I'm definitely not.


----------



## LV4-26

Not only does it sound natural, but it's also a frequently used type of sentence.
There _must_ be a hidden flaw somewhere. 

As for your second sentence, I wouldn't mind hearing or even saying it. 
But then again, I feel length makes a difference.

I still prefer your sentence
_Sheila is foxy, which I'm definitely not_
to
_She's foxy, which I'm not_
for instance.

Is it only a matter of hastiness? Maybe.


----------



## Alxmrphi

> I still prefer your sentence
> _Sheila is foxy, which I'm definitely not_
> to
> _She's foxy, which I'm not_
> for instance.
> 
> Is it only a matter of hastiness? Maybe.



Yeah there is a definite preference for the first one to the second one, for me.


----------



## boozer

Alxmrphi said:


> Yeah there is a definite preference for the first one to the second one, for me.


In full honesty, for me too, but there is no solid grammar explanation behind that preference - they both boil down to the same.


----------



## Alxmrphi

boozer said:


> In full honesty, for me too, but there is no solid grammar explanation behind that preference - they both boil down to the same.


This is what people who like to box off grammatical explanations into little rules and extrapolated syntactic comparisons tend to want to hide when talking about grammatical validity in language (not just English). It's not always easier for a learner that way, when you get direct questions like 'Is it grammatical?', but I don't think we can deny in all honesty there isn't a difference, I mean for many people there might not be, but the impression I'm getting is for some others there is, and it's not really scientific to discount those opinions as just anomalies.


----------



## LV4-26

LV4-26 said:


> There _must_ be a hidden flaw somewhere.


I knew there was something wrong.

In the sentence
_They said she was foxy, which means attractive_
_which_ is clearly the subject of _means_. And I can't see how an adjective can be the subject of the verb....except in a case like this.

In addition, removing the relative clause doesn't change anything ==>
_Foxy means attractive._ is still okay.


----------



## owlman5

LV4-26 said:


> I knew there was something wrong.
> 
> In the sentence
> _They said she was foxy, which means attractive_
> _which_ is clearly the subject of _means_. And I can't see how an adjective can be the subject of the verb....except in a case like this.
> 
> In addition, removing the relative clause doesn't change anything ==>
> _Foxy means attractive._ is still okay.



This is a good point, LV4-26.  I like your thinking here.  The adjectives seem to hold their own without any company from the pronoun.  Your example was short, which this thread no longer is.


----------



## JamesM

I wonder about this idea of not being able to modify an adjective.

What is the problem, for example, with "The air today is hot and dry, which is not good for the crops."


----------



## PaulQ

Yes, it is perfectly grammatical, and perfectly good. I've used the same construction myself, many times, "He says it's a good idea, which it is."


----------



## xqby

I feel like my problem with "which" in Shirley's very first example is merely that when speaking or writing I'd opt for a more... synergistic, I guess--conjunction in its place. I have no problem whatsoever with post-modifying an adjective with "which" if it's neutral in tone, but for a positive or negative clause I'd go with something else. I wouldn't call "which" wrong, but perhaps not preferable.

"She is rich, which I am not" - sure, but better: "She is rich, but I am not."
"She is rich, which I am as well" - sure, but better: "She is rich, and so am I."
"She is rich, which lets her afford that house." - absolutely fine by me.


----------



## owlman5

JamesM said:


> I wonder about this idea of not being able to modify an adjective.
> 
> What is the problem, for example, with "The air today is hot and dry, which is not good for the crops."


That's a very good question, James.  I'm squinting as hard as I can and can't find anything wrong with your sentence.  Your example seems to be one of the "...'which' refers to the whole clause" types, but  I'm not at all sure that it matters.  

Would you accept this version?  The air is hot and dry, which are not good for the crops?   I can't think of a better test for the idea that "which" can refer to  adjectives rather than the clauses they're appended to.  She is tall and blonde, which are two things Ted finds very attractive.   This last one would fail, I think, LV4-26's test.  I have a hard time  coming up with sentences that meet the conditions he writes about in  post 32.   That is, adjectives that remain adjectives in the clause coming after "which".


----------



## PaulQ

I see a big difference between 
He is rich, *which* I am not
and 
He is rich *but* I am not.

He thinks I should buy a new house, car, TV and have a holiday; he is rich, *which* I am not - He's giving me useless advice and he should know it - I'm annoyed with him.
He thinks I should buy a new house, car, TV and have a holiday; he is rich *but* I am not  - This is a bit of an embarrassment but he's only trying to help.


----------



## panjandrum

As a complete sentence, I find "He is rich, which I am not," to be very odd.
I expect "He is rich, but I am not."

