About relative pronoun ' that ' ....
이창현
จ็ Whales, which cannot breathe under water, have lungs instead of gills.
จ่ Whales which cannot breathe under water have lungs instead of gills.
In sentence จ่, we can use relative pronoun 'that' instead of 'which'. can't
we??
However, in sentence จ็ it (=relative pronoun 'that') cannot be used
instead of 'which'.
Why?? What makes it impossible? Please answer me~
david56
> First of all, please read two sentences below.
>
> ?ç Whales, which cannot breathe under water, have lungs instead of gills.
>
> ?è Whales which cannot breathe under water have lungs instead of gills.
>
> In sentence ?è, we can use relative pronoun 'that' instead of 'which'. can't
> we??
>
> However, in sentence ?ç it (=relative pronoun 'that') cannot be used
> instead of 'which'.
>
> Why?? What makes it impossible? Please answer me~
The commas in the first sentence are there to delimit the phrase
which is a definition - I.e. "whales cannot breathe under water".
The second sentence makes no sense, as it implies that there must be
some other whales which can breathe underwater and do not have lungs.
I'm not sure how to answer your question as it is confused by this
difference in meaning.
--
David
=====
Joanne Marinelli
"이창현" <ggi...@nate.com> wrote in message
news:2fv7goF...@uni-berlin.de...
> First of all, please read two sentences below.
>
>
>
> ② Whales which cannot breathe under water have lungs instead of gills.
>
>
> In sentence ②, we can use relative pronoun 'that' instead of 'which'.
can't
> we??
>
> However, in sentence ① it (=relative pronoun 'that') cannot be used
> instead of 'which'.
>
> Why?? What makes it impossible? Please answer me~
>
>
second sentence is incorrect because (which cannot breathe under water) is a
non-restrictive clause, and the commas indicate that.
"that" is used to refer to singular nouns:
THAT whale, which cannot breathe underwater, has lungs instead of gills.
Joanne
Carmen L. Abruzzi
> First of all, please read two sentences below.
>
>
> จ็ Whales, which cannot breathe under water, have lungs instead of gills.
>
> จ่ Whales which cannot breathe under water have lungs instead of gills.
>
>
> In sentence จ่, we can use relative pronoun 'that' instead of 'which'. can't
> we??
I love your enumeration things. Very original.
>
> However, in sentence จ็ it (=relative pronoun 'that') cannot be used
> instead of 'which'.
>
> Why?? What makes it impossible? Please answer me~
>
All whales cannot breathe underwater, so sentence ่ is simply
factually incorrect in its implication that there be whales that can
breathe underwater. Furthermore, whales don't have lungs instead of
gills, they have mandibles and ear bones instead of gills. They have
lungs instead of air bladders, so that they can breathe.
meirman
<ggi...@nate.com> posted:
>First of all, please read two sentences below.
>
>
>¨ç Whales, which cannot breathe under water, have lungs instead of gills.
>
>¨è Whales which cannot breathe under water have lungs instead of gills.
>
>
>In sentence ¨è, we can use relative pronoun 'that' instead of 'which'. can't
>we??
Yes.
>However, in sentence ¨ç it (=relative pronoun 'that') cannot be used
>instead of 'which'.
I disagree.
>Why?? What makes it impossible? Please answer me~
If it were impossible, it would probably be a matter of custom. There
are a lot of cases for which the only rule is one that gives no real
reason and just repeats what the practice is. If you read enough and
listen to enough radio and go to enough movies (except a few that use
bad grammar) you'll get it.
First answer:
If for your second sentence you had used a sentence that didn't imply
a falsehood, you would be in better shape.
Try:
Trees which lose their leaves in the fall are common in America.
You can replace which with that.
Trees, which in most cases lose their leaves in the fall, are common
in America.
I think you can replace which with that here too, but it doesn't
sound quite as good as which.
I don't know, but maybe in ontogeny or form lungs in whales replace
air bladders, but in function, they surely replace gills, in at least
some meanings of the word "replace".. Both gills and lungs are used
to enable an animal to breathe. You didn't say "replace" but "have
instead of" and that sounds fine to me.
>
s/ meirman If you are emailing me please
say if you are posting the same response.
