Re: That and Which--is it worth it?

[Lori Lathrop <76620 -dot- 456 -at- COMPUSERVE -dot- COM>]

In response to Gail DeCamp (INTERNET:decampg -at- SMTPLINK -dot- NGC -dot- COM), who wrote:

>   I have a that/which question. I've had reputable sources tell me that
>   there are distinct rules for using "that" and "which"....namely, that
>   one is restrictive and the other is not. [snip]

>   Does anyone else out there follow this rule? It seems pretty subtle to
>   me. (If it changed the meaning of a sentence, I might worry about it,
>   but otherwise I would not.)

Gail -- That's the general rule that most editors follow and, I agree,
it *is* awfully subtle.  My venerable old copy of Fowler's _Modern
English Usage_ helps make the distinction a little clearer; it says:

        "The two kinds of relative clause, to one of which *that* and
        to the other of which *which* is appropriate, are the defining
        and the non-defining; & if writers would agree to regard *that*
        as the defining relative pronoun, & *which* as the non-defining,
        there would be much gain both in lucidity & in ease....

        "A defining relative clause is one that identifies the person
        or thing meant by limiting the denotation of the antecedant;
        ~Each made a list of books that had influenced him;~ not books
        generally, but books as defined by the that-clause.  Contrast
        with that: ~I always buy his books, which have influenced me
        greatly;~ the clause does not limit *his books*,which needs no
        limitation; it gives a reason (= for they have), or adds a new
        fact (= & they have)...."

Hope this helps.  BTW, Fowler's is out of print, but you can probably
find one in a good used book store.

Lori Lathrop ----------> INTERNET:76620 -dot- 456 -at- compuserve -dot- com
Lathrop Media Services
Georgetown, CO
(303)567-4011