# Grammar mavens...

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-mavens/200938>\
**Category:** Factual Questions\
**Created:** [September 11, 2003, 7:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-mavens/200938 "2003-09-11T07:24:35Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 5\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\
**Post date:** [September 12, 2003, 10:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-mavens/200938/21 "2003-09-12T10:40:29Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by dantheman \*  
> \*\*The second of those sentences is an example of poor grammar. The car is not fortunate; _seeing_ the car is. Therefore the sentence is incorrect and should be amended to “Fortunately, I saw the car.”
> 
> Not at all. “The report that is to be published” indicates that more than one report exists, but only the one to be published is being considered. “The report, which is to be published” indicates that there is only one report. It’s not a matter of personal taste at all, since the use of **that** or of **which** can produce diametrically opposed meanings.
> 
> (Of course, it’s worth noting that American English and British English may differ on this point.)
> 
> If you use “that,” then the sentence implies that there are multiple annual reports, one of which is due before end September 2003. I’m assuming there’s only one annual report, so the sentence should instead be:
> 
> “[proprietary]…regarding the annual report, which is due before end September 2003.” \*\*

Whoa, I’m chiming in a bit late on this one. Several points to consider:

1. I totally disagree that the Longman example is poor grammar. “I saw the car, which was very fortunate.”

Now, your contention is that the clause only refers to the car. The clause following the comma can refer to part or the whole of the sentence preceding it. It’s not the car that is fortunate; it’s the seeing of the car that is fortunate. There is no need to recast the sentence. Are you telling me that there is a chance for confusion? Only if one if being deliberately obtuse can one misunderstand this sentence. There is no ambiguity, no confustion, and therefore no need to change this sentence. To my ear it sounds fine, to my eyes it reads fine, so why mess with it?

1. “That” vs “Which.” I don’t have the Chicago Manual of Style on me at the moment, but I will say this. Traditionally, as has been said, “that” is used for essential clauses and “which” for non-essential clauses. However, in essential (aka restrictive) clauses, either “that” or “which” can be used. If you don’t believe me, check Chicago Style, because I’m positive this is the case. AP Style keeps the “that” and “which” distinction. Chicago Style does not for restrictive clauses. In other words:

“Get the report that is on the shelf.”  
and  
“Get the report which is on the shelf.”

Have the same meaning. (Get the report that is on the shelf, not the one that is on the table.)

“Get the report, which is on the shelf.”

This sentence has a different meaning. (Get the report. It’s on the shelf.)

The punctuation **does** dictate the meaning in this case.

However, I would NOT use:

“Get the report, that is on the shelf.”

I would never use “that” for non-essential clauses. It looks bad; it sounds bad; I would never even say it. The other one is perfectly fine. I’ve never heard “that” in speech used to introduce non-essential clauses, whereas “which” can introduce both essential and non-essential clauses in written and spoken English, with the punctuation provided the correct meaning.

[From this University of Chicago Website concerning the Chicago Manual of Style and restrictive and non-restrictive clauses:](http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/cmosfaq/cmosfaq.WhichvsThat.html)

> [@](#):
>
> Some people use “which” restrictively, which is more or less okay (and popular among writers of British English) as long as no commas are involved:
> 
> Pianos which have a fourth pedal to mute the strings are popular among apartment owners.
> 
> See paragraphs 5.58–63 in the fifteenth edition of The Chicago Manual of Style for more information, and, for a succinct statement of Chicago style when it comes to which vs. that, see the entry for “that; which” in the “Glossary of Troublesome Expressions” at paragraph 5.202.

They agree with the basic rule of “that” vs “which,” but admit that “which” used restrictively sans commas is kosher.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![RavingMad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/edb3f5/32.png) [@RavingMad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RavingMad)\
**Post date:** [September 12, 2003, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-mavens/200938/22 "2003-09-12T14:28:04Z")

</div>

Realize that more often than not, the word ‘that’ is rarely needed when dealing with a restrictive clause sentences. Its removal, in fact, often leads to cleaner, tighter writing. For example:

“The cat that is on the mat is a tabby” can be readily written as “ **The cat on the mat is a tabby**.” See? It’s the _exact_ same meaning in fewer, less clunky words.

“All the cars that were purchased before 1995 need to have their airbags replaced” becomes “ **All the cars purchased before 1995 need to have their airbags replaced** ”

“Get the report that is on the shelf” is cleaner as “ **Get the report on the shelf** ”.

