0
Usenet Posted 19 years ago
Usage
The difference between WHICH and THAT
Hello,
Could you please kindly explain the difference between the words 'which' and 'that' for me?
For example in this sentence:
There is a house which is red.
can we replace which with that ? Like:
There is a house that is red.
Is there a difference at all between these two words? Can I use them alternately? I don't get it
I feel that there's a slight difference between these two, in some contexts, but it's not clear for me in which exactly
Thank you very much!
If you want to contact me via e-mail, remove NOSPAM before '@'. Best regards
~di0xid~
Could you please kindly explain the difference between the words 'which' and 'that' for me?
For example in this sentence:
There is a house which is red.
can we replace which with that ? Like:
There is a house that is red.
Is there a difference at all between these two words? Can I use them alternately? I don't get it
I feel that there's a slight difference between these two, in some contexts, but it's not clear for me in which exactly
Thank you very much!
If you want to contact me via e-mail, remove NOSPAM before '@'. Best regards
~di0xid~
Top answer
english FAQ that explains all. You'll find it at . [nq:1]For example in this sentence: There is a house which is red.
- english FAQ that explains all.
- You'll find it at .
- [nq:1]For example in this sentence: There is a house which is red.
- can we replace which with that ?
- [/nq] Yes.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
31 Answers
0
[nq:1]Hello, Could you please kindly explain the difference between the words 'which' and 'that' for me?[/nq]
There's an item in the alt.usage.english FAQ that explains all. You'll find it at
.
[nq:1]For example in this sentence: There is a house which is red. can we replace which with that ? Like: There is a house that is red.[/nq]
Yes. Be sure to read that FAQ item.
[nq:1]Is
There's an item in the alt.usage.english FAQ that explains all. You'll find it at
.
[nq:1]For example in this sentence: There is a house which is red. can we replace which with that ? Like: There is a house that is red.[/nq]
Yes. Be sure to read that FAQ item.
[nq:1]Is
00
0
[nq:2]There's an item in the alt.usage.english FAQ that explains all. ... Read that FAQ item. Read that FAQ item. De nada.[/nq]
[nq:1]Where might he find the FAQ.[/nq]
He might start with the link I gave near the top of this post. Once there, he has access to other links that cover the full gamut of the FAQ.
Perhaps you think I meant the AEU FAQ. I didn't. I was careful to point out aa
[nq:1]Where might he find the FAQ.[/nq]
He might start with the link I gave near the top of this post. Once there, he has access to other links that cover the full gamut of the FAQ.
Perhaps you think I meant the AEU FAQ. I didn't. I was careful to point out aa
00
[nq:1]Hello, Could you please kindly explain the difference between the words 'which' and 'that' for me? For example in this ... that ? Like: There is a house that is red. Is there a difference at all between these two words?[/nq]
Yes; the difference is really between restrive and non-restrictive (defining and non-defining) clauses. A comma clarifies this difference as well, and is used in non
Yes; the difference is really between restrive and non-restrictive (defining and non-defining) clauses. A comma clarifies this difference as well, and is used in non
00
[nq:2]Hello, Could you please kindly explain the difference between the ... Is there a difference at all between these two words?[/nq]
[nq:1]Yes; the difference is really between restrive and non-restrictive (defining and non-defining) clauses. A comma clarifies this difference as well, ... by the dean of English usage, H.W. Fowler. There are minor exceptions, but you can't go wrong always fol
[nq:1]Yes; the difference is really between restrive and non-restrictive (defining and non-defining) clauses. A comma clarifies this difference as well, ... by the dean of English usage, H.W. Fowler. There are minor exceptions, but you can't go wrong always fol
00
[nq:2]Yes; the difference is really between restrive and non-restrictive (defining ... minor exceptions, but you can't go wrong always following them.[/nq]
[nq:1]Actually, the rule was "set down" in the mid-19th century. Fowler thought it a good idea, but also pointed out ... except in the trivial sense that it will avoid complaints by people who think this is a rule of English.[/nq]
Using
[nq:1]Actually, the rule was "set down" in the mid-19th century. Fowler thought it a good idea, but also pointed out ... except in the trivial sense that it will avoid complaints by people who think this is a rule of English.[/nq]
Using
00
[nq:2]Actually, the rule was "set down" in the mid-19th century. ... by people who think this is a rule of English.[/nq]
[nq:1]Using "that" to the exclusion of "which" as restrictive relative has the further advantage, if noted, that it reinforces the ... rest more soundly in his grave, but I don't kid myself that I'm making any difference.- Hide quoted text -[/nq]
Sure, we can have an "If
[nq:1]Using "that" to the exclusion of "which" as restrictive relative has the further advantage, if noted, that it reinforces the ... rest more soundly in his grave, but I don't kid myself that I'm making any difference.- Hide quoted text -[/nq]
Sure, we can have an "If
00
[nq:2]Actually, the rule was "set down" in the mid-19th century. ... by people who think this is a rule of English.[/nq]
[nq:1]Using "that" to the exclusion of "which" as restrictive relative has the further advantage, if noted, that it reinforces the ... only so HWF will rest more soundly in his grave, but I don't kid myself that I'm making any difference.[/nq]
Robert, as I think about re
[nq:1]Using "that" to the exclusion of "which" as restrictive relative has the further advantage, if noted, that it reinforces the ... only so HWF will rest more soundly in his grave, but I don't kid myself that I'm making any difference.[/nq]
Robert, as I think about re
00
[nq:1]an occasion when using "which", though probably wrong, cannot be avoided without problems: "That which does not destroy us, strengthens us."[/nq]
What, don't you remember the old "that that is is" chestnut?
This sentence, however, illustrates one circumstance in which nonrestrictive "which" absolutely can't be replaced by "that." And if you try to rearrange it to allow "that," y
What, don't you remember the old "that that is is" chestnut?
This sentence, however, illustrates one circumstance in which nonrestrictive "which" absolutely can't be replaced by "that." And if you try to rearrange it to allow "that," y
00
[nq:1]Yes; the difference is really between restrive and non-restrictive (defining and non-defining) clauses. A comma clarifies this difference as well, ... There is a house, which is red. The house is incidentally red; it could be another color, but it's red.[/nq]
Hmm, I would emphasize the explanation differently. (I think it has the same meaning).
There is a house that is red.
Hmm, I would emphasize the explanation differently. (I think it has the same meaning).
There is a house that is red.
0
Related Questions