Born west of Pittsburgh Pa. 10 years
Indianapolis, 7 years
Chicago, 6 years
Brooklyn NY 12 years
Baltimore 20 years
Peter Duncanson
It depends what you mean by "instead of". Lungs and gills are respiratory
organs. In that functional sense it seems fair to say that whales have
lungs instead of the gills possessed by fish.
--
Peter Duncanson
UK
(posting from a.e.u)
David Trimboli
>
>
>
> ② Whales which cannot breathe under water have lungs instead of gills.
>
>
> In sentence ②, we can use relative pronoun 'that' instead of 'which'.
can't
> we??
>
> However, in sentence ① it (=relative pronoun 'that') cannot be used
> instead of 'which'.
>
> Why?? What makes it impossible? Please answer me~
"Which" is used to describe or define something. "That" is used to define a
subset of something. The "which" clause may be removed from the sentence,
leaving the meaning is unchanged. Removing the "that" clause from the
sentence will change the meaning of the sentence.
In sentence ①, "which cannot breathe under water" is used to describe
"whales." If you remove the "which" clause, the meaning of the sentence
doesn't change: "Whales have lungs instead of gills."
"Whales that cannot breathe under water have lungs instead of gills." In
this sentence, "that cannot breathe under water" makes the subject of the
sentence a subset of the set "whales." It implies that there may be a
subset of whales "that can breathe underwater." The sentence is not
semantically identical to "Whales have lungs instead of gills."
"Which" does not change the scope of the head of the clause. "That" changes
the scope to a subset of the head of the clause.
When describing people, "which" is replaced with "who" or "whom."
David
Stardate 4349.4
Eric Walker
> First of all, please read two sentences below.
>
> [1] Whales, which cannot breathe under water, have lungs instead of gills.
>
> [2] Whales which cannot breathe under water have lungs instead of gills.
>
> In sentence [2], we can use relative pronoun 'that' instead of 'which'. can't
> we??
>
> However, in sentence [1] it (=relative pronoun 'that') cannot be used
> instead of 'which'.
>
> Why?? What makes it impossible? Please answer me~
First, let us avoid the needless complication of an apparently
counterfactual statement, so that we can focus on the grammar.
Try these:
1. Wild geese, which fly high, are a menace to aviation.
2. Wild geese that fly high are a menace to aviation.
The distinction is between the nature of the relative clauses
"which fly high" and "that fly high". (They are "relative"
clauses because they are introduced by a relative pronoun, one
that "relates" the clause to the sentence in which it lies,
inasmuch as "That fly high" is not a standalone clause like
"Wild geese fly high" is.)
Clauses my be "restrictive" or "nonrestrictive", and, as sense
suggests, which sort they are depends on whether they do or do
not "restrict" the class of things represented by the noun that
their relative pronoun harks back to--in this case, "wild geese".
In #1, there is *no* restriction: the clause makes a general
statement about all wild geese. In #2, there *is* restriction,
because the clause limits the application of the remark to only
those wild geese that fly high (which presumably some do not, or
at least might not).
Nonrestrictive relative clauses, as in sentence #1 above, are
invariably constructed with "which"; it would be a rare and
strange thing to see "Wild geese, that fly high, &c." But
sentences of the form of #2 are mildly controversial.
No one of any least sense can doubt that it would be helpful to
be able to rely on the actual relative pronoun, rather than the
simple presence or, worse, mere absence of a comma or two to
clearly mark the character of a relative clause.
Recommendations that "that" be used to the complete exclusion of
"which" in restrictive relative clauses are at least a century
and a half old (they are not the brainchild of H. W. Fowler, who
merely added his voice to the already strong chorus). But those
who, for such reasons as may seem good and sufficient to them,
do not like definiteness or clarity or simplicity in language
insist that one is free to construct #2 types as one pleases.
That is so in the sense that no men in black suits will carry a
perpetrator off in the dark of night. Indeed, some generally
reputable writers occasionally may be seen engaging in such
laxness. But careful writers generally will be found to use
"that" for restrictives and "which" for nonrestrictives, to the
satisfaction of their readers and listeners.
(The answer to your actual question of what makes "that"
impossible in #1 sentences, those with nonrestrictive relative
clauses, is probably best expressed as "idiom" rather than
grammar: did one write "Wild geese, that fly high, are a menace
to aviation", it would clearly be a solecism, but whether one
could say it breaches grammar or simply cast-iron idiom is hard
to say--and immaterial.)