Which or That?

inspiredbymusic said:

"I feel a strange ache, like a tender spot inside my chest, which seems to appear whenever I’m ..."
OR
"I feel a strange ache, like a tender spot inside my chest, that seems to appear whenever I’m ..."

Or is either correct?

Click to expand...

Depends on your meaning. Guessing at intent, I'd put it this way:

"I feel a strange ache, a tender spot inside my chest that appears whenever I’m ..."

That is, I'd delete "like" and remove a comma. And I'd delete "seems to," for that matter.

Maybe better yet:

"I feel a strange ache, a tender spot inside my chest, whenever I’m ..."

--Ken

Ken, isn't that a dreaded comma splice? I also think you've changed the meaning by removing 'seems to' (from an unknown cause to a known cause).

I think both of the originals are fine.

Kenn said:

Ken, isn't that a dreaded comma splice? I also think you've changed the meaning by removing 'seems to' (from an unknown cause to a known cause).

I think both of the originals are fine.

Click to expand...

It is an appositive, not a comma splice. As for changing the meaning -- hard to say. Depends on precisely what meaning was intended. Anyway, I thought the originals were wordy (not, of course, pertinent to the point of inquiry).

--Ken

BTW, the five-page, double-column, fine-print discussion of that, relative pronoun, in A Dictionary of Modern English Usage, Second Edition, by H. W. Fowler, revised and edited by Sir Ernest Gowers, might prove interesting. Or horrifying.

--Ken

ResearchGuy said:

It is an appositive, not a comma splice. As for changing the meaning -- hard to say. Depends on precisely what meaning was intended. Anyway, I thought the originals were wordy (not, of course, pertinent to the point of inquiry).

--Ken

Click to expand...

I see what you've done now. The problem was the appositive was incomplete, so it looks like a separate sentence.

Firstly, 'which' and 'that' tend to be used interchangably in UK English (but not US English). 'Which' is intended as a description, whereas 'that' is intended as a definition.

For example, 'the house that I built' indicates it is the house I built. But 'the house, which I built' (notice the comma) indicates a house I built.

In your case, the comma is there naturally. Using either 'which' or 'that' would depend on whether you wish to restrict the ache to whatever it is you associate it with (and only that) or whether it might be triggered by other things as well. Because you say 'seems', I think you have a bit of leeway.

inspiredbymusic said:

"I feel a strange ache, like a tender spot inside my chest, which seems to appear whenever I’m ..."
OR
"I feel a strange ache, like a tender spot inside my chest, that seems to appear whenever I’m ..."

Or is either correct?

Click to expand...

I don't like "which." It's as though you're talking about your chest seeming to appear. I would use "that" and remove the comma before it:

I feel a strange ache, like a tender spot inside my chest that seems to appear whenever I'm...

Quite so! So you are talking about the strange ache that seems to appear, not the tender spot. Although, aren't they the same thing, described two different ways?

In your reconstructed sentence, I think "which" sounds better. Which is always preceded by a comma. "That" isn't -- except in your sentence, you have commas separating your adjective phrase so... which makes more sense.

Get it? Which makes more sense? Okay, I've lost it as well.

that tends to be specific, non-emotional, factual, exact.

which, more general, speculative, emotive, broader.

but in truth, its all a/ context and b/ style.

style being the head-wrecker

Cool!

(Using smileys helps with the insanity.)

inspiredbymusic said:

Ahhhh! I never even thought of that! Now I have officially lost my mind. (I can't even tell if that sentence makes sense!) The problem with your sentence is that it changes the meaning so that it's the "tender spot" that seems to appear, rather than the "strange ache."

What about this?
I feel a strange ache inside my chest, like a tender spot, that/which seems to appear whenever I'm ...
??

Click to expand...

in this case there is an emotional component - it is effecting mood. there is also a broader component, the ache had wider implications.

so its which

ETA. Unless, of course, you are speaking to a doctor, and it all 'official biz' , then it specific, technical, so it becomes 'that'.

Got it?

That is correct. I guess the only reason a comma comes before it is because "like a tender spot in my chest" is a paranthetical statement.