“The report that is to be produced will be the basis for future decisions” can read " **The report to be produced will be the basis for future decisions."**

Every time you write ‘that,’ give it a second look: does the sentence retain the same meaning without the word? If so, strike it. Your writing will be better for it.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\
**Post date:** [September 12, 2003, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-mavens/200938/23 "2003-09-12T16:15:24Z")

</div>

**Trabi** , your meaning is much clearer now. Thanks for the clarification. I still take issue with a couple of your points, however.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by trabi \*  
> \*\*3. All restrictive clauses omit the comma
> 
> 1. Although some style guides and usage guides (especially ones for US editors, it would seem) prefer the use of ‘that’ for restrictive clauses, this is a matter of preference, and not written in stone, therefore
> 
> 2. restrictive clauses may use a comma followed by either ‘that’ or ‘which,’ depending on preference\*.
> 
> 3. So logically, _in the case of a sentence using ‘which’_, the existance of a comma is what defines whether or not it is a restrictive clause\*\*

Firstly, there’s a rather glaring contradiction between points 3 and 5, don’t you think? Number 3 says that all restrictive clauses omit the comma, but number 5 says that restrictive clauses may use a comma.

I agree with number 4 that some style and usage guides permit the use of “which” with restrictive clauses, but i happen to think, as does Bryan Garner, that using “that” for restrictive clauses and “which” for nonrestrictive is a distinction worth making. It helps to avoid confusion, especially given the fact that so many people are so woeful when it comes to using correct punctuation.

You are also correct that it seems to be American writers who are more fastidious about the distinction. In fact, Garner takes the Brits to task, saying:

> [@](#):
>
> British writers have utterly bollixed the distinction between restrictive and nonrestrictive relative pronouns. Most commonly _which_ encroaches on _that_’s territory, but sometimes too a nonrestrictive _which_ remains unpunctuated.

Turning to the best-known British guide now. The most recent (third) edition of _Fowler’s Modern English Usage_, edited by R.W. Burchfield, is less prescriptive than Garner, suggesting that “that” or “which” can be used for restrictive clauses, and that either will do the job just as well.

I tend to prefer the 1926 edition of Fowler’s on this topic, where Fowler himself had this to say (note: he uses the term “defining” instead of “restrictive”):

> [@](#):
>
> The two kinds of relative clauses, to one of which _that_ and to the other of which _which_ is appropriate, are the defining and non-defining; and if writers would agree to regard _that_ as the defining relative pronoun, and _which_ as the nondefining, there would be much gain both in lucidity and in ease.

Fowler did concede, however, that he was fighting a losing battle.

> [@](#):
>
> **No-one said that ‘which’ is automatically the right word to use. I merely said that if, as the lack of a comma suggested, it is to be a restrictive relative clause, either ‘that’ or ‘which’ can be used.**

Actually, someone else _did_ say that “which” was automatically correct, but it wasn’t you, so no harm done.

> [@](#):
>
> **And yes, one of the examples is restrictive, one is nonrestrictive. However, if you replace ‘that’ with ‘which’ in the first example, it remains restrictive. Conversely, if you remove the comma (actually, both of them) in the second example, it becomes restrictive.**

And this is precisely why i think that maintaining the distinction is a useful one. **Pulykamell** ’s example shows why:

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*“Get the report that is on the shelf.”  
> and  
> “Get the report which is on the shelf.”
> 
> Have the same meaning. (Get the report that is on the shelf, not the one that is on the table.)
> 
> “Get the report, which is on the shelf.”
> 
> This sentence has a different meaning. (Get the report. It’s on the shelf.)
> 
> The punctuation does dictate the meaning in this case.\*\*

So, if a simple slip of punctuation can alter the whole meaning of the sentence in this way, why not maintain the that-which distinction, which would give you backup and allow you to ascertain the meaning from the words alone? Do we really _need_ “which” for restrictive clauses, when “that” does the job perfectly well?

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*  
> For a start, I am neither American, nor an editor. Also this line: “The distinction between that and which makes good sense” is the giveaway here. The guy is obviously writing in support of a grammatical convention that he happens to prefer. “It _enhances_ clarity,” he says. If someone says that ABS enhances braking performance, it doesn’t make it compulsory to fit it to your car.\*\*

Of course he’s supporting a grammatical convention that he happens to prefer. That’s just about all any grammarian can do. Like Garner, i happen to believe that enhancing clarity is a good thing when it comes to communication. Of course, i’m not some radical prescriptivist who wants an unchanging language. And i’m also much more tolerant of grammatical slips in speech. But i believe that when a distinction such as this works so effectively, and increases clarity while helping to prevent confusion, it is a convention worth sticking with, especially in written communication.

> [@](#):
>
> **Yes, but the source of reference I originally cited was Longman’s Guide to English Usage. I also consulted Longman’s Students Guide to English Grammar. I only posted the internet sites (not to say that they aren’t correct) to save me leafing through a lot of grammar guides and typing them all in manually…**

I should say here that i don’t have a particular prejudice against all internet grammar sites. Some are good, some aren’t. I just prefer the books i have on my desk.