If this is an introduction to a longer sentence, that changes things.
"He is rich, which I am not, ... ... ..."
That sounds OK.


----------



## ShirleyLing

"He is rich, which I am not." is a complete sentence.

According to most opinions in this thread, "which" should not refer back to an adjective.


----------



## panjandrum

ShirleyLing said:


> "He is rich, which I am not." is a complete sentence.
> 
> According to most opinions in this thread, "which" should not refer back to an adjective.


I'm really surprised that you could have come to that conclusion from the posts above.
It looks to me that almost all of the contributors are content to have _which _refer back to an adjective.


----------



## ShirleyLing

I was confused by some of the analyses on this thread.   
So, "which" COULD refer back to an adjective?


----------



## PaulQ

Yes, the discussion towards an answer seems to revolve around the choice of 'which' and 'but'. Personally, I like the 'which' version a lot; it sounds very natural to me and does not imply that you are less a person for being poorer than 'He'.


----------



## panjandrum

ShirleyLing said:


> I was confused by some of the analyses on this thread.
> So, "which" COULD refer back to an adjective?


Look at posts #2, #9, #13, #14, 16, #18, 20, #21.
There are eight voices supporting the use of "which" referrring to an adjective.


----------



## se16teddy

Like Loob, I don't think the antecedent of _which _is _rich_. It is the whole preceding idea: _He is rich. 
_
The OED lists this use of w_hich _as No. 7c: 
_Referring to a fact, circumstance, or statement. Now very common in spoken English.  
_
The OED's examples go back to 1390, but here are the most recent ones:
1902                                H. James Wings of Dove I. iv. 85                  He imaged it—which was enough as some proved vanity.
1914                                ‘I. Hay’ Knight on Wheels xiii. § 3                  They conformed to the rules,‥observing the spirit rather than the letter of the law. Which was just as well.
1950                                Patterson  & Conrad Scottsboro Boy ii. v. 122                  He‥said, ‘Haven't I told you black sons of bitches about talking after bed hours?’ ‘I wasn't talking,’ I said. And which I wasn't.
1981 London Review of Books 19 Feb. 9/2                  To be fair, Frances Partridge is concerned in this book to put the record straight on the central episode of Carrington's suicide: to emphasize Ralph Partridge's fear that this would happen, and his desperate efforts to avert it. Which is reasonable enough.

How many votes does the OED count?


----------



## owlman5

Hello, Shirley.  Panjandrum counts faster than I do. 

I counted 8 "yes" votes.
I counted 2 "no" votes.

There were 3 votes I didn't count because the answer wasn't a clear "yes" or "no" as far as I could tell.  Several people didn't like this sentence:  He is rich, which I am not.   I tried my best not to miss any votes.  Also, I only counted one vote for each member even if that member replied more than once to your thread.  As far as I can tell, most of the people who have replied to your thread think that it _is possible_ to use "which" to refer to an adjective.

One thing is sure.  If you don't like the phrase, there are other ways to express the same idea.   I don't think anybody will disagree with this version:  He is rich, but I am not.  If you don't understand that "which" business, you can use "but" instead.  

Does this answer help you, Shirley?

PS  Hello, SE 16 Teddy.  I certainly see the point that you have supported so well with those fine examples from the OED.  I do think there are sentences that use "which" to refer to the adjectives rather than an entire clause.  How would you analyze this one?  She is tall and blonde, which are two things that John finds attractive.  Also possible are odd sentences like this:  Wealthy, which I am not, Carla can afford all sorts of fancy things.


----------



## Loob

se16teddy said:


> Like Loob, I don't think the antecedent of _which _is _rich_. It is the whole preceding idea: _He is rich. _


Actually, in "he is rich, which I am not" I do see the _which_ as referring to the adjective "rich".  It's different from eg "he is rich, which annoys me", where the _which_ refers to the whole of the preceding clause. 

I could expand "he is rich, which annoys me" to "he is rich, a fact which annoys me" but I couldn't do the same with "he is rich, which I am not" (though I could expand "he is rich, which I am not" to "he is rich, something which I am not").


----------



## JulianStuart

Loob said:


> Actually, in "he is rich, which I am not" I do see the _which_ as referring to the adjective "rich".  It's different from eg "he is rich, which annoys me", where the _which_ refers to the whole of the preceding clause.


I agree with this.
It is green, which is a colour between yellow and blue.
This _which_ refers simply to the colour.


