Are there any rules for "which" versus "that" usage?

[Arindam Banerjee]

Are there any rules for "which" versus "that" usage?

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[Dingbat]

On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 8:12:15 AM UTC+5:30, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> Are there any rules for "which" versus "that" usage?
> Cheers,
> Arindam Banerjee

In 'that which', 'that' comes first:->

For other answers, try this:
https://www.google.com/search?q=which+vs.+that

[Peter Moylan]

On 2017-Apr-18 13:12, Dingbat wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 8:12:15 AM UTC+5:30, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>> Are there any rules for "which" versus "that" usage?
>
> In 'that which', 'that' comes first:->

Which that?

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

[Dingbat]

On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 8:12:15 AM UTC+5:30, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> Are there any rules for "which" versus "that" usage?
> Cheers,
> Arindam Banerjee

1) In 'that which', 'that' comes first:->
2) 'Ding dong, that witch is dead,' however, doesn't have a 'which':->

For less facetious answers, try this:
https://www.google.com/search?q=which+vs.+that

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 1:22:46 PM UTC+10, Dingbat wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 8:12:15 AM UTC+5:30, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > Are there any rules for "which" versus "that" usage?
> > Cheers,
> > Arindam Banerjee
>
> 1) In 'that which', 'that' comes first:->
> 2) 'Ding dong, that witch is dead,' however, doesn't have a 'which':->
>
> For less facetious answers, try this:
> https://www.google.com/search?q=which+vs.+that

http://www.writersdigest.com/online-editor/which-vs-that
is one result and that states that the two sentences:

Our office, which has two lunchrooms, is located in Cincinnati.
Our office that has two lunchrooms is located in Cincinnati.

are not the same as they have different meanings. Fair enough.

My question is will they not have the same meaning if the commas in 1 are
removed? Or if two commas are put in 2 to ensure fairness.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Monday, April 17, 2017 at 11:32:46 PM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 1:22:46 PM UTC+10, Dingbat wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 8:12:15 AM UTC+5:30, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > Are there any rules for "which" versus "that" usage?
> > > Cheers,
> > > Arindam Banerjee
> >
> > 1) In 'that which', 'that' comes first:->
> > 2) 'Ding dong, that witch is dead,' however, doesn't have a 'which':->
> >
> > For less facetious answers, try this:
> > https://www.google.com/search?q=which+vs.+that
>
> http://www.writersdigest.com/online-editor/which-vs-that
> is one result and that states that the two sentences:
>
> Our office, which has two lunchrooms, is located in Cincinnati.
> Our office that has two lunchrooms is located in Cincinnati.
>
> are not the same as they have different meanings. Fair enough.
>
> My question is will they not have the same meaning if the commas in 1 are
> removed? Or if two commas are put in 2 to ensure fairness.

Regardless of what style fascists tell you, you can use either "which" or "that"
in restrictive relative clauses, only "which" in non-restrictive relative clauses.

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 1:41:59 PM UTC+10, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Monday, April 17, 2017 at 11:32:46 PM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 1:22:46 PM UTC+10, Dingbat wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 8:12:15 AM UTC+5:30, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > Are there any rules for "which" versus "that" usage?
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Arindam Banerjee
> > >
> > > 1) In 'that which', 'that' comes first:->
> > > 2) 'Ding dong, that witch is dead,' however, doesn't have a 'which':->
> > >
> > > For less facetious answers, try this:
> > > https://www.google.com/search?q=which+vs.+that
> >
> > http://www.writersdigest.com/online-editor/which-vs-that
> > is one result and that states that the two sentences:
> >
> > Our office, which has two lunchrooms, is located in Cincinnati.
> > Our office that has two lunchrooms is located in Cincinnati.
> >
> > are not the same as they have different meanings. Fair enough.
> >
> > My question is will they not have the same meaning if the commas in 1 are
> > removed? Or if two commas are put in 2 to ensure fairness.
>
> Regardless of what style fascists tell you, you can use either "which" or "that"
> in restrictive relative clauses, only "which" in non-restrictive relative clauses.

So "that" is a subset of "which". But I am not sure. "That is good" and "Which is good" provide different meanings. The former points while the latter decides.

