|
Post by Paul Doherty on Jun 23, 2008 19:28:36 GMT
Goofy, I agree with Dave. Another example would be from my own post:
> But it's often validly ignored, as Dave M, and my first sentence, says. <
as Dave M is defining and and my first sentence is not, but both have a comma fore-and-aft. They are not relative clauses, of course, but my point was that a pair of commas often occurs other than bracketing a non-restrictive relative clause, so a pair of commas is not a clear signal -- so consistent use of which/that along with the commas helps the reader.
|
|
|
Post by goofy on Jun 23, 2008 19:56:26 GMT
Paul, I don't get your example since it doesn't involve which and that. Dave's example makes sense. Since we don't use that with nonrestrictive clauses, if we really need to make it clear that the clause is restrictive and it's preceded by a comma, then we can use that.
He objects to all cheeses, for example, that give him stomach ache.
But insisting that we should use which only with nonrestrictive clauses ignores how good writers use which - altho I don't think anyone here has insisted on that.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Jun 23, 2008 20:29:02 GMT
It was a minor point, goofy. If you don't get it, don't worry.
|
|
|
Post by TfS on Jun 24, 2008 7:45:59 GMT
This is a bit of an odd one:
"Our Father which art in heaven..."
I have seen the Lord's Prayer using "who" instead of "which" but I wonder from where the "which" originated in this context.
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Jun 24, 2008 10:26:11 GMT
This is a bit of an odd one: "Our Father which art in heaven..." I have seen the Lord's Prayer using "who" instead of "which" but I wonder from where the "which" originated in this context. Lousy Aramaic syntax?
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Jun 24, 2008 11:29:47 GMT
This is a bit of an odd one: "Our Father which art in heaven..." I have seen the Lord's Prayer using "who" instead of "which" but I wonder from where the "which" originated in this context. Perhaps the god/father figure was not considered human, and so was seen to require an impersonal rather than personal reference? (Sheer postulation with no basis.) Perhaps merely the English style of the time of translation?
|
|
|
Post by goofy on Jun 24, 2008 13:46:45 GMT
It used to be common to use which to refer to people. It's not usual any more, tho.
Caroline, Anna, and I have just been devouring some cold souse, and it would be difficult to say which enjoyed it most - Jane Austen, 1796
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Jun 24, 2008 13:49:50 GMT
It used to be common to use which to refer to people. It's not usual any more, tho. Caroline, Anna, and I have just been devouring some cold souse, and it would be difficult to say which enjoyed it most - Jane Austen, 1796 In your quote, is "which" a short form of "which of us"? In which case, "which" would seem to be the right word, even in today's usage.
|
|
|
Post by goofy on Jun 24, 2008 13:52:35 GMT
In your quote, is "which" a short form of "which of us"? In which case, "which" would seem to be the right word, even in today's usage. I don't see a need to postulate missing words. It does not sound like modern English to me. If we change it to "which of us" it sounds ok, but there must be a reason why it isn't "which of us".
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Jun 24, 2008 14:10:45 GMT
In your quote, is "which" a short form of "which of us"? In which case, "which" would seem to be the right word, even in today's usage. I don't see a need to postulate missing words. It does not sound like modern English to me. If we change it to "which of us" it sounds ok, but there must be a reason why it isn't "which of us". But that reason might simply be abbreviation.
|
|
|
Post by goofy on Jun 24, 2008 14:33:49 GMT
If it is short for "which of us", then it's not the relative pronoun "which", it's the adjective "which". But in that case, it's not a relevant example for showing relative pronoun "which" with human referents.
But even it is short for "which of us", it's not a usual construction nowadays. Do we leave the noun off "which + prepositional phrases headed by of" nowadays? hm, sometimes we do, but then the which seems to refer to a thing:
I don't know which of them you mean. I don't know which you mean.
He doesn't know which of us he likes. He doesn't know which he likes.
The second sentences get a reading of adjective which referring to a thing (not a human) from me. ymmv.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Jun 24, 2008 17:43:00 GMT
Locked for length.
|
|