----------



## PaulQ

"he is rich, whrich I am not"


----------



## natkretep

I'm interested in panj's comment (post 39) about how it might work better if _which I am not_ is a parenthetical comment. Something like, 'He is rich - which I am not - and can well afford to pay for his daughter's wedding'. Would the nay-sayers be happier with this kind of a sentence? This works for me.


----------



## se16teddy

Loob said:


> Actually, in "he is rich, which I am not" I do see the _which_ as referring to the adjective "rich"



I see the distinction now, but the OED doesn't see it clearly, because it lists the following quotation under the same heading 7c:
1886 E. H. Dering  _In Light of 20th Century_ iv. 65                  Observation‥only shows what is visible, which life is not.

Life is not visible, like I am not rich.


----------



## Hermione Golightly

There is far more to language than 'grammar'. Most of the comnments I read earlier agreed that your sentence is grammatical, and that is my own opinion. We have no idea why you are asking about this construction. It is one I use when I wish to emphasise a difference, to make a very clear point, or when I wish to give an equal value to whatever the main clause is especially if it is quite long. Or maybe I just feel like it.
The main clause in your sentence is very short and could not be more simple. The question is, why choose a relative clause to make the contrast in such a simple sentence, when other constructions  would be equally 'correct'.


Hermione


----------



## LV4-26

Loob said:


> Actually, in "he is rich, which I am not" I do see the _which_ as referring to the adjective "rich".  It's different from eg "he is rich, which annoys me", where the _which_ refers to the whole of the preceding clause.
> 
> I could expand "he is rich, which annoys me" to "he is rich, a fact which annoys me" but I couldn't do the same with "he is rich, which I am not" (though I could expand "he is rich, which I am not" to "he is rich, something which I am not").


 I think that's an excellent criterium to discriminate between genuine adjective and nominalized clause...at least in this case.

Many of the sentences mentioned in this discussion rely on nominalizing the main clause.
_He is rich, which annoys me _ is one example.

As I said before, in a sentence like this, the _which_ is the subject of the verb.

....Which is NOT the case in the sample sentence....
_He's rich, which I'm not_....
 in which the relative pronoun functions as a subject complement. (i.e., what follows a linking verb ==> I'm not what? I'm not rich).
It's easy to see the difference ==>
In the first case, _which_ is directly followed by a verb (_annoys_); in the second case it's followed by a noun phrase (_I_)

Therfore, whenever _which_ immediately precedes a verb, there's no question that it substitutes a noun phrase.

Conversely, what happens in the topic sentence is really specific because there's no doubt we're dealing with a real adjective. 
I'd suggest we change the traditional definition of the relative pronoun to "*generally* substitutes a noun or noun phrase".
But even though it seems to be used relatively frequently....by some people..., I believe it remains something exceptional. In other words, I wouldn't change the definition to "...substitutes any part of speech".


----------



## PaulQ

Hermione Golightly said:


> There is far more to language than 'grammar'. Most of the comnments I read earlier agreed that your sentence is grammatical, and that is my own opinion. We have no idea why you are asking about this construction. It is one I use when I wish to emphasise a difference, to make a very clear point, or when I wish to give an equal value to whatever the main clause is especially if it is quite long. Or maybe I just feel like it.
> The main clause in your sentence is very short and could not be more simple. The question is, why choose a relative clause to make the contrast in such a simple sentence, when other constructions  would be equally 'correct'.
> 
> 
> Hermione


Exactly. The answer to the OP is that the sentence is fine.


----------



## Curiosity777

But is it definitely ungrammatical to use *"that" *instead of *"which"* without a comma? as in *"He is rich that I am not" *(Here, *"that*" is referring to *"rich"*)


----------



## heypresto

In short, yes.


----------



## Curiosity777

heypresto said:


> In short, yes.


Can you explain why to use *"that"* in that way is ungrammatical unlike* "which"* ?


----------



## lingobingo

Curiosity777 said:


> Can you explain why to use *"that"* in that way is ungrammatical unlike* "which"* ?


By using *that* in place of *which* as a relative pronoun, you make the relative clause restrictive. In that construction, *that* stands in for a noun or noun phrase, not an adjective.
​He is rich, which [is something that] I am not  ​He is rich that I am not  ​​In another type of that-clause, *that* is a subordinating conjunction rather than a pronoun. In that case, the relationship to the adjective is entirely different:

He is unaware/happy/surprised that I am not rich like him​


----------



## billj

Curiosity777 said:


> Can you explain why to use *"that"* in that way is ungrammatical unlike* "which"* ?



Supplementary "that" relatives are not permitted in Standard English grammar. I'm not sure why, though I suspect it's because "that" is not a relative pronoun, but a subordinator -- the same subordinator that introduces declarative content clauses.


----------

