New answers tagged

0

The non-restricting version gives extra information about the location (it was called Central Park). The restricting version helps you find your memory of the location (the location that was called Central Park). The preferred methods are to use 'that' to restrict, and to use ', which' to give extra (adverbial) info.


0

Love is usually an action verb followed by a direct object. Clauses can be direct objects, funnily enough; they can function like a direct object. Ergo, you can't move the direct object "any old way" can you? If you substitute a more easily recognizable direct object such as in: He loves the trees, the direct objectness of the structure becomes obvious. ...


4

A partial answer to your question is that the subordinate clauses which can be moved to the front are sentence-modifying adverbials, and other sentence-modifying adverbs, like "necessarily" or "frankly", can also be moved to the front. So this is what you'd expect. On the other hand, restrictive relative clauses are not adverbs and do not modify sentences, ...


1

First of all, punctuation is a matter of style, not grammar. Secondly, what grammar rules are you considering -- those of English or those of Homeric Greek? Butler had to consider both. Notice that Butler says Sing ... the anger We don't ordinarily say that in English, preferring "Sing of the anger" or "Sing about the anger," but Homer wrote ...


2

My answer comes so late that it is probably doomed to dwell at the bottom of the answer column, but the question remains a question about which I care, so my answer adds a point other answers have missed. "Which" instead of "that" is almost always used in sentences with nonrestrictive qualification, as The horse, which is in the paddock, is six years ...


2

It is all a question of CONSISTENCY OF REGISTER! Which is a WORD which/that is more formal than that or the absence of a relative pronoun (both being possible only when the relative pronoun is not the subject of the verb in the relative clause and when this clause is defining/restrictive). There are also STRUCTURES that are more formal than others as, for ...


1

I don't have enough reputation to post a comment yet, which is why this is posted as an answer: I've noticed over the years using Microsoft Word, that the Grammar & Spellcheck function likes to use/correct/suggest "that" for singular, and "which" for plural. Also, it insists on a comma before "which". i.e. ...the film that... and ...the ...


16

The Original Poster's Question The film that I chose for the class to watch is called The Life of Igor. The film which I chose for the class to watch is called The Life of Igor. Both that and which can be used with restrictive relative clauses. A third possibility, is dropping the relative word altogether when the verb in the relative clause ...


4

Opinions vary considerably on this one. That and which are the same In this Language Log blog (dated 2004), the author calls the distinction between the two nonsense: ...the old nonsense about which being disallowed in what The Cambridge Grammar calls integrated relative clauses (the old-fashioned term is "restrictive" or "defining" relative clauses). ...


0

I'm not sure if "which" is actually correct. "That" is certainly not incorrect, because it is restrictive, whereas "which" is non-restrictive. "Which" is generally used to add additional information: Steak, which is my favorite, is best served medium-rare. However, neither is needed, which is important to understand. Both sound correct, but for me it is ...



Top 50 recent answers are included