Which vs. That

boron · Aug 18, 2009

As I understand (source),
in restrictive clauses (providing essential info) preferably that but also which may be used. In non-restrictive clauses (providing additional but not essential info) only which should be used.

Restrictive clause (that contain salt is essential info):

Drinks that contain salt are well absorbed in the intestine.
Drinks which contain salt are well absorbed in the intestine.

Nonrestrictive clause (which was red is additional info):

The ball, which was red, has fallen in the river. (commas, separating nonrestrictive clause from the rest of the sentence must be used)

----------------------------------

According to another "rule", that should be used for persons and which for objects.

Nonrestrictive clause refering to a person:

The doctor, that was quite tall, asked me about my symptoms. (that, because of a "person" rule)
The doctor, which was quite tall, asked me about my symptoms. (which, because of a "non-restrictive clause rule)

Which use is correct and which rule, if there are many, is the main rule?

Bufty · Aug 18, 2009

The whole meaning of this is changed by using 'which'. It suggests all 'drinks' contain salt - and note the required commas.

Drinks [,] which contain salt [,]are well absorbed in the intestine.

Try this earlier thread here. http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums...highlight=Restrictive+non-restrictive+clauses

ETA Shouldn't this nutmeg of a question warrant a place in the FAQ sticky?

boron · Aug 18, 2009

Bufty said:
The whole meaning of this is changed by using 'which'. It suggests all 'drinks' contain salt - and note the required commas.

Try this earlier thread here. http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums...highlight=Restrictive+non-restrictive+clauses

That thread (this exact post), which cannot be found using search feature, because which and that are words that are obviously not serious enough for a search algorithm, confirms my presumption that which is prefered in non-essential clauses and that in essential clauses.

As I understand, they are commas that make a clause non-essential and not which, meaning that I have writen the sentence Water which contains salt is... without commas correctly. To prevent confusion, I will only use that in essential clauses. And I will use who when a clause refers to a person.

If editors here agree, and if that post from that thread is correct, I also think it should be sticky.

Bubastes · Aug 18, 2009

Both which and the commas indicate that it's a non-restrictive clause.

IceCreamEmpress · Aug 18, 2009

boron said:
:

The doctor, that was quite tall, asked me about my symptoms. (that, because of a "person" rule)

The doctor, which was quite tall, asked me about my symptoms. (which, because of a "non-restrictive clause rule)

Neither of these are correct.

It should be "The doctor, WHO was quite tall, asked me about my symptoms" (if you're just describing one doctor), or "The doctor WHO was quite tall asked me about my symptoms" (if you're talking about a group of doctors and trying to single out one particular doctor by height).

You shouldn't use "that" with personal characteristics, and you should never use "that" as a non-restrictive clause with people. "The doctor THAT was on call at that time" is okay (though I think "The doctor WHO was on call at that time" is better), but it should always be "The doctor, WHOM I had noticed playing Boggle on the computer earlier, now seemed to be paying attention."

katiemac · Aug 18, 2009

Also consider these examples:

1. Please bring me the apples that are on the table.

2. Please bring me the apples, which are on the table.

The first sentence is referring to a specific set of apples. There could be apples in the refrigerator, on the floor, but I want the ones that are on the table.

The second sentence is adding description to the apples. There is only one set of apples. Bring me the apples ... I left them on the table.

Which uses a comma. That doesn't. One nice guideline is if you can remove the comma portion and it doesn't make sense, you need to use that.

So then consider the OP's sentences:

1. Drinks that contain salt are well absorbed in the intenstine. (Specific. We're only talking about drinks that contain salt. The kind of drink is very specific.)

2. Drinks, which contain salt, are well absorbed in the intenstine. (Adding description. But this also renders the sentence incorrect. As someone upthread said, this reads like all drinks contain salt, which they do not. This also passes the comma test: "Drinks [removed] are well absorbed in the intestine. The meaning is lost." You need THAT to make the clause essential.)

boron · Aug 19, 2009

I agree. It seems that "permission" to use which in restrictive clauses results in a lot of confusion.

So, I will use that for restrictive clauses, which (with commas) in non-restrictive ones and who for both when refering to persons.

Which vs. That

boron

Health writer

Bufty

Where have the last ten years gone?

boron

Health writer

Bubastes

bananaed

IceCreamEmpress

Hapless Virago

katiemac

Five by Five

boron

Health writer