can read it either way. If it means that they are specifying which sort of bacteria they are talking about -- the ones that move in after the virus -- then it's OK as it stands, and "which" (without a comma) would be OK for many people as well (though I would always write "that").
If they assume you already know which bacteria they are talking about, and are just adding some supplementary information, then "which" with a comma woud be clearer:
"Most deaths are caused by bacterial lung infections, which move in after the virus"
I could of course go and look at the article to see if the context makes it clear which they mean, but after their "Darwin was wrong" publicity stunt a couple of years ago I cancelled my subscription and decided I wouldn't look at the rag again.
Yes, it's fine. Any non-restrictive relative clause can use "that" as a relative pronoun, whether its antecedent is human or non-human, provided the pronoun is not possessive, nor the object of a preposition.
Restrictive relative clauses, which are separated by commas, can never use "that", however. Substitute "that" for the "which" in the previous sentence to see what I mean.
> On 2011-01-02 18:22:44 +0100, Jonn <joh...@mail.invalid> said:
> I could of course go and look at the article to see if the context makes > it clear which they mean, but after their "Darwin was wrong" publicity > stunt a couple of years ago I cancelled my subscription and decided I > wouldn't look at the rag again.
Quite right! It seems to have sunk to the level of the Daily Mail! Graham
> Yes, it's fine. Any non-restrictive relative clause can use "that" as > a relative pronoun, whether its antecedent is human or non-human, > provided the pronoun is not possessive, nor the object of a > preposition.
> Restrictive relative clauses, which are separated by commas, > can never use "that", however. Substitute "that" for the "which" > in the previous sentence to see what I mean.
Along the same lines, Garner, in Modern American Usage, says:
"Your choice, then, is between comma-_which_ and _that_. Use _that_ whenever you can."
>On Jan 2, 9:22 am, Jonn <joh...@mail.invalid> wrote: >> Is the use of the word "that" correct in the following quotation? >> Should it have been replaced by "which"?
>> "Most deaths are caused by bacterial lung infections that move in after >> the virus"
>Yes, it's fine. Any non-restrictive relative clause can use "that" as >a relative pronoun...
Your definitions are the wrong way round.
The OP's sentence is indeed fine - but you mean a restrictive (or defining) clause.
>Restrictive relative clauses, which are separated by commas, >can never use "that", however. Substitute "that" for the "which" >in the previous sentence to see what I mean.
Clauses which ["that" if you prefer] are separated by commas are non-restrictive (or descriptive).
> On Jan 2, 9:22 am, Jonn<joh...@mail.invalid> wrote: >> Is the use of the word "that" correct in the following quotation? >> Should it have been replaced by "which"?
>> "Most deaths are caused by bacterial lung infections that move in after the virus"
> Yes, it's fine. Any non-restrictive relative clause can use "that" as > a relative pronoun, whether its antecedent is human or non-human, > provided the pronoun is not possessive, nor the object of a > preposition.
> Restrictive relative clauses, which are separated by commas, > can never use "that", however. Substitute "that" for the "which" > in the previous sentence to see what I mean.
Looking at your example, I have no idea what you are talking about. "Restrictive clauses, that are separated by commas, can never use X" seems fine to me. I can't say I have ever understood this American distinction. --
On Sun, 02 Jan 2011 17:22:44 GMT, Jonn <joh...@mail.invalid> wrote: >Is the use of the word "that" correct in the following quotation? >Should it have been replaced by "which"?
>"Most deaths are caused by bacterial lung infections that move in after the virus"
Even thought I was told in grammar school and JHS that which and that are the same in this situation, either they weren't or things have changed.
Even though with "which" a comma should be used after infections to make it a non-restrictive clause, I don't think the comma is really necessary.
In other words, "that move in..." is a description of lung infections, but "which move in..." implies there are some lung infections which wouldn't move in.
I may not be describing this accurately, but I like "that" there more than "which".
-- Posters should say where they live, and for which area they are asking questions. I have lived in Western Pa. 10 years Indianapolis 7 years Chicago 6 years Brooklyn, NY 12 years Baltimore 27 years
On Sun, 02 Jan 2011 17:22:44 GMT, Jonn <joh...@mail.invalid> wrote: >Is the use of the word "that" correct in the following quotation? >Should it have been replaced by "which"?
