0
Grammarian-bot Posted 20 years ago
According to rules, that should be used with a restrictive clasu while which should be used with a non-restrictive clause.
Which one of the folllowing sentences is true.
1. The house that Jack built has been torn down.
2. The house which Jack built has been torn down.
Is it possible to tell which word to use (that or which) just by lookin at an isolated sentence (as the above examples) or
do we need to see the whole context?
Grammar
Confusion: restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses
According to rules, that should be used with a restrictive clasu while which should be used with a non-restrictive clause.
Which one of the folllowing sentences is true.
1. The house that Jack built has been torn down.
2. The house which Jack built has been torn down.
Is it possible to tell which word to use (that or which) just by lookin at an isolated sentence (as the above examples) or
do we need to see the whole context?
Top answer
An answer is probably possible here. «That» usually introduces a clause that identifies the subject, while «which» opens a clause that provides some additional information. That's why «that» is called restrictive and «which» nonrestrictive.
- An answer is probably possible here.
- «That» usually introduces a clause that identifies the subject, while «which» opens a clause that provides some additional information.
- That's why «that» is called restrictive and «which» nonrestrictive.
- «The building, (additional info) which consisted of three storeys, was well built and seemed in reasonable condition».
- In your case, I'd choose «that», because the clause identifies the house rather than gives supplementary info.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
10 Answers
0
An answer is probably possible here.
«That» usually introduces a clause that identifies the subject, while «which» opens a clause that provides some additional information.
That's why «that» is called restrictive and «which» nonrestrictive.
«The building, (additional info) which consisted of three storeys, was well built and seemed in reasonable condition».
In
«That» usually introduces a clause that identifies the subject, while «which» opens a clause that provides some additional information.
That's why «that» is called restrictive and «which» nonrestrictive.
«The building, (additional info) which consisted of three storeys, was well built and seemed in reasonable condition».
In
00
that may introduce only a restrictive relative clause.
which may introduce either a restrictive relative clause or a non-restrictive relative clause.
Both of your examples of a restrictive clause are correct. (Be careful about the word true. These sentences are true only if the house in question actually has been torn down. We cannot s
which may introduce either a restrictive relative clause or a non-restrictive relative clause.
Both of your examples of a restrictive clause are correct. (Be careful about the word true. These sentences are true only if the house in question actually has been torn down. We cannot s
00
0
Well... i still am confused about the clauses that refer to some additional information about a subject and refer to identify it.
eg The cup, which he stepped on, is in the bin.
The above example has been taken from a website and they say that it's a non-restrictive clause. But to me, it seems more like a restrictive clause since it clearly identifies a specific cup t
00
Additional info is such info that can be omitted without a change in the subject's mening.
«Hey, where is my favourite cup, which father gave me?»
or just «Hey, where is my favourite cup?»
The subject «cup» means the same certain cup, irregardless of whether there is a which-clause or not. Thus, this is additional info.
«The house that has been painted pink has just
«Hey, where is my favourite cup, which father gave me?»
or just «Hey, where is my favourite cup?»
The subject «cup» means the same certain cup, irregardless of whether there is a which-clause or not. Thus, this is additional info.
«The house that has been painted pink has just
00
Grammarian-botYou have every right to be confused. Since no contex
eg The cup, which he stepped on, is in the bin.
The above example has been taken from a website and they say that it's a non-restrictive clause. But to me, it seems more like a restrictive clause since it clearly identifies a specific cup that had been stepped on by someone.
00
I found only one site with this example:
http://www.worldwidewords.org/articles/which.htm
If that's where you've derived the sentece from, you are not supposed to name the clause type by the example. It's the other way round: the author gives the example and tells you what it means. Of cours
http://www.worldwidewords.org/articles/which.htm
If that's where you've derived the sentece from, you are not supposed to name the clause type by the example. It's the other way round: the author gives the example and tells you what it means. Of cours
00
Well now everything is clear. All this time, the point that was pestering me was that how can someone tell wheather a clause is restrictive or non-restrictive without knowing the context. Thank you everybody especially Ant_222 for that "thief" example. It really helped a lot.
GB
GB
00
Here's an interesting detailed article on the subject
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002146.html
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002146.html
00
Ant_222 Cool Breeze wrote: «The commas are needed only if the cup has been mentioned before the above sentence.» Not fully true. If we have mentioned two different cups, including the one the guy stepped on, then, in further text, we'll probably use restrictive clause to denote this cup."... the relative clause informs us about someone having stepped
0
Related Questions