0
Anonymous Posted 17 years ago
Grammar
Mainly pronoun question
Hi. Would you say we can use both relative pronouns (are they?) "which" and "that" with restrictive clauses? Or would you say that only the use of the pronoun "that" (for human and non-human) is correct for a restrictive clause? I think it sounds better to use the pronoun "which" for animals.
eg,
1.This is something that/which is different than others.
2. Carefully hold that puppy which/that is on the chair.
Also, would you say the commas are placed here to allow what is in them a breathing space to a reader?
They called for greater effort help the needy, and those down-and-out, from hardships.
eg,
1.This is something that/which is different than others.
2. Carefully hold that puppy which/that is on the chair.
Also, would you say the commas are placed here to allow what is in them a breathing space to a reader?
They called for greater effort help the needy, and those down-and-out, from hardships.
Top answer
Restrictive clauses can usually begin with either which or that . It has nothing to do with humans and animals, though with humans we usually use who . I think your commas should be removed, but the sentence needs more work than that.
- Restrictive clauses can usually begin with either which or that .
- It has nothing to do with humans and animals, though with humans we usually use who .
- I think your commas should be removed, but the sentence needs more work than that.
- I find 'needy' and 'down-and-out' redundant, as is 'from hardships'.
- I suggest: They called for greater effort to help the needy.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
2 Answers
0
.
Restrictive clauses can usually begin with either which or that. It has nothing to do with humans and animals, though with humans we usually use who.
I think your commas should be removed, but the sentence needs more work than that. I find 'needy' and 'down-and-out' redundant, as is 'from hardships'. I suggest:
They called for greater effo
Restrictive clauses can usually begin with either which or that. It has nothing to do with humans and animals, though with humans we usually use who.
I think your commas should be removed, but the sentence needs more work than that. I find 'needy' and 'down-and-out' redundant, as is 'from hardships'. I suggest:
They called for greater effo
00
AnonymousWould you say we can use both relative pronouns (are they?) "which" and "that" with restrictive clauses?Yes.
AnonymousOr would you say that only the use of the pronoun "that" (for human and non-human) is correct for a restrictive clause?No.
CJ
0
Related Questions