I will conclude by saying that **STARK** makes a very good point about the elision of “that.” I was simply using “that” in this thread to illustrate the broader point about restrictive and nonrestrictive clauses.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\
**Post date:** [September 12, 2003, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-mavens/200938/24 "2003-09-12T21:12:09Z")

</div>

**mhendo** - I do see a good logical reason for preserving the change. But I don’t really feel there’s any confusion, even in spoken English, when using “which” for both restrictive and non-restrictive clauses, as there is a different way of saying it. “The book which is on the table” is said differently from “The book, which is on the table.” There’s a clear pause between “book” and “which” in the second sentence, as well as a different accentual pattern in the sentence.

Americans writers may preserve the distinction more, but I think that’s due primarily to style books and old hand-me-down grammar rules. In practice, at least from my experience (as an American), “which” and “that” can both be used colloquially in a restrictive clause. I don’t see any reason for a grammar problem, and I don’t think it causes any confusion, as long as you “read” the punctuation.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![trabi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecae2f/32.png) [@trabi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/trabi)\
**Post date:** [September 13, 2003, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-mavens/200938/25 "2003-09-13T15:53:21Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> _By mhendo_  
> Firstly, there’s a rather glaring contradiction between points 3 and 5, don’t you think? Number 3 says that all restrictive clauses omit the comma, but number 5 says that restrictive clauses may use a comma.

Oops. That was a mistake, sorry. Obviously, restrictive clauses don’t use a comma.

> [@](#):
>
> I agree with number 4 that some style and usage guides permit the use of “which” with restrictive clauses, but i happen to think, as does Bryan Garner, that using “that” for restrictive clauses and “which” for nonrestrictive is a distinction worth making. It helps to avoid confusion, especially given the fact that so many people are so woeful when it comes to using correct punctuation.

Fine, that’s your choice. The issue I was contending was that "the use of “which” is verboten in restrictive clauses. Certain posters to this thread have confused ‘good/bad grammar’ with issues of style.

> [@](#):
>
> Fowler did concede, however, that he was fighting a losing battle.

As is usually the case with ‘language mavens.’ When people start going out of their way to enforce their pet grammatical convention (however sensible it may appear), it is usually too late… (See also split infinitives, if I were, etc…)

> [@](#):
>
> So, if a simple slip of punctuation can alter the whole meaning of the sentence in this way, why not maintain the that-which distinction, which would give you backup and allow you to ascertain the meaning from the words alone? Do we really need “which” for restrictive clauses, when “that” does the job perfectly well?

Why not keep the distinction? Well, that’s the problem. You can use it yourself, but you can’t unilaterally enforce it to the extent that it would be possible to automatically assume that if someone uses ‘which’ without a comma, then they have accidentally missed out the comma.

For example, in the case of:

‘…the report which is on the shelf.’

You have the choice of assuming that either:

a. The author agrees with Fowler, but has mistakenly omitted the comma

b. The author considers which to be acceptable in a restrictive clause, and the sentence is correct

If the sentence is incorrect (i.e. as per a. above), it will usually be obvious from the context . Otherwise, I’d prefer to give authors the benefit of the doubt and assume that their punctuation is correct, rather than assume that they subscribe to Fowler’s view but have made a mistake.  
BTW, searching about on the internet I found this priceless

[QUOTE]  
([http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians/errors/which.html](http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians/errors/which.html)) on the [homepage](http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians/errors/) of a Professor Brians, a Professor of English at WSU.

Whether or not the use of the ‘which/that’ distinction makes more sense, it is far easier to enforce a universally accepted rule of punctuation than a stylistic convention which is hotly disputed.

In fact, we could go even further and say that if the 'which/that distinction was rigidly enforced or simply universally accepted, there would be no need for the comma at all.

So what’s the difference between teaching people to punctuate properly and teaching them to differentiate between which and that? I actually see the latter as more of a ‘dumbing down’ exercise, to make relative clauses ‘idiot proof.’

It also robs us of some of that flexibility for which the English language is renowned. Take my sentence above:

“…it is far easier to enforce a universally accepted rule of punctuation than a stylistic convention which is hotly disputed.”

Here, I chose to use ‘which,’ simply because to me it seems to look/sound better in that sentence, possibly because it follows so closely after ‘than’ which is a similar sounding word to ‘that.’

While this is a very subjective and aesthetic consideration, it’d be a shame to lose the option to do this, simply because a few people can’t be trusted to punctuate their sentences properly. Tsk tsk! 😉

> [@](#):
>
> _By Pulykamell_  
> …I don’t really feel there’s any confusion, even in spoken English, when using “which” for both restrictive and non-restrictive clauses, as there is a different way of saying it. … There’s a clear pause between “book” and “which” in the second sentence, as well as a different accentual pattern in the sentence.

I agree. A comma actually denotes a pause in speech. Presumably this is the origin of the comma for non-defining clauses.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-mavens/200938.md?page=1)