Otherwise, commas usually don't come before "that" only "which."

I went to the store that was on fifth street.

Of course, most of the time if you find "that" next to a to-be verb, the sentence can be fixed to sound much better.

I went to the store on fifth street.

I feel a strange ache, like a tender spot in my chest, appearing whenever I'm ...

If this is UK English - 'which' simply adds some detail, whereas 'that' identifies. A comma always precedes 'which' but not 'that'.

To my eye both sentences are basically wrong whichever option is chosen because the reference of 'which' or 'that' is to the chest and not to the ache or spot.

I would consider rewording the sentence to achieve clarity.

PERHAPS

A strange ache or tender spot seems to appear inside my chest whenever....

Click to expand...

OR to maintain a logical sequence of events

Whenever I... I sense a strange ache or tender spot in my chest.

Click to expand...

inspiredbymusic said:

"I feel a strange ache, like a tender spot inside my chest, which seems to appear whenever I’m ..."
OR
"I feel a strange ache, like a tender spot inside my chest, that seems to appear whenever I’m ..."

Or is either correct?

Click to expand...

Despite popular belief, 'which' can be used in both restrictive (with no comma) and in non-restrictive terms (With a comma):

Without a comma:

Not nearly enough for the social positions which they had to keep up.

+ with preposition:

I'm telling you about a dream in which ordinary things are marvellous

Oxford English guide

Click to expand...

'Which' is defining the previous information so shouldn't be separated.

Which with comma (non-restrictive) is simply parenthetic material: you drop it and the sentence would still make sense:

Any heart condition, which can be lifechanging, can be brought on by lack of exercise

Any heart condition can be brought on by lack of exercise.

You can't get that continuity with the restrictive examples:

Not nearly enough for the social positions.

Just be careful when you're told somehing always goes this way or that way.

Not a knock against you, Chrissy, on the whole, the majority of 'which' usage would perhaps mostly be non-restrictive, but there will be other instances too.

So what I should have said is: which is always preceded by a comma UNLESS it's preceded by a preposition. (in, to, for, from, etc)

But that first example from Oxford English: "Not nearly enough for the social positions which they had to keep up." That's a fragment, not a complete sentence, so I'm a little confused as to how it proves a comma isn't needed?

(Then again, I most often exist in confusion. )

Chrissy said:

But that first example from Oxford English: "Not nearly enough for the social positions which they had to keep up." That's a fragment, not a complete sentence, so I'm a little confused as to how it proves a comma isn't needed?

(Then again, I most often exist in confusion. )

Click to expand...

Lol, okay, I'll defragment for this:

It wasn't nearly enough for the social positions which they had to keep up.

And if we write the example as both restirctive and non-restrictive:

Restrictive:

It wasn't nearly enough for the social positions which they had to keep up.

Non-restrictive:

It wasn't nearly enough for the social positions, which they had to keep up.

Hard seeing why it can't just have the comma right?

Say them out loud and see how the commas affect the nouns around it:

It wasn't nearly enough for the social positions which they had to keep up.

It wasn't nearly enough for the social positions, which they had to keep up.

If you bring in another trick here, you can pin down what's happening.

Restrictive use (without the comma) can drop 'which' and keep it's meaning:

It wasn't nearly enough for the social positions they had to keep up.

non-restrictive 'which' can't be dropped:

It wasn't nearly enough for the social positions, they had to keep up.

Dropping the 'which', it changes the meaning (you're left asking 'they had to keep up with what?')

it shows that 'Which', in non-restrictive usage, is a noun subtittute for the noun previously mentioned, in this case 'social positions' and you can't leave a non-restrsictive noun out without messing up meaning:

It wasn't nearly enough for the social positions, the social positions they had to keep up.

It wasn't nearly enough for the social positions, which they had to keep up.

So the restrictive phrase 'which' is 'narrowing down' the reference to the noun social positions (it's not simply providing additional information).

Okay, I like that.
Restrictive - can drop the which and not lose the meaning. Therefore, no comma.

And now... about this whole i before e thing....