Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2024 January 1
| Language desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < December 31 | << Dec | January | Feb >> | January 2 > |
| Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
January 1
editThat or Which?
editI'm confused when to use "that" vs. "which". For example in Special:Diff/1161159656/1192856881 ("=== Aviation ===" section) someone changed "that" to "which". In Special:Diff/1192744109/1193039380 someone changed a couple "which" to "that". -- GreenC 20:40, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- I've never been clear on the difference. My usual rule of thumb is "that" for specifics, "which"for generalities. doktorb wordsdeeds 21:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- See, among other ref-desk threads, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2013 December 13#"Which" and "that". Basically, in American usage, which is used in nonrestrictive relative clauses, and that tends to be used in restrictive relative clauses. In British usage, which tends to be used in both nonrestrictive and restrictive clauses. In your second diff, the user was changing nonrestrictive clauses to restrictive ones; I think the nonrestrictive ones were better. Deor (talk) 22:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- User:Deor: Thank you. We might benefit from a MOS entry because it happens enough, I eventually ended up here confused. Something like MOS:THATWHICH and MOS:WHICHTHAT. I wouldn't know how to compose an entry though. Do you want to try write a quick paragraph here? I can try to add it to the MOS afterwards and see if it stays. At the very least it could point to the 2013 discussion with a summary. -- GreenC 22:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Personally, I think there's too much flexibility in usage to prescribe anything in the MOS. No one uses that in nonrestrictive clauses, and either word is usually OK in restrictive clauses. Deor (talk) 22:30, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- I doubt if no one uses "that" in nonrestrictive clauses. What about nonrestrictive expressions like: "that is by the way", "that is actually", "that is unfortunately", and so forth? AFAIK, such expressions are pretty common. I guess you've only referred to "that" not following any nonrestrictive expressions (like "by the way", "actually", "luckily", etc.). HOTmag (talk) 00:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- I don't readily see how your examples could be used as relative clauses. Can you give an example of a complete sentence? Deor (talk) 15:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- The house we see, that was actualy built a century ago, was my grandfather's house. HOTmag (talk) 16:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- I get it now. I think it's the interposition of "we see" (which is actually itself a relative clause) between the relative clause and its antecedent that allows for that to be used fairly idiomatically in this case, although which might still be the more common choice. I think few people who wanted the clause read nonrestrictively would write "The house, that was actualy built a century ago, was my grandfather's house." Deor (talk) 18:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- But it's pretty common to write: This house, that was actualy built a century ago, was my grandfather's house". HOTmag (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- I get it now. I think it's the interposition of "we see" (which is actually itself a relative clause) between the relative clause and its antecedent that allows for that to be used fairly idiomatically in this case, although which might still be the more common choice. I think few people who wanted the clause read nonrestrictively would write "The house, that was actualy built a century ago, was my grandfather's house." Deor (talk) 18:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- The house we see, that was actualy built a century ago, was my grandfather's house. HOTmag (talk) 16:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- I don't readily see how your examples could be used as relative clauses. Can you give an example of a complete sentence? Deor (talk) 15:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- I doubt if no one uses "that" in nonrestrictive clauses. What about nonrestrictive expressions like: "that is by the way", "that is actually", "that is unfortunately", and so forth? AFAIK, such expressions are pretty common. I guess you've only referred to "that" not following any nonrestrictive expressions (like "by the way", "actually", "luckily", etc.). HOTmag (talk) 00:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Personally, I think there's too much flexibility in usage to prescribe anything in the MOS. No one uses that in nonrestrictive clauses, and either word is usually OK in restrictive clauses. Deor (talk) 22:30, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- User:Deor: Thank you. We might benefit from a MOS entry because it happens enough, I eventually ended up here confused. Something like MOS:THATWHICH and MOS:WHICHTHAT. I wouldn't know how to compose an entry though. Do you want to try write a quick paragraph here? I can try to add it to the MOS afterwards and see if it stays. At the very least it could point to the 2013 discussion with a summary. -- GreenC 22:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- By the way, there's a 1711 short piece by Richard Steele, familiar to some linguists, the "Humble Petition of Who and Which", a pseudo-legal document complaining that the word "That" is muscling in on the territory of "Who" and "Which", though historically the trend was actually the reverse... AnonMoos (talk) 01:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)