>"Most deaths are caused by bacterial lung infections that move in after the virus"
If it means that bacterial infections move in after the virus in every case, yes.
If it means that bacterial infections may or may not move in after the virus, and that in cases where they do, death is more likely to be caused by the bacterial infection than the virus, then "that" is better. If that is the case, and "that" is used, it means that more people are killed by the subsequent bacterial infection, IF it occurs, than by the virus itself.
If you use "which", you would mean "WHEN it occurs", because it would always occur.
On Mon, 03 Jan 2011 09:09:39 +0800, Robert Bannister wrote:
[...]
> "Restrictive clauses, that are separated by commas, can never use X" > seems fine to me. I can't say I have ever understood this American > distinction.
It isn't American. It is often wrongly attributed to Fowler, whose critics claim that he made it up out of whole cloth; in reality, it had been common practice for decades before Fowler wrote about it, and had been recorded as sound practice at least as early (this is from unaided memory) as 1865 or so (in England).
As Follett puts it, absent this convention, if one writes "the schools which educate our children", only the absence of a comma distinguishes its sense from the rather different "the schools, which educate our children"; as Follett notes, that is an awful lot of weight to place upon the presence or absence of a comma, a mere typographical flyspeck, one that "is so easily lost on its way to the printed page." Thus, about a century and a half or so ago, arose the practice of using "that" for restrictives and "which" (or "who") for nonrestrictives. (In fact, not so long before that, one didn't even have the mere comma, for restrictives were also typically set off by commas, as in Dryden's "All, that can bring my country good, is welcome."
To clarify for those to whom the terms may be confusing: a restrictive relative clause does just that: it _restricts_ the membership of a larger class in some way. A nonrestrictive comments on that class, but does not restrict its membership. A simple example:
Wild geese that fly high are a menace to aviation. [restrictive]
The statement is *restricted* to that subset of the class "wild geese" that includes only those who fly high (there presumably then being others that do not).
Wild geese, which fly high, are a menace to aviation. [nonrestrictive]
There, the comma-separated relative clause merely comments on the class ("wild geese") and does not imply any restriction of its membership.
The difference in meaning is typically significant, and often hugely so, which is why it is so important to make the distinction as clear as possible.
Steve Hayes <hayes...@telkomsa.net> writes: > On Sun, 02 Jan 2011 17:22:44 GMT, Jonn <joh...@mail.invalid> wrote:
>>Is the use of the word "that" correct in the following quotation? >>Should it have been replaced by "which"?
>>"Most deaths are caused by bacterial lung infections that move in after the virus"
> If it means that bacterial infections move in after the virus in every case, > yes.
> If it means that bacterial infections may or may not move in after the virus, > and that in cases where they do, death is more likely to be caused by the > bacterial infection than the virus, then "that" is better. If that is the > case, and "that" is used, it means that more people are killed by the > subsequent bacterial infection, IF it occurs, than by the virus itself.
> If you use "which", you would mean "WHEN it occurs", because it would always > occur.
Pace all those who argue that a comma is adequate, or that that/which makes a difference, these days - and certainly in Britain where the that/which distinction is rarely observed - if there is doubt you probably need to recast the sentence. There's no confusion between:
"Most deaths are caused by bacterial lung infections. These move in after the virus" and "Most deaths caused by bacterial lung infections are by those that move in after the virus". -- Online waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk
On Jan 3, 2:44 am, Eric Walker <em...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Jan 2011 09:09:39 +0800, Robert Bannister wrote:
> [...]
> > "Restrictive clauses, that are separated by commas, can never use X" > > seems fine to me. I can't say I have ever understood this American > > distinction.
> It isn't American. It is often wrongly attributed to Fowler, whose > critics claim that he made it up out of whole cloth; in reality, it had > been common practice for decades before Fowler wrote about it, and had > been recorded as sound practice at least as early (this is from unaided > memory) as 1865 or so (in England).
