0
RandomGuy Posted 14 years ago
Grammar

Misuse of "Which"?

A transitive verb is a verb which requires an object.

This sweater is made from cashmere [no comma] which is high in quality.

From what I understand, the first example sentence suggests that all verbs require an object, which is obviously not true; and the second should have a comma because which introduces a nonrestrictive clause. Am I right, or am I losing my mind here?

These uses of the word seem to get more popular every day. Honestly, it makes me recoil.
  

Top answer

You might be correct. " That's because it's referring to a specific type of verb, as you rightly point out. The second example requires a comma only if the second clause represents a separate thought.

— Anonymous

  • You might be correct.
  • " That's because it's referring to a specific type of verb, as you rightly point out.
  • The second example requires a comma only if the second clause represents a separate thought.
  • Is the writer trying to say that all cashmere is high in quality (which would require a comma)?
  • Or is she describing this particular cashmere that this sweater is made of (which would instead use "that")?
Free · every Monday

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.

8 Answers
0
You might be correct. Emotion: thinking This is a case of confusing "that" and "which." In the above examples, the first one should read: "A tra
0
0
Aspara GusA transitive verb is a verb which requires an object.
The sentence is correct British English. That would also be possible instead of which. The sentence does not suggest that all verbs require an object.
Aspara GusThis sweater is made from cashmere [no comma] which is high in quality.
As above
0
0
Cool BreezeThe sentence is correct British English. That would also be possible instead of which. The sentence does not suggest that all verbs require an object.
Far be it from me to challenge the grammar rules of British English, but I just can't see the logic behind this. Please consider these examples:

Cats that are black are co
0
0
Aspara GusCats that are black are considered bad luck.

Cats which are black are considered bad luck.

To me, these two sentences are not identical in meaning.
This is news to me. I can't see any difference, and I don't see what difference there could be.

CJ
0
0
CalifJimThis is news to me. I can't see any difference, and I don't see what difference there could be. CJ
The first sentence indicates that not all cats are black. The second sentence indicates that all cats are black.

I am sure that I am not alone:
0
0
Aspara GusThe second sentence indicates that all cats are black.
No. Not as written. Only if the which-clause is set off by commas.

Cats, which are black, ....

CJ
0
0
Yes, but my point is that there is just no good reason that which and that should be interchangeable in those kinds of sentences. Sure, there may not be any confusion in written communication, but what about oral? If someone were to verbally say to me, "Verbs which are transitive require an object," I would initially consider the possibility that he thought all verbs were transitive.
0
0
Aspara GusIt probably irritates me more than it should.
I suppose so. In conversation we don't use 'which' very much, though, so you shouldn't find too many sources of irritation in an ordinary conversation. Most people are not going to say "Verbs which are transitive" (or similar things) because it's so much simpler to say "Transitive verbs".

By th
0

Related Questions