“Which” qualifies, “that” restricts

[cema]

I have not realized that.

Comments

[ygam.livejournal.com]

http://ygam.livejournal.com/844329.html

In the second paragraph of Stuart Little E. B. White writes "[...] Mrs. Little went into his [Stuart Little's] room and weighed him on a small scale which was really meant for weighing letters." In The Elements of Style he himself decries the use of "which" instead of "that" in such clauses.

[cema.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately my intuition of the language is not so strong as to feel the difference. I would have to consciously think about the usage. Apparently, native speakers, even advanced speakers like EBW, are often confused as well. Which means it's not such a big deal of a point, really.

[juan-gandhi.livejournal.com]

wow; thanks!

[chaource.livejournal.com]

"Which qualifies, that restricts", they say. And in the next sentence they deny that already! "Which" is more ambiguous, etc. Typical handwaving bullshit encountered in grammar books.

[ge-m.livejournal.com]

First, I have learned the correct distinction between "since" and "because".
Then I have noticed here how frequently "since" is casually used instead of "because", so I have forced myself to used it this wasy as well. Apparently, I had not do that :)
Thank you!

[cema.livejournal.com]

True. Languages are usually more complicated than their descriptions.

[cema.livejournal.com]

Yes, a little bit of "unlearning" may sometimes be required from advanced students of the language if they had studied it from the books.

[cema.livejournal.com]

Sure. A useful little list, I think.

[spamsink]

Re "nauseous" vs "nauseated". Similarly, I've noticed more than one EFL speaker mixing "boring" and "bored".

[ge-m.livejournal.com]

My point is opposite.
I was willing to "unlearn" and I did unlearned and now, in this text, I see that I knew it correct from the beginning.
I did not have to unlearn (in this case)!

Обидно за свой конформизм!

[yucca.livejournal.com]

По-моему, это уже проигранная битва. "Nauseated" в устной речи я не слышала вообще никогда, а в письменной, пожалуй, только в выражении "nauseated by".

[oregosha.livejournal.com]

Useful, thanks!
(The more quick and dirty clear language use tips, the better)

[cema.livejournal.com]

Desunlearn!

[eta-ta.livejournal.com]

gee, 4 pages-thread.
and he'd forgotten my favorite pet peeve: alternate in lieu of alternative

[alexey-rom.livejournal.com]

Не все согласны. А по поводу which/that копий сломано очень много.

[chaource.livejournal.com]

Not to mention that the words "to qualify" and "to restrict" are not independent; their meanings have a significant intersection.

At some point I started to study natural language processing. The first thing I learned was that I should burn all grammar books...

As for "which/that", well, you can choose what you do, as long as it is consistent. My rules:

- always use a comma before "which"

- use "that" to say "this one of many objects has property X" (I remembered the presence of the soldier that made me upset - it is not the rain, not the accident, but the presence the soldier that made me upset, - we select the object that has property X)

- use "which" to say "one or all of many objects have property X, but we don't select any single one" (it is the presence of the soldier, which is required in this situation, that made me upset - the presence is always required, we do not select the presence on the criterion of being required; but we select the presence on the criterion of making me upset)

- "which" with a comma before it could refer to any part of the sentence before it. "which" without a comma should be replaced by "that" without a comma. "that" only refers to the immediately preceding noun phrase.