Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2008 22:21:14 GMT
I have always used "who" when referring to people(ex. "Everyone who arrives on time will receive a ticket", as opposed to, "Everyone that arrives on time..." Am I correct? What is the rule?
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Jun 21, 2008 22:36:04 GMT
I think that both are correct if your subject is people but you cannot use "who" if your subject isn't people. So you cannot say "Every robot who arrives on time will receive a ticket", you would need to use "that".
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Jun 22, 2008 2:45:31 GMT
One could of course use which for the robot. Either that or who/whom/which is fine, in my view.
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Jun 22, 2008 10:39:24 GMT
One could of course use which for the robot. Either that or who/whom/which is fine, in my view. Paul, are "which" and "that" not interchangeable?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Jun 22, 2008 11:19:16 GMT
A lawyer's question! Are they not interchangeable -- is that the same as asking if they are interchangeable?
The answer, anyway, is that they sometimes are. In "every robot that arrives on time will receive a ticket" and "every robot which arrives on time will receive a ticket" they are interchangeable and have the same meaning.
But in "the house, which I bought, was worthless" and "the house that I bought was worthless" they are interchangeable but with different meanings (aided by the commas).
Obviously in "that girl over there" and "which girl over there" they are interchangeable but with quite different meanings.
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Jun 22, 2008 18:44:26 GMT
The answer, anyway, is that they sometimes are. In "every robot that arrives on time will receive a ticket" and "every robot which arrives on time will receive a ticket" they are interchangeable and have the same meaning. Yes, and my question was predicated on this sentence. But in "the house, which I bought, was worthless" and "the house that I bought was worthless" they are interchangeable but with different meanings (aided by the commas). I can see how the sentences are subtly different but I am not convinced that they actually mean something different. They both refer to a house, to the fact that I bought it and to the fact that it is worthless. Obviously in "that girl over there" and "which girl over there" they are interchangeable but with quite different meanings. Yes, these are clearly different and the second sentence also needs a question mark to highlight the fact that it is a question.
|
|
|
Post by Twoddle on Jun 22, 2008 19:58:18 GMT
The "that/which" question seems to matter more in American English than in British English. Vic Bottomley, who used to post to the APS forum, is an American lawyer and once quoted a notable case where the use of "which" instead of "that" had altered the outcome of a court case, despite a correctly positioned comma. In a British court, the comma would certainly have decided the outcome the other way, because "that" and "which" would have been held to have been virtually synonymous in the sentence in question. In the American court, however, their difference in meaning was held to be significant. (It's all to do with defining and non-defining clauses.)
Do we still have that on record somewhere?
|
|
|
Post by Tone on Jun 22, 2008 20:30:01 GMT
>So you cannot say "Every robot who arrives on time will receive a ticket"<
Mayhap you could make an exception if the robots were called "Daneel" and "Giskard".
Tone
P.S. That would be: "Daneel R. Olivaw" and "Giskard R. Relentlov".
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Jun 23, 2008 1:49:56 GMT
I am not convinced that they actually mean something different. What about: - The trees, which were dead, were cut down. - The trees that were dead were cut down. Say we are talking about a wood of 100 trees. How many of the 100 were cut down? What about (not which, I know): - The rioters, who were communists, were shot dead. - The rioters that were communists were shot dead. Again, assuming 100 rioters, how many were shot dead? And were they killed for being rioters or for being communists?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Jun 23, 2008 1:52:51 GMT
And of course, as Twoddle hints, this is not really about that vs which but about defining vs non-defining clauses. But the that/which distinction (even in British English) helps to clarify whether we are defining or not defining.
|
|
|
Post by Dave M on Jun 23, 2008 8:51:42 GMT
I was surprised when I found recommendation (in Fowler) to use "which" only in non-defining cases.
I'd always happily used "which" for defining cases, too: I threw out the potatoes which had gone soft - (and I still do!).
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Jun 23, 2008 10:21:43 GMT
I am not convinced that they actually mean something different. What about: - The trees, which were dead, were cut down. - The trees that were dead were cut down. Say we are talking about a wood of 100 trees. How many of the 100 were cut down? What about (not which, I know): - The rioters, who were communists, were shot dead. - The rioters that were communists were shot dead. Again, assuming 100 rioters, how many were shot dead? And were they killed for being rioters or for being communists? Yes, these work better than the "the house that I bought" example. But it seems to me that it is the commas that make the difference, not the which vs that. That also seems to be Paul's point.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Jun 23, 2008 11:26:06 GMT
Well, it's the defining vs non-defining which makes the difference. A non-defining clause has to be set off with commas, but that can also be ambiguous -- are they bracketing commas or just two independent commas? -- so the which/that distinction is a useful one.
But it's often validly ignored, as Dave M, and my first sentence, says.
Anyway, I think we can agree that that and which are not always interchangeable. Neither of my two substantive thats in this post could be whiches.
|
|
|
Post by goofy on Jun 23, 2008 14:31:37 GMT
I was surprised when I found recommendation (in Fowler) to use "which" only in non-defining cases. I'd always happily used "which" for defining cases, too: I threw out the potatoes which had gone soft - (and I still do!). Many commentators do insist on using which only in nonrestrictive relative clauses. But you can find many many many examples of which introducing restrictive clauses in literature. The choice of whether to use which or that for restrictive clauses is a stylistic one as far as I can see. Well, it's the defining vs non-defining which makes the difference. A non-defining clause has to be set off with commas, but that can also be ambiguous -- are they bracketing commas or just two independent commas? -- so the which/that distinction is a useful one. Do you have an example where it's ambiguous?
|
|
|
Post by Dave M on Jun 23, 2008 14:57:37 GMT
Actually, we don't need TWO commas around a defining clause: one at the front and a full stop at the end will do. Ambiguity arises in, for example:
He was bitten by the parrot, or perhaps cockatoo, which had rabies. He objects to all cheeses, for example, which give him stomach ache.
While I would probably say them like that (relying on stress and rhythm to carry my meaning), I do agree that the use of "that" would make it clearer when a restrictive interpretation is intended.
(If writing, I'd re-cast.)
|
|