The earliest proponent I know of the rule is Goold Brown, from his Grammar of English Grammars (1851). The other notable early proponent was Alfred Ayres (pseudonym for Thomas Embly Osmun). He put it forward in The Verbalist (1881) and in his 1884 edition of William Cobbett's English grammar, where he went back and changed Cobbett throughout.
Both Brown and Ayres were American grammarians. The rule may have turned up among English grammarians, but I don't know of an early example. Henry Alford, in his Plea for the Queen's English (1866), devotes a page or two on gender issues with relative pronouns, but does not touch on the issue of restrictive vs. non-restrictive clauses.
None of the early proponents actually claimed that this was an existing rule of English. They, like Fowler, thought it a good idea, but acknowledged that was a novelty, and was not in fact an actual rule of English. This claim arises in the mid-20th century. My memory is that Wilson Follett was the first to make this leap, but I am not sure of this. In any case, it has become widespread among American usage writers, but not among their English counterpart.
So while the rule's proponents are not confined to American usage writers, it is not unreasonable to characterize it as an American rule. This is using "rule" in the sense of assertions by some persons who write on usage. It is not a rule in the sense of accurately describe the language, even if we limit the discussion to American English.
On Tue, 4 Jan 2011 11:37:16 -0800 (PST), "Richard R. Hershberger"
<rrhe...@acme.com> wrote: >None of the early proponents actually claimed that this was an >existing rule of English. They, like Fowler, thought it a good idea, >but acknowledged that was a novelty, and was not in fact an actual >rule of English. This claim arises in the mid-20th century. My >memory is that Wilson Follett was the first to make this leap, but I >am not sure of this. In any case, it has become widespread among >American usage writers, but not among their English counterpart.
>So while the rule's proponents are not confined to American usage >writers, it is not unreasonable to characterize it as an American >rule. This is using "rule" in the sense of assertions by some persons >who write on usage. It is not a rule in the sense of accurately >describe the language, even if we limit the discussion to American >English.
I wouldn't say that it is an "American" rule, unless, perhaps, one insists that it _is_ a "rule". British usage writers, like Gowers, who revised Fowler, point out that it can sometimes clarify things, though it has never been a "rule", just a recommended practice.
"On the whole it makes for smoothness of writing not to use the relative _which_ where _that_ would do as well and not to use either is a sentence makes good sense and runs pleasantly without. But that is a very broad general statement, jubject to many exception.
_That_ cannot be used in a 'commenting' clause; the relatice must be _which_. With a defining clause either _which_ or _that_ is permissible [though, as others have noticed, this is a relatively recent "rule" - Boswell, in his life of Johnson, frequently used _that_ in defining clauses] When in a 'defining clause' the relative is in the objective case, it can often be left out altogether. Thus we have the three variants:
This case ought to go to the Home Office, _which_ deals with police establishments. (Commenting relative clause.)
The Department _that_ deals with police establishments is the Home Office. (Defining relative clause.)
This is the case you said we ought to send to the Home Office (Defining relative clasue in which the pronoun, if it were expressed, would be in the objective case.)"
> To clarify for those to whom the terms may be confusing: a restrictive > relative clause does just that: it _restricts_ the membership of a larger > class in some way. A nonrestrictive comments on that class, but does not > restrict its membership. A simple example:
> Wild geese that fly high are a menace to aviation. [restrictive]
> The statement is *restricted* to that subset of the class "wild geese" > that includes only those who fly high (there presumably then being others > that do not).
> Wild geese, which fly high, are a menace to aviation. [nonrestrictive]
> There, the comma-separated relative clause merely comments on the class > ("wild geese") and does not imply any restriction of its membership.
> The difference in meaning is typically significant, and often hugely so, > which is why it is so important to make the distinction as clear as > possible.
I do understand that one sentence is saying that all wild geese fly high while the other does not, but I have no idea which is which, and for me, neither the comma nor the which/that distinction is helpful. In speech, the intonation makes everything clear, but in writing the clues are tiny and by no means generally agreed on.
I am guessing that "Wild geese, which fly high" is the one that says all wild geese are high fliers, but I'm not sure. --
> > To clarify for those to whom the terms may be confusing: a restrictive > > relative clause does just that: it _restricts_ the membership of a larger > > class in some way. A nonrestrictive comments on that class, but does not > > restrict its membership. A simple example:
> > Wild geese that fly high are a menace to aviation. [restrictive]
> > The statement is *restricted* to that subset of the class "wild geese" > > that includes only those who fly high (there presumably then being others > > that do not).
