Hatrack River Writers Workshop: Grammar question

This is topic Grammar question in forum Open Discussions About Writing at Hatrack River Writers Workshop.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/writers/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=005478

Posted by Troy (Member # 2640) on :

Can anybody give me, or link me to, a brief primer about when to use that vs. who vs. which?

Also: toward or towards?

Posted by TaleSpinner (Member # 5638) on :

Here's what the OED says:

quote:

When is it correct to use that and when should you use which? The general rule is that, when introducing clauses that define or identify something (known as restrictive relative clauses), it is acceptable to use either that or which: a book which aims to simplify scientific language or a book that aims to simplify scientific language. However, which, but never that, should be used to introduce clauses giving additional information (non-restrictive relative clauses): the book, which costs £15, has sold a million copies not the book, that costs £15, has sold a million copies.

And when the clause applies to someone, and not something, it's "who". E.g. "Asimov, who wrote books that, or which, explained science in popular terms ...". Or, "Sinatra, who charged millions for his performances ..."

The OED also says that "toward" is a chiefly N American variant of "towards".

[This message has been edited by TaleSpinner (edited March 04, 2009).]

Posted by extrinsic (Member # 8019) on :

Oh, boy. Not a lot of help one way or another, but a dictionary offers insights on when to use that, who, or which. One guiding principle comes from distinguishing which part of speech the word usage represents, whether the usage is a pronoun, conjunction, adjective, adverb, function word, preposition, or interjection, and whether referencing a person or a thing.

The grammar debate over toward and towards, along with regard/regards, has no clearcut prescriptive solution, let alone descriptive usages. Does number agreement matter, going towards a single destination, went toward the crowd, as regards the matter of custody, in regard to the questions. Does British usage or American usage dominate. The debate has raged for a while with no clear determination on either side of the pond.

[This message has been edited by extrinsic (edited March 04, 2009).]

Posted by Kathleen Dalton Woodbury (Member # 59) on :

I am helping a woman write her memoirs right now, and every time she talks about someone and says, "So-and-so that did thus-and-such," I cringe. I've told her several times that people are whos not thats, but she continues to do it, so I just change it in the edits. <sigh!>

Posted by extrinsic (Member # 8019) on :

Ms. Dalton-Woodbury, you've piqued my curiosity.

Does she always reference persons with object pronouns? I'd be interested to know if she occasionally references persons close to her with personal pronouns.

I am in sympathy with you, though. I encounter grammatical vice frequently. However, my work copyediting and proofreading transcripts prohibits changes to what was said. If it's said, that's what's recorded.

In the years I've been doing this work I've gotten over cringing at grammatical vices. Even educated speakers lapse into nonstandard English from time to time. One example of grammatical vice with virtues that tickles my fancy is when a witness or deponent uses object pronouns that subconsciously or consciously indicate their feelings toward another person. It's not my friend. That one, the one with the orange jumpsuit on. The one which is sitting over yonder. Hilarious.

Posted by Kathleen Dalton Woodbury (Member # 59) on :

She is "dictating" her own life, so these are people close to her. And I am typing her dictation. My job is to help her get her story down on paper (editing as I type), and I frequently question her wording and suggest ways to avoid repetitive words, etc.

It's a different situation from what you are doing, extrinsic, because she also asks me to tell her what to talk about for her memoirs. Sometimes I think she wants me to read her mind and write that, so she doesn't have to think about how to say things.

I think her use of "that" is just the way she's grown up speaking. There is enough of her "voice" in what she dictates that I don't feel I am "cramping her style" at all. (I don't edit out all the times she calls things "wonderful," for example.)

Posted by oliverhouse (Member # 3432) on :

I'll tell you the rule for "that" vs. "which", but realize that the rule has been broken since before it was formulated.

The way I think of it is this: if you can break off the chunk of the sentence that includes "that" or "which", then use "which" and set it off with commas. If you can't, then use "that" and don't set it off with commas.

"The train, which had been bearing down on us for several minutes, skidded to a halt."

There's a train here, see -- you wouldn't believe it, it had been bearing down on us for several minutes -- anyway, there was this train, and it just skidded to a halt. (The point is that the train skidded to a halt, and the bearing down part is additional information.)

"The carton that contained the jewels was missing."

There's more than one carton, and you know the one that contained the jewels? Well, it's missing. (The point is that this specific carton is the one that's missing. You're not getting the point if you don't understand that it's *that* carton and not one of the cartons without the jewels.)

That said, people have been using "which" when I would choose "that" for centuries. Great writers. "The carton which contained the jewels was missing" would probably have sounded fine to Shakespeare. So don't fret this "rule" too much; but if you want to sound right even to the persnickety, follow the rule.

Posted by Starweaver (Member # 8490) on :

oliverhouse explained it well. I just thought I would add that this "rule" is an academic invention in the first place. Historically, speakers of English have used "that" and "which" without any clear difference in meaning or syntax. Nevertheless, I find the distinction useful and observe it consistently in my own writing.

Posted by annepin (Member # 5952) on :

I believe AP changed their style guide a couple years ago to include the following rule: towards is much like further, in that it refers to qualitative "distance"--He was moving towards chaos. "Toward" is for actual distance. "He moved toward the gun." Not sure about Chicago Manual.

Posted by extrinsic (Member # 8019) on :

Chicago offers no recommendations for toward or towards usage.

Merriam-Webster's English Usage Dictionary makes a rare definitive comment about which is proper in usage. "Letters from our correspondents sometimes seem to be seeking some semantic basis for a differentiation between these forms, but there is none." (1994, pg. 913) I'm not sure about Fowler's English usage dictionary, the British counterpart.

Chicago, though, does offer ten recommendations for prescriptive uses of that, one of which is that versus which usage, descriptive uses notwithstanding.

[This message has been edited by extrinsic (edited March 05, 2009).]

Posted by philocinemas (Member # 8108) on :

I will piggy-back onto what oliverhouse said:

When "which" is separated by commas it begins a nonrestrictive clause, meaning it refers to the preceding information in a more general sense. - I love a good movie, which takes a lot of my time.

"That" will normally not be separated by commas, making it the beginning of a restrictive clause, specifically referring to the immediately preceding word(s). - I love a good movie that takes a lot of my time.

Posted by philocinemas (Member # 8108) on :

I just realized that was what TaleSpinner stated. I suppose I should credit him and the which too.