In today’s usage which And that thing both are used to introduce restrictive clauses that cannot be removed from the context of a sentence, and which also used to introduce unrestricted clauses, which provide additional information but can be removed without causing the sentence to split. These rules are actually older than the words, which were frequently interchanged until the 18th century.
Do you suffer from low self-esteem? Are you nervous, or have trouble making decisions? Do you find yourself unable to decide if you should use that thing or which when composing sentences? In the event that you answered “yes” to either of the first two questions, we sympathize, but as a dictionary we can provide several other questions. However, if the source of your trouble is the problem of that thing And which we can be some small support.
Use ‘ which’ or ‘that’ to introduce restrictive clauses and ‘ which’ to introduce nonrestrictive clauses.
Restrictive and non-restrictive clauses
Before you begin, you should be warned that it is time to learn grammar, as we are about to dive into the world of restrictive and non-restrictive clauses. (If you don’t know what grammar pants is, they’re itchy sweatpants that are way too tight, and magically leave you a bit unsatisfied with everyone’s choices.)
Once upon a time, long ago, when the English language was still immersed in Edenic youth, that thing And which freely exchanged. Everyone is very happy.
Therefore, return to Caesar what belongs to Caesar; and to God things are God. —Joseph Hall, A simple and familiar explanation1633
Therefore, pay Caesar what belongs to Caesar; and to God, things are God. —Robert Grosse, Royalties and loyalty1647
Therefore, give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s. —Samuel Sturmy, Maritime magazine1669
Therefore, give to Caesar what is Caesar’s: and to God what belongs to God. —Richard Hollingworth, An exercise involving usurped powers1650
The careful reader may notice that in the four examples above, all published within four decades, each author writes what is essentially the same sentence, but uses that thing And which in a different way from others. The mid-17th century was clearly a period of free love of syntax. Then the restrictive and non-restrictive terms rules appeared.
If you’re not a copy editor or someone who cares deeply about grammar, you may have forgotten what restrictive and unrestricted clauses are. A restrictive clause is a part of a sentence that cannot be deleted without making the sentence incomplete, confusing, or its meaning significantly altered. “Essay covers very boring grammar” contains a restrictive clause (“includes grammar”) that is important in making the sentence understandable. “The essay that included grammar, which I read while I was supposed to be working, was very boring,” contains the same restrictive clause, but also an unrestricted clause (“which I read while I should be working”). This unrestricted clause adds additional information to the sentence, but is not required to include it.
If you prefer analogy, the non-restriction clause functions like a silk scarf; You might want to wear one when you’re out of the house, but your day won’t really be affected if you decide to leave it at home. However, the restriction is more like pants; Your day will take on an obviously problematic tone if you leave the house without them.
That thing experienced a period of decline in the late 17th century, then returned several decades later. When it reappears, that thing has been used for the unrestricted clause much less often than in the past (although some writers, such as Thackeray and Tennyson, still use it this way quite often).
Rules for ‘Which’ and ‘That’
Soon, grammarians tried to establish a set of rules to govern the use of these words. As often happens when a grammar rule is established based on the writer’s preference for usage, rather than actual usage, there has been a great deal of disagreement about what the rules should actually be. In 1906, the Fowler brothers (Henry Watson and Francis George) published King’s Englishand provides a set of instructions that are sure to be adopted by many subsequent manuals (Fowlers used the terms identify And Unknown instead of limit And unlimited).
That thing never used to introduce indefinite clauses.
…What should not be used in defining clauses unless custom, euphoria, or convenience are decided against using that thing.
—Fowler, FG & HW, King’s English1906
There are some problems with these rules. The main thing is that they don’t really work. About twenty years after the brothers first released them, Henry Watson wrote another book on how to use them. He regretfully expressed his feelings at the way people are being treated that thing And which:
…if the writers agree that thing as definite relative pronouns, & which as undefined, there will be many benefits both in terms of clarity and ease. Now there are some people who follow this principle; but it’s useless to pretend that’s what most or the best writers do. —HW Fowler, Dictionary using modern English1926
It has been shown that if most of your language writers don’t follow a rule (and the best writers seem to ignore it too) then you might have to accept that it’s not a rule. Rule. Another problem with Fowler’s imperative is that if you say that your rule can be omitted for reasons of “customization, euphoria, or convenience,” that’s more of a gentle suggestion than a Rule.
Yes that thing rarely used today in unrestricted clauses (though poets still use it that way), but which seems to have a fair degree of flexibility to it and can work very well in restrictive clauses, non-restrictive clauses, and in those annoyed that it should never be found outside. outside the unrestricted clause. This is what our own manual, Merriam-Webster dictionary of English usagetalked about this issue:
We conclude that by the end of the 20th century, the use of which And that thing—at least in prose—has settled down quite a bit. You can use either which or that thing to introduce a restrictive clause — the basis for your choice must be style — and which to introduce an unrestricted provision.
Another way to look at this is if your clause is enclosed in commas (“the grammar article I started at lunch, seems to never end”) then can be an unrestricted clause and you can give it a which. If it’s not surrounded by a comma, it’s most likely a restrictive clause and you can choose to give it a comma. that thing or one which. If anyone questions your decision, you can say that you are following Fowlers’ advice and are making decisions based on custom, euphoria and convenience.
Categories: Usage Notes
Source: vothisaucamau.edu.vn