> > Wild geese, which fly high, are a menace to aviation. [nonrestrictive]
> > There, the comma-separated relative clause merely comments on the class > > ("wild geese") and does not imply any restriction of its membership.
> > The difference in meaning is typically significant, and often hugely so, > > which is why it is so important to make the distinction as clear as > > possible.
> I do understand that one sentence is saying that all wild geese fly high > while the other does not, but I have no idea which is which, and for me, > neither the comma nor the which/that distinction is helpful. In speech, > the intonation makes everything clear, but in writing the clues are tiny > and by no means generally agreed on.
> I am guessing that "Wild geese, which fly high" is the one that says all > wild geese are high fliers, but I'm not sure.
On Tue, 04 Jan 2011 11:37:16 -0800, Richard R. Hershberger wrote:
[...]
> None of the early proponents actually claimed that this was an existing > rule of English. They, like Fowler, thought it a good idea, but > acknowledged that was a novelty, and was not in fact an actual rule of > English. This claim arises in the mid-20th century. My memory is that > Wilson Follett was the first to make this leap, but I am not sure of > this. In any case, it has become widespread among American usage > writers, but not among their English counterpart. . . .
Follett, who was a most sensible fellow, never made any such obviously untrue claim. What he said was (in, of course, small part--the entire article is over five pages long):
It cannot of course be maintained, and Fowler did not try to maintain, that there is any such general agreement among writers. The two points that can be maintained--that cannot, in fact, be gainsaid--are (a) that disagreement in practice is paid for with losses of lucidity and ease and (b) that there is enough solid historical underpinning for _that_ in the restrictive use to show a widely diffused instinct and justify Fowler's recommendation.
I heartily recommend the entire discussion, to be found under "That, Which, Relative" in Follett's _Modern American Usage_ (avoid the Wensburg "update" of that book, akin to Burchfield's "update" of Fowler).
> On Tue, 04 Jan 2011 11:37:16 -0800, Richard R. Hershberger wrote:
> [...]
> > None of the early proponents actually claimed that this was an existing > > rule of English. They, like Fowler, thought it a good idea, but > > acknowledged that was a novelty, and was not in fact an actual rule of > > English. This claim arises in the mid-20th century. My memory is that > > Wilson Follett was the first to make this leap, but I am not sure of > > this. In any case, it has become widespread among American usage > > writers, but not among their English counterpart. . . .
> Follett, who was a most sensible fellow, never made any such obviously > untrue claim. What he said was (in, of course, small part--the entire > article is over five pages long):
> It cannot of course be maintained, and Fowler did not try to maintain, > that there is any such general agreement among writers. The two points > that can be maintained--that cannot, in fact, be gainsaid--are (a) that > disagreement in practice is paid for with losses of lucidity and ease > and (b) that there is enough solid historical underpinning for _that_ > in the restrictive use to show a widely diffused instinct and justify > Fowler's recommendation.
> I heartily recommend the entire discussion, to be found under "That, > Which, Relative" in Follett's _Modern American Usage_ (avoid the Wensburg > "update" of that book, akin to Burchfield's "update" of Fowler).
I should have checked my copy of Follett first. This is a transitional stage: clothing bare assertions in the claim that they "cannot, in fact, be gainsaid" while citing a vague "solid historical underpinning" to "justify Fowler's recommendation" thereby laying down the rule while simultaneously providing ample weasel words. This is rather a gem of the genre.
> On Jan 4, 6:53 pm, Robert Bannister <robb...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> > On 3/01/11 3:44 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
> > > To clarify for those to whom the terms may be confusing: a restrictive > > > relative clause does just that: it _restricts_ the membership of a larger > > > class in some way. A nonrestrictive comments on that class, but does not > > > restrict its membership. A simple example:
> > > Wild geese that fly high are a menace to aviation. [restrictive]
> > > The statement is *restricted* to that subset of the class "wild geese" > > > that includes only those who fly high (there presumably then being others > > > that do not).
> > > Wild geese, which fly high, are a menace to aviation. [nonrestrictive]
> > > There, the comma-separated relative clause merely comments on the class > > > ("wild geese") and does not imply any restriction of its membership.
> > > The difference in meaning is typically significant, and often hugely so, > > > which is why it is so important to make the distinction as clear as > > > possible.
> > I do understand that one sentence is saying that all wild geese fly high > > while the other does not, but I have no idea which is which, and for me, > > neither the comma nor the which/that distinction is helpful. In speech, > > the intonation makes everything clear, but in writing the clues are tiny > > and by no means generally agreed on.
> > I am guessing that "Wild geese, which fly high" is the one that says all > > wild geese are high fliers, but I'm not sure.
> You're right.
> -- > Jerry Friedman
Yep.
The way to tell is to say it out loud (or loud enough for your mind's ear), and notice how the intonation goes. If you hear a dip in intonation before the clause, it's NON-restrictive -- it doesn't impose any restrictions on the referent, just adds extra information (these are sometimes called "parenthetic" relative clauses). Non-restrictive clauses must use commas, and "which" or "who" for relative pronouns, but not "that".
If you don't get the intonation dip, then it's a restrictive relative clause and limits the referent to the kind described in the clause. Restrictive clauses are by far the most common kind, and they can do all kinds of tricks, like using "that", or even deleting non-subject pronouns.
-John Lawler http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler/punctuation.html "If a sentence really has something of importance to say, something quite remarkable, it doesn't need a mark to point it out. And if it is really, after all, a banal sentence needing more zing, the exclamation point simply emphasizes its banality!" -- Lewis Thomas, 'Notes on Punctuation'
> On Jan 4, 6:51 pm, Jerry Friedman<jerry_fried...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Jan 4, 6:53 pm, Robert Bannister<robb...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>>> On 3/01/11 3:44 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
>>>> To clarify for those to whom the terms may be confusing: a restrictive >>>> relative clause does just that: it _restricts_ the membership of a larger >>>> class in some way. A nonrestrictive comments on that class, but does not >>>> restrict its membership. A simple example:
>>>> Wild geese that fly high are a menace to aviation. [restrictive]
>>>> The statement is *restricted* to that subset of the class "wild geese" >>>> that includes only those who fly high (there presumably then being others >>>> that do not).
>>>> Wild geese, which fly high, are a menace to aviation. [nonrestrictive]
>>>> There, the comma-separated relative clause merely comments on the class >>>> ("wild geese") and does not imply any restriction of its membership.
>>>> The difference in meaning is typically significant, and often hugely so, >>>> which is why it is so important to make the distinction as clear as >>>> possible.
>>> I do understand that one sentence is saying that all wild geese fly high >>> while the other does not, but I have no idea which is which, and for me, >>> neither the comma nor the which/that distinction is helpful. In speech, >>> the intonation makes everything clear, but in writing the clues are tiny >>> and by no means generally agreed on.
>>> I am guessing that "Wild geese, which fly high" is the one that says all >>> wild geese are high fliers, but I'm not sure.
>> You're right.
>> -- >> Jerry Friedman
> Yep.
> The way to tell is to say it out loud (or loud enough for your > mind's ear), and notice how the intonation goes. If you hear a > dip in intonation before the clause, it's NON-restrictive -- it > doesn't impose any restrictions on the referent, just adds > extra information (these are sometimes called "parenthetic" > relative clauses)
Ah. Finally, a term that I can understand and possibly remember. So if it's in parentheses (non-AmE meaning of "parenthesis"), then it's non-restrictive. Got it. But I'm dubious about not being able to use "that", which seems perfectly normal to me.
> and "which" or "who" for relative pronouns, but not "that".
> If you don't get the intonation dip, then it's a restrictive relative > clause and limits the referent to the kind described in the clause. > Restrictive clauses are by far the most common kind, and they > can do all kinds of tricks, like using "that", or even deleting > non-subject pronouns.
> -John Lawler http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler/punctuation.html > "If a sentence really has something of importance to say, > something quite remarkable, it doesn't need a mark to point > it out. And if it is really, after all, a banal sentence > needing more zing, the exclamation point simply emphasizes > its banality!" -- Lewis Thomas, 'Notes on Punctuation'
> Ah. Finally, a term that I can understand and possibly remember. So if > it's in parentheses (non-AmE meaning of "parenthesis"), then it's > non-restrictive. Got it. But I'm dubious about not being able to use > "that", which seems perfectly normal to me.
Addendum: the only time I feel forced to use "which" is when it refers to the entire preceding clause, which doesn't occur all that often.
On Jan 5, 5:42 pm, Robert Bannister <robb...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> On 6/01/11 9:40 AM, Robert Bannister wrote:
> > Ah. Finally, a term that I can understand and possibly remember. So if > > it's in parentheses (non-AmE meaning of "parenthesis"), then it's > > non-restrictive. Got it. But I'm dubious about not being able to use > > "that", which seems perfectly normal to me.
> Addendum: the only time I feel forced to use "which" is when it refers > to the entire preceding clause, which doesn't occur all that often.
> --
> Rob Bannister
You used two in this post. The first one ("which seems perfectly normal to me") modifies '"that"'. The second ("which doesn't occur all that often"), does refer to the entire preceding clause. Neither can use "that" as a relative pronoun.
> On Jan 5, 5:42 pm, Robert Bannister <robb...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> > On 6/01/11 9:40 AM, Robert Bannister wrote:
> > > Ah. Finally, a term that I can understand and possibly remember. So if > > > it's in parentheses (non-AmE meaning of "parenthesis"), then it's > > > non-restrictive. Got it. But I'm dubious about not being able to use > > > "that", which seems perfectly normal to me.
> > Addendum: the only time I feel forced to use "which" is when it refers > > to the entire preceding clause, which doesn't occur all that often.
> > --
> > Rob Bannister
> You used two in this post. The first one ("which seems perfectly > normal to me") modifies '"that"'. The second ("which doesn't occur > all that often"), does refer to the entire preceding clause.
And I feel sure it was intentional.
> Neither can use "that" as a relative pronoun.
I hope you'll take a look at this thread, if you haven't already:
It's about a British reporter who habitually uses "that" nonrestrictively. See especially the posts that are currently numbered 8 (Peter Moylan on Jan. 2) and 10 (Vinny Burgoo on Jan. 3).
On Wed, 05 Jan 2011 07:49:18 -0800, Richard R. Hershberger wrote:
[...]
> I should have checked my copy of Follett first. This is a transitional > stage: clothing bare assertions in the claim that they "cannot, in fact, > be gainsaid" while citing a vague "solid historical underpinning" to > "justify Fowler's recommendation" thereby laying down the rule while > simultaneously providing ample weasel words. This is rather a gem of > the genre.
I hear the very plain sound of an ax being ground, one that is--to mix metaphors--rather a gem of the kind.
If you feel you can competently gainsay either--
(a) that disagreement in practice [with the recommended practices] is paid for with losses of lucidity and ease . . .
--or--
(b) that there is enough solid historical underpinning for _that_ in the restrictive use to show a widely diffused instinct and justify Fowler's recommendation.
--please do so explicitly.
If you feel the historical underpinning is "vague"--despite your own citation of several discussions of the matter long prior to Fowler's-- kindly say what is "vague" about them.
What Follett laid down was what Fowler laid down: a strong recommendation. Wise writers have long followed it, unwise ones not.
On Mon, 3 Jan 2011 07:44:03 +0000 (UTC), Eric Walker wrote: >As Follett puts it, absent this convention, if one writes "the schools >which educate our children", only the absence of a comma distinguishes >its sense from the rather different "the schools, which educate our >children"; as Follett notes, that is an awful lot of weight to place upon >the presence or absence of a comma, a mere typographical flyspeck, one >that "is so easily lost on its way to the printed page."
It's no more or less weight than we put on the commas which set off any other nonrestrictive modifier. Isn't it a little backwards to justify an insistence that a comma *always* precede a word by complaining that the meaning is changed when that comma is accidentally lost? "Never burn your logs in a stove; always put them in the fireplace. How else will you know the andirons are broken if the burning logs don't roll out?"
