About relative pronoun 'that' ..

Question

First of all, please read two sentences below.
¨ç Whales, which cannot breathe under water, have lungs instead of gills.

¨è Whales which cannot breathe under water have lungs instead of gills.
In sentence ¨è, we can use relative pronoun 'that' instead of 'which'. can't we??
However, in sentence ¨ç it (=relative pronoun 'that') cannot be used instead of 'which'.
Why?? What makes it impossible? Please answer me~

Usenet · Accepted Answer

=C0=CC=C3=A2=C7=F6 typed thus:
[nq:1]First of all, please read two sentences below. ?=E7 Whales, which cannot breathe under water, have lungs instead of gil=ls. ... sentence ?=E7 it (=3Drelative pronoun 'that') cannot be used instead of 'which'. Why?? What makes it impossible? Please answer me~[/nq]

=C0=CC=C3=A2=C7=F6 (if that truly is your name), if you want to post the sa= me=20
question to more than one group, it is better to make a single=20 posting to both groups at the same time, so that others can see all=20 the replies.
The commas in the first sentence are there to delimit the phrase=20 which is a definition - I.e. "whales cannot breathe under water".

The second sentence makes no sense, as it implies that there must be=20 some other whales which can breathe underwater and do not have lungs.

I'm not sure how to answer your question as it is confused by this=20 difference in meaning.
=20
David
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]¨ç Whales, which cannot breathe under water, have lungs instead of gills. ¨è Whales which cannot breathe under water have ... sentence ¨ç it (=relative pronoun 'that') cannot be used instead of 'which'. Why?? What makes it impossible? Please answer me~[/nq]
The two sentences mean different things. The first sentence means, "whales have lungs instead of gills". This implies ALL whales have lungs instead of gills, which is the truth. The first sentence is exactly equivalent to saying:

"all whales have lungs instead of gills BECAUSE they (all) can't breathe underwater".
Whereas the second sentence would mean, "THE whales that can't breathe under water have lungs instead of gills". It would imply that only SOME whales can't breathe under water, and those that can't have lungs instead of gills. Two truthful sentences would be:
Whales, which cannot breathe under water, have lungs instead of gills.

AND
Organisms that can't breathe under water have lungs instead of gills.

It may be confusing to a foreigner, but I hope I explained it in a way that makes sense. If not, axe again.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]=C0=CC=C3=A2=C7=F6 (if that truly is your name),[/nq]
LOLOLOLOLOLOL!

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]I'm not sure how to answer your question as it is confused by this=20 difference in meaning. =20 David =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D[/nq]
WTF language are you speaking?

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]First of all, please read two sentences below. ¨ç Whales, which cannot breathe under water, have lungs instead of gills. ... sentence ¨ç it (=relative pronoun 'that') cannot be used instead of 'which'. Why?? What makes it impossible? Please answer me~[/nq]
Because sentence e implies that there are some whales that can breathe under water, and they wuld have gills.

Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

Usenet · Answer

1. Whales, which cannot breathe under water, have lungs instead of gills.
2. Whales which cannot breathe under water have lungs instead of gills.
Sentence 1 says that no whales can breathe under water, and all whales have lungs instead of gills.
Sentence 2 says that there are some whales that cannot breathe under water, and that whales in this category have lungs instead of gills.
In sentence 1, you cannot use "that" instead of "which" without making the sentence ungrammatical. This is because the commas setting off the phrase "which
cannot breathe under water" identify it as a parenthetical, non-defining clause. Such clauses cannot be introduced by "that" in standard English.
In sentence 2, you can use "that" instead of
"which" without changing the grammar or meaning.
The phrase "whales which (or that) cannot breathe
under water" is a restrictive, or defining phrase, and such phrases can be introduced by either "which" or "that" although some influential style guides recommend using only "that" for this purpose to
aid comprehension.
The meaning of the second sentence, of course, is
subject to debate but that is not the question you asked.
You can find out more about this issue by searching on "restrictive" and "non-restrictive" clauses.

Michael West

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]¨ç Whales, which cannot breathe under water, have lungs instead of gills. ¨è Whales which cannot breathe under water have lungs instead of gills.[/nq]
[nq:1]Whales, which cannot breathe under water, have lungs instead of gills. AND Organisms that can't breathe under water have lungs ... confusing to a foreigner, but I hope I explained it in a way that makes sense. If not, axe again.[/nq]
The problem is that it is confusing to mostly everyone. The commas would be helpful to make reading easier but if we define them as completely changing the meaning, heaven help us.
Maybe if we allowed the following:
"Whales, which cannot breathe under water, have lungs instead of gills." "Whales which cannot breathe under water, have lungs instead of gills."

In any case, I wouldn't count on readers catching these distinctions from just the commas or lack of commas unless it is truly obvious.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]Whales, which cannot breathe under water, have lungs instead of ... in a way that makes sense. If not, axe again.[/nq]
[nq:1]The problem is that it is confusing to mostly everyone. The commas would be helpful to make reading easier but ... wouldn't count on readers catching these distinctions from just the commas or lack of commas unless it is truly obvious.[/nq]
Just as the skills of writers differ, so do those of readers. That can make communications difficult. Unfortunately. Rules are there to try to help, but they are useless when not followed.

Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/

Usenet · Answer

Bill:
[nq:1]Maybe if we allowed the following: "Whales, which cannot breathe under water, have lungs instead of gills." "Whales which cannot ... wouldn't count on readers catching these distinctions from just the commas or lack of commas unless it is truly obvious.[/nq]
That's why you're supposed to use "that" for one and "which" for another. BTW, in your example above, the comma in the second sentence would just be plain wrong: neither clause is independent.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Bill:[/nq]
[nq:2]Maybe if we allowed the following: "Whales, which cannot breathe ... commas or lack of commas unless it is truly obvious.[/nq]
[nq:1]That's why you're supposed to use "that" for one and "which" for another. BTW, in your example above, the comma in the second sentence would just be plain wrong: neither clause is independent.[/nq]
The second example is just an idea. What it would do is signal that the clause connected, in this case, to 'whales' had ended and the verb was now starting. For some reason I think I got the idea from Swedish or some other Scandinavian language although I don't have a grammar around here to check right now.

About relative pronoun 'that' ..

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions