From Webster's Dictionary of English Usage p894-895:
"That," "which" introducing restrictive and nonrestrictive clauses.
That is our oldest relative pronoun. According to McKnight 1928 that was prevalent in early Middle English, which began to be used as a relative pronoun in the 14th century, and who and
whom in the 15th. That was used ...
"that" is used in a defining clause but "which" is used in a non-defining clause.
A trick to remember:
"which" is as disposable as a sandwich bag. If you can remove the clause without destroying the meaning of the sentence, the clause is nonessential and you can use "which".
In your sentence, I think you should use &...
The Guardian style guide offers an opinion. Since it's online and free, I'll quote it in full:
that or which?
The traditional definition is that “that” defines and “which” informs (gives extra information), as in:
“This is the house that Jack built; but this house, which John built, is falling down.”
“The Guardian, which I read every day, is the paper that ...
“Which” usually represents a specific choice out of multiple choices, while “That” can refer to a choice of an unlimited number of options.
I'm not sure if that can be used in your context, but whatever.
The etymology is from an unstressed version of my. But since it ended up developing the same pronunciation as the form me, it came to be spelled the same sometimes, and it's hard to say now whether it is still actually a distinct form or not. Are her and her two entirely distinct forms of the pronoun she that happen to be pronounced and spelled the same way, ...
It appears to be a relic of Middle English usage:
The following answer from forum.wordreference.com appears to shed some light on the usage of “me instead of my:”
In Shakespeare's time (around 1600) and prior to that, my (and thy) would have a strong emphatic form with the vowel /aɪ/ and a weak form /ɪ/. This is similar to how we have the strong form of he ...
Going into detail on other languages is beyond the scope of this site, but, it's not just English. You can use the term "lexical stress" to look up examples of languages where two words can differ in stress and nothing else: many languages with lexical stress have stress patterns based on how a word is put together. Other examples are Russian, ...
As the comments suggest, if there is an auxiliary verb like "should" in the sentence, the verb that comes directly after it needs to be in its "base form", i.e.:
"It should go.."
"He can run.."
"She will win.."
You can find more about this topic here and here.
er is a R-controlled syllable, so the r is needed to complete the R-Controlled vowel team -er. y stands alone because the y is a vowel in this word.
It is acceptable to have a syllable with 1 vowel only, but not acceptable to have a syllable with 1 consonant only.
All are comprehensible, but they're not all equal.
First some to avoid:
(d) is wrong because "between" is (usually) paired with "and" not "to".
(c) can be read as the analysis taking place during that time, rather than being an analysis of data from that period.
(e) "until" doesn't quite seem idiomatic here.
Early figurative occurrences of 'smashing' as an adjective
With regard to early instances of "smashing" used in a figurative sense—specifically in the sense of "whopping" or "bang-up" (that is, variously, "forceful," "very large," "impressive," or "successful")—an Elephind search of ...
Bog-standard being related to toilets/lavatories at some point is probably because of the term bog-house. In your quote from OED, it says that the use of box-standard in the meaning of "ordinary" first appeared in 1983, thus making this theory not as possible.
I have also found that 1983 quote, just for fun. This quote was said by the inventor Sir ...
As I consider the question, it is one of style, that is no question about using an artistic device that one is more or less free to choose among several possibilities so as to decorate the words or whatever, but one of material necessity, and in fact prescribed by logic. However in the English speaking world this misnomer is solidly entrenched in the domain ...
As an adjective, equal is defined (to quote one source) as:
-the same in amount, number, or size
-someone or something that has the same importance as someone or something else and deserves the same treatment
-the same in amount, number, or size
From this point of view it is therefore impossible to make a comparative. Either two things are equal ...
A lexical set does not represent a vowel.
It represents a set of words that are all pronounced with the same vowel phoneme in Wells's two reference accents of "Received Pronunciation" and "General American". These are artificial standards and as Nardog says, Accents of English was written several decades ago, so this is not exactly ...
Because they differ in (Wells's model of) General American.
The whole point of lexical sets is to make it easier to describe differences between accents. Since not only phonetic values but the distribution of phonemes vary across accents, it's often not enough to say e.g. "What is phoneme X in Received Pronunciation is realized as Y in this accent" ...