[Dingbat]

On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 10:02:32 AM UTC+5:30, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 1:41:59 PM UTC+10, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Monday, April 17, 2017 at 11:32:46 PM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 1:22:46 PM UTC+10, Dingbat wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 8:12:15 AM UTC+5:30, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > > Are there any rules for "which" versus "that" usage?
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > Arindam Banerjee
> > > >
> > > > 1) In 'that which', 'that' comes first:->
> > > > 2) 'Ding dong, that witch is dead,' however, doesn't have a 'which':->
> > > >
> > > > For less facetious answers, try this:
> > > > https://www.google.com/search?q=which+vs.+that
> > >
> > > http://www.writersdigest.com/online-editor/which-vs-that
> > > is one result and that states that the two sentences:
> > >
> > > Our office, which has two lunchrooms, is located in Cincinnati.
> > > Our office that has two lunchrooms is located in Cincinnati.
> > >
> > > are not the same as they have different meanings. Fair enough.
> > >
> > > My question is will they not have the same meaning if the commas in 1 are
> > > removed? Or if two commas are put in 2 to ensure fairness.
> >
> > Regardless of what style fascists tell you, you can use either "which" or
> > "that" in restrictive relative clauses, only "which" in non-restrictive
> > relative clauses.
>
> So "that" is a subset of "which". But I am not sure. "That is good" and "Which is good" provide different meanings. The former points while the latter decides.

This might do the trick:
Don't consider trying to replace 'that' with 'which'; compose a first draft using 'which' where it seems usable, and judiciously use rule/style guides to consider which instances of 'which' to replace with 'that'.

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 2:38:27 PM UTC+10, Dingbat wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 10:02:32 AM UTC+5:30, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 1:41:59 PM UTC+10, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > On Monday, April 17, 2017 at 11:32:46 PM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 1:22:46 PM UTC+10, Dingbat wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 8:12:15 AM UTC+5:30, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > > > Are there any rules for "which" versus "that" usage?
> > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > Arindam Banerjee
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) In 'that which', 'that' comes first:->
> > > > > 2) 'Ding dong, that witch is dead,' however, doesn't have a 'which':->
> > > > >
> > > > > For less facetious answers, try this:
> > > > > https://www.google.com/search?q=which+vs.+that
> > > >
> > > > http://www.writersdigest.com/online-editor/which-vs-that
> > > > is one result and that states that the two sentences:
> > > >
> > > > Our office, which has two lunchrooms, is located in Cincinnati.
> > > > Our office that has two lunchrooms is located in Cincinnati.
> > > >
> > > > are not the same as they have different meanings. Fair enough.
> > > >
> > > > My question is will they not have the same meaning if the commas in 1 are
> > > > removed? Or if two commas are put in 2 to ensure fairness.
> > >
> > > Regardless of what style fascists tell you, you can use either "which" or
> > > "that" in restrictive relative clauses, only "which" in non-restrictive
> > > relative clauses.
> >
> > So "that" is a subset of "which". But I am not sure. "That is good" and "Which is good" provide different meanings. The former points while the latter decides.
>
> This might do the trick:
> Don't consider trying to replace 'that' with 'which'; compose a first draft using 'which' where it seems usable, and judiciously use rule/style guides to consider which instances of 'which' to replace with 'that'.

Very sensible but where are the rule/style guides? Talk of restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses are theoretical and anyway not suited for Tesol.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 12:32:32 AM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 1:41:59 PM UTC+10, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Monday, April 17, 2017 at 11:32:46 PM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 1:22:46 PM UTC+10, Dingbat wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 8:12:15 AM UTC+5:30, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

> > > > > Are there any rules for "which" versus "that" usage?
> > > > 1) In 'that which', 'that' comes first:->
> > > > 2) 'Ding dong, that witch is dead,' however, doesn't have a 'which':->
> > > > For less facetious answers, try this:
> > > > https://www.google.com/search?q=which+vs.+that
> > > http://www.writersdigest.com/online-editor/which-vs-that
> > > is one result and that states that the two sentences:
> > > Our office, which has two lunchrooms, is located in Cincinnati.
> > > Our office that has two lunchrooms is located in Cincinnati.
> > > are not the same as they have different meanings. Fair enough.
> > > My question is will they not have the same meaning if the commas in 1 are
> > > removed? Or if two commas are put in 2 to ensure fairness.
> > Regardless of what style fascists tell you, you can use either "which" or "that"
> > in restrictive relative clauses, only "which" in non-restrictive relative clauses.
>
> So "that" is a subset of "which". But I am not sure. "That is good" and "Which is good" provide different meanings. The former points while the latter decides.

You have inexplicably mixed together deictics ("that item over there") and interrogatives
(maybe) ("which of those things is good"), neither of which has anything to do with
relative clauses.

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 10:35:15 PM UTC+10, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 12:32:32 AM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 1:41:59 PM UTC+10, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > On Monday, April 17, 2017 at 11:32:46 PM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 1:22:46 PM UTC+10, Dingbat wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 8:12:15 AM UTC+5:30, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>
> > > > > > Are there any rules for "which" versus "that" usage?
> > > > > 1) In 'that which', 'that' comes first:->
> > > > > 2) 'Ding dong, that witch is dead,' however, doesn't have a 'which':->
> > > > > For less facetious answers, try this:
> > > > > https://www.google.com/search?q=which+vs.+that
> > > > http://www.writersdigest.com/online-editor/which-vs-that
> > > > is one result and that states that the two sentences:
> > > > Our office, which has two lunchrooms, is located in Cincinnati.
> > > > Our office that has two lunchrooms is located in Cincinnati.
> > > > are not the same as they have different meanings. Fair enough.
> > > > My question is will they not have the same meaning if the commas in 1 are
> > > > removed? Or if two commas are put in 2 to ensure fairness.
> > > Regardless of what style fascists tell you, you can use either "which" or "that"
> > > in restrictive relative clauses, only "which" in non-restrictive relative clauses.
> >
> > So "that" is a subset of "which". But I am not sure. "That is good" and "Which is good" provide different meanings. The former points while the latter decides.
>
> You have inexplicably mixed together deictics ("that item over there") and interrogatives
> (maybe) ("which of those things is good"), neither of which has anything to do with
> relative clauses.

The point is when to use "which" and when to use "that" - are there any standard
rules? Talking of clauses confuses the issue for the tesol purpose. One rule
which I may have stumbled upon is the above. Are there others, or is this the
only one that can be taught to say a student from Syria in Grade 1/2?

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 10:04:32 AM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 10:35:15 PM UTC+10, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 12:32:32 AM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 1:41:59 PM UTC+10, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > > On Monday, April 17, 2017 at 11:32:46 PM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 1:22:46 PM UTC+10, Dingbat wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 8:12:15 AM UTC+5:30, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > Are there any rules for "which" versus "that" usage?
> > > > > > 1) In 'that which', 'that' comes first:->
> > > > > > 2) 'Ding dong, that witch is dead,' however, doesn't have a 'which':->
> > > > > > For less facetious answers, try this:
> > > > > > https://www.google.com/search?q=which+vs.+that
> > > > > http://www.writersdigest.com/online-editor/which-vs-that
> > > > > is one result and that states that the two sentences:
> > > > > Our office, which has two lunchrooms, is located in Cincinnati.
> > > > > Our office that has two lunchrooms is located in Cincinnati.
> > > > > are not the same as they have different meanings. Fair enough.
> > > > > My question is will they not have the same meaning if the commas in 1 are
> > > > > removed? Or if two commas are put in 2 to ensure fairness.
> > > > Regardless of what style fascists tell you, you can use either "which" or "that"
> > > > in restrictive relative clauses, only "which" in non-restrictive relative clauses.
> > >
> > > So "that" is a subset of "which". But I am not sure. "That is good" and "Which is good" provide different meanings. The former points while the latter decides.
> >
> > You have inexplicably mixed together deictics ("that item over there") and interrogatives
> > (maybe) ("which of those things is good"), neither of which has anything to do with
> > relative clauses.
>
> The point is when to use "which" and when to use "that" - are there any standard
> rules? Talking of clauses confuses the issue for the tesol purpose. One rule
> which I may have stumbled upon is the above. Are there others, or is this the
> only one that can be taught to say a student from Syria in Grade 1/2?

If you mean 6- and 7-year-olds, they are not taught such "rules." At that age,
children acquire new languages by being in communities that speak the languages.

No one is taught such "rules" until they speak the language and are required to
write essays.

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 12:59:56 AM UTC+10, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 10:04:32 AM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 10:35:15 PM UTC+10, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 12:32:32 AM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 1:41:59 PM UTC+10, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, April 17, 2017 at 11:32:46 PM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 1:22:46 PM UTC+10, Dingbat wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 8:12:15 AM UTC+5:30, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > > > Are there any rules for "which" versus "that" usage?
> > > > > > > 1) In 'that which', 'that' comes first:->
> > > > > > > 2) 'Ding dong, that witch is dead,' however, doesn't have a 'which':->
> > > > > > > For less facetious answers, try this:
> > > > > > > https://www.google.com/search?q=which+vs.+that
> > > > > > http://www.writersdigest.com/online-editor/which-vs-that
> > > > > > is one result and that states that the two sentences:
> > > > > > Our office, which has two lunchrooms, is located in Cincinnati.
> > > > > > Our office that has two lunchrooms is located in Cincinnati.
> > > > > > are not the same as they have different meanings. Fair enough.
> > > > > > My question is will they not have the same meaning if the commas in 1 are
> > > > > > removed? Or if two commas are put in 2 to ensure fairness.
> > > > > Regardless of what style fascists tell you, you can use either "which" or "that"
> > > > > in restrictive relative clauses, only "which" in non-restrictive relative clauses.
> > > >
> > > > So "that" is a subset of "which". But I am not sure. "That is good" and "Which is good" provide different meanings. The former points while the latter decides.
> > >
> > > You have inexplicably mixed together deictics ("that item over there") and interrogatives
> > > (maybe) ("which of those things is good"), neither of which has anything to do with
> > > relative clauses.
> >
> > The point is when to use "which" and when to use "that" - are there any standard
> > rules? Talking of clauses confuses the issue for the tesol purpose. One rule
> > which I may have stumbled upon is the above. Are there others, or is this the
> > only one that can be taught to say a student from Syria in Grade 1/2?
>
> If you mean 6- and 7-year-olds, they are not taught such "rules." At that age,
> children acquire new languages by being in communities that speak the languages.
>
> No one is taught such "rules" until they speak the language and are required to
> write essays.

You are completely wrong. But what's new.

[Robert Bannister]

On 19/4/17 6:12 am, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 12:59:56 AM UTC+10, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 10:04:32 AM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 10:35:15 PM UTC+10, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 12:32:32 AM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 1:41:59 PM UTC+10, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>>>> On Monday, April 17, 2017 at 11:32:46 PM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 1:22:46 PM UTC+10, Dingbat wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 8:12:15 AM UTC+5:30, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Are there any rules for "which" versus "that" usage?
>>>>>>>> 1) In 'that which', 'that' comes first:->
>>>>>>>> 2) 'Ding dong, that witch is dead,' however, doesn't have a 'which':->
>>>>>>>> For less facetious answers, try this:
>>>>>>>> https://www.google.com/search?q=which+vs.+that
>>>>>>> http://www.writersdigest.com/online-editor/which-vs-that
>>>>>>> is one result and that states that the two sentences:
>>>>>>> Our office, which has two lunchrooms, is located in Cincinnati.
>>>>>>> Our office that has two lunchrooms is located in Cincinnati.
>>>>>>> are not the same as they have different meanings. Fair enough.
>>>>>>> My question is will they not have the same meaning if the commas in 1 are
>>>>>>> removed? Or if two commas are put in 2 to ensure fairness.
>>>>>> Regardless of what style fascists tell you, you can use either "which" or "that"
>>>>>> in restrictive relative clauses, only "which" in non-restrictive relative clauses.
>>>>>
>>>>> So "that" is a subset of "which". But I am not sure. "That is good" and "Which is good" provide different meanings. The former points while the latter decides.
>>>>
>>>> You have inexplicably mixed together deictics ("that item over there") and interrogatives
>>>> (maybe) ("which of those things is good"), neither of which has anything to do with
>>>> relative clauses.
>>>
>>> The point is when to use "which" and when to use "that" - are there any standard
>>> rules? Talking of clauses confuses the issue for the tesol purpose. One rule
>>> which I may have stumbled upon is the above. Are there others, or is this the
>>> only one that can be taught to say a student from Syria in Grade 1/2?
>>
>> If you mean 6- and 7-year-olds, they are not taught such "rules." At that age,
>> children acquire new languages by being in communities that speak the languages.
>>
>> No one is taught such "rules" until they speak the language and are required to
>> write essays.
>
> You are completely wrong. But what's new.
>
OK. No native English speaker is taught so-called rules like that until
they are older. I was never taught it and I'll be eighty in a couple of
years.

--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 9:28:44 AM UTC+10, Robert Bannister wrote:
> On 19/4/17 6:12 am, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 12:59:56 AM UTC+10, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 10:04:32 AM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 10:35:15 PM UTC+10, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >>>> On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 12:32:32 AM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 1:41:59 PM UTC+10, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >>>>>> On Monday, April 17, 2017 at 11:32:46 PM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 1:22:46 PM UTC+10, Dingbat wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 8:12:15 AM UTC+5:30, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Are there any rules for "which" versus "that" usage?
> >>>>>>>> 1) In 'that which', 'that' comes first:->
> >>>>>>>> 2) 'Ding dong, that witch is dead,' however, doesn't have a 'which':->
> >>>>>>>> For less facetious answers, try this:
> >>>>>>>> https://www.google.com/search?q=which+vs.+that
> >>>>>>> http://www.writersdigest.com/online-editor/which-vs-that
> >>>>>>> is one result and that states that the two sentences:
> >>>>>>> Our office, which has two lunchrooms, is located in Cincinnati.
> >>>>>>> Our office that has two lunchrooms is located in Cincinnati.
> >>>>>>> are not the same as they have different meanings. Fair enough.
> >>>>>>> My question is will they not have the same meaning if the commas in 1 are
> >>>>>>> removed? Or if two commas are put in 2 to ensure fairness.
> >>>>>> Regardless of what style fascists tell you, you can use either "which" or "that"
> >>>>>> in restrictive relative clauses, only "which" in non-restrictive relative clauses.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So "that" is a subset of "which". But I am not sure. "That is good" and "Which is good" provide different meanings. The former points while the latter decides.
> >>>>
> >>>> You have inexplicably mixed together deictics ("that item over there") and interrogatives
> >>>> (maybe) ("which of those things is good"), neither of which has anything to do with
> >>>> relative clauses.
> >>>
> >>> The point is when to use "which" and when to use "that" - are there any standard
> >>> rules? Talking of clauses confuses the issue for the tesol purpose. One rule
> >>> which I may have stumbled upon is the above. Are there others, or is this the
> >>> only one that can be taught to say a student from Syria in Grade 1/2?
> >>
> >> If you mean 6- and 7-year-olds, they are not taught such "rules." At that age,
> >> children acquire new languages by being in communities that speak the languages.
> >>
> >> No one is taught such "rules" until they speak the language and are required to
> >> write essays.
> >
> > You are completely wrong. But what's new.
> >
> OK. No native English speaker is taught so-called rules like that until
> they are older. I was never taught it and I'll be eighty in a couple of
> years.

I was not talking about native English speakers, ie. those who cannot speak correct English.
>
> --
> Robert B. born England a long time ago;
> Western Australia since 1972

[Peter Moylan]

On 2017-Apr-24 10:09, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 9:28:44 AM UTC+10, Robert Bannister wrote:
>> On 19/4/17 6:12 am, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 12:59:56 AM UTC+10, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

>>>> No one is taught such "rules" until they speak the language and are required to
>>>> write essays.
>>>
>>> You are completely wrong. But what's new.
>>>
>> OK. No native English speaker is taught so-called rules like that until
>> they are older. I was never taught it and I'll be eighty in a couple of
>> years.
>
> I was not talking about native English speakers, ie. those who cannot speak correct English.

You are asserting, I assume, that a native speaker of language X cannot
correctly speak X, and that only foreign language students of X can
speak X correctly.

This gives a whole new view of "native speaker competence".

I'd introduce you to our current troll, but I'm afraid I've forgotten
which troll we're up to at the moment. If it's the razor blade person
there's no point, because it's already very clear that he has no native
speaker competence.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

[Dingbat]

On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 9:00:21 PM UTC+5:30, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 2017-Apr-24 10:09, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 9:28:44 AM UTC+10, Robert Bannister wrote:
> >> On 19/4/17 6:12 am, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 12:59:56 AM UTC+10, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> >>>> No one is taught such "rules" until they speak the language and are required to
> >>>> write essays.
> >>>
> >>> You are completely wrong. But what's new.
> >>>
> >> OK. No native English speaker is taught so-called rules like that until
> >> they are older. I was never taught it and I'll be eighty in a couple of
> >> years.
> >
> > I was not talking about native English speakers, ie. those who cannot speak correct English.
>
> You are asserting, I assume, that a native speaker of language X cannot
> correctly speak X, and that only foreign language students of X can
> speak X correctly.
>
> This gives a whole new view of "native speaker competence".
>
> I'd introduce you to our current troll, but I'm afraid I've forgotten
> which troll we're up to at the moment. If it's the razor blade person
> there's no point, because it's already very clear that he has no native
> speaker competence.
>
>
Native speakers have been known to be competent but change register to something more broken, for non-native listeners:

<<Why do some native English speakers use broken or grammatically incorrect English, when trying to communicate with someone who isn't a native English speaker, but who may understand some English?>>


Native speakers have also been known to normally use what a well spoken ESL user would consider broken English:

<<I wonder why so many Americans I meet seem never to have heard of a past participle or an adverb. One teacher at a place I was working told me that, "It's wrote on the wall," and another admired my Japanese, telling me that I spoke Japanese "fluent." Both these "teachers" had good university qualifications. I think it's a kind of fashion. I don't got no idea why they does it.>>


Both quoted from here:
https://japantoday.com/category/have-your-say/why-do-some-native-english-speakers-use-broken-or-grammatically-incorrect-english-when-trying-to-communicate-with-someone-who-isnt-a-native-english-speaker-but-who-may-understand-some-english-do

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 08:58:37 -0700 (PDT), Dingbat
<***@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 9:00:21 PM UTC+5:30, Peter Moylan wrote:
>> On 2017-Apr-24 10:09, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>> > On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 9:28:44 AM UTC+10, Robert Bannister wrote:
>> >> On 19/4/17 6:12 am, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>> >>> On Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 12:59:56 AM UTC+10, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>
>> >>>> No one is taught such "rules" until they speak the language and are required to
>> >>>> write essays.
>> >>>
>> >>> You are completely wrong. But what's new.
>> >>>
>> >> OK. No native English speaker is taught so-called rules like that until
>> >> they are older. I was never taught it and I'll be eighty in a couple of
>> >> years.
>> >
>> > I was not talking about native English speakers, ie. those who cannot speak correct English.
>>
>> You are asserting, I assume, that a native speaker of language X cannot
>> correctly speak X, and that only foreign language students of X can
>> speak X correctly.
>>
>> This gives a whole new view of "native speaker competence".
>>
>> I'd introduce you to our current troll, but I'm afraid I've forgotten
>> which troll we're up to at the moment. If it's the razor blade person
>> there's no point, because it's already very clear that he has no native
>> speaker competence.
>>
>>
>Native speakers have been known to be competent but change register to something more broken, for non-native listeners:
>
><<Why do some native English speakers use broken or grammatically incorrect English, when trying to communicate with someone who isn't a native English speaker, but who may understand some English?>>
>
Because what you describe as "broken or grammatically incorrect English"
is their native-English. Many (most?) people do not learn "grammatically
correct English" until they go to school. And even when they have learnt
"grammatically correct English" they don't necessarily use it.

>
>Native speakers have also been known to normally use what a well spoken ESL user would consider broken English:
>
><<I wonder why so many Americans I meet seem never to have heard of a past participle or an adverb. One teacher at a place I was working told me that, "It's wrote on the wall," and another admired my Japanese, telling me that I spoke Japanese "fluent." Both these "teachers" had good university qualifications. I think it's a kind of fashion. I don't got no idea why they does it.>>
>
>
>Both quoted from here:
>https://japantoday.com/category/have-your-say/why-do-some-native-english-speakers-use-broken-or-grammatically-incorrect-english-when-trying-to-communicate-with-someone-who-isnt-a-native-english-speaker-but-who-may-understand-some-english-do
>

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 1:24:41 PM UTC-4, PeterWD wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 08:58:37 -0700 (PDT), Dingbat
> <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 9:00:21 PM UTC+5:30, Peter Moylan wrote:
> >> On 2017-Apr-24 10:09, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> >> > On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 9:28:44 AM UTC+10, Robert Bannister wrote:
> >> >> On 19/4/17 6:12 am, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> >> >>> On Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 12:59:56 AM UTC+10, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> >> >>>> No one is taught such "rules" until they speak the language and are required to
> >> >>>> write essays.
> >> >>> You are completely wrong. But what's new.
> >> >> OK. No native English speaker is taught so-called rules like that until
> >> >> they are older. I was never taught it and I'll be eighty in a couple of
> >> >> years.
> >> > I was not talking about native English speakers, ie. those who cannot speak correct English.
> >> You are asserting, I assume, that a native speaker of language X cannot
> >> correctly speak X, and that only foreign language students of X can
> >> speak X correctly.
> >> This gives a whole new view of "native speaker competence".
> >> I'd introduce you to our current troll, but I'm afraid I've forgotten
> >> which troll we're up to at the moment. If it's the razor blade person
> >> there's no point, because it's already very clear that he has no native
> >> speaker competence.
> >Native speakers have been known to be competent but change register to something more broken, for non-native listeners:
> ><<Why do some native English speakers use broken or grammatically incorrect English, when trying to communicate with someone who isn't a native English speaker, but who may understand some English?>>
>
> Because what you describe as "broken or grammatically incorrect English"
> is their native-English. Many (most?) people do not learn "grammatically
> correct English" until they go to school. And even when they have learnt
> "grammatically correct English" they don't necessarily use it.

They might -- _might_ -- write it, but they don't speak it. Any more than Ranjit
speaks Literary Malayalam.

> >Native speakers have also been known to normally use what a well spoken ESL user would consider broken English:
> >
> ><<I wonder why so many Americans I meet seem never to have heard of a past participle or an adverb. One teacher at a place I was working told me that, "It's wrote on the wall," and another admired my Japanese, telling me that I spoke Japanese "fluent." Both these "teachers" had good university qualifications. I think it's a kind of fashion. I don't got no idea why they does it.>>
> >
> >
> >Both quoted from here:
> >https://japantoday.com/category/have-your-say/why-do-some-native-english-speakers-use-broken-or-grammatically-incorrect-english-when-trying-to-communicate-with-someone-who-isnt-a-native-english-speaker-but-who-may-understand-some-english-do

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Tuesday, April 25, 2017 at 1:30:21 AM UTC+10, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 2017-Apr-24 10:09, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 9:28:44 AM UTC+10, Robert Bannister wrote:
> >> On 19/4/17 6:12 am, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 12:59:56 AM UTC+10, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> >>>> No one is taught such "rules" until they speak the language and are required to
> >>>> write essays.
> >>>
> >>> You are completely wrong. But what's new.
> >>>
> >> OK. No native English speaker is taught so-called rules like that until
> >> they are older. I was never taught it and I'll be eighty in a couple of
> >> years.
> >
> > I was not talking about native English speakers, ie. those who cannot speak correct English.
>
> You are asserting, I assume, that a native speaker of language X cannot
> correctly speak X, and that only foreign language students of X can
> speak X correctly.

Your assumption is wrong. I mean what I say and I say what I mean. I may be the
only one to do so in this world, though. Others find it necessary to twist my
words to suit their biases and interests. As for the rest, quod scripsi, scripsi.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
>
> This gives a whole new view of "native speaker competence".
>
> I'd introduce you to our current troll, but I'm afraid I've forgotten
> which troll we're up to at the moment. If it's the razor blade person
> there's no point, because it's already very clear that he has no native
> speaker competence.
>
> --
> Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
> Newcastle, NSW, Australia

[Ross]

On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 3:41:59 PM UTC+12, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Monday, April 17, 2017 at 11:32:46 PM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 1:22:46 PM UTC+10, Dingbat wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 8:12:15 AM UTC+5:30, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > Are there any rules for "which" versus "that" usage?
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Arindam Banerjee
> > >
> > > 1) In 'that which', 'that' comes first:->
> > > 2) 'Ding dong, that witch is dead,' however, doesn't have a 'which':->
> > >
> > > For less facetious answers, try this:
> > > https://www.google.com/search?q=which+vs.+that
> >
> > http://www.writersdigest.com/online-editor/which-vs-that
> > is one result and that states that the two sentences:
> >
> > Our office, which has two lunchrooms, is located in Cincinnati.
> > Our office that has two lunchrooms is located in Cincinnati.
> >
> > are not the same as they have different meanings. Fair enough.
> >
> > My question is will they not have the same meaning if the commas in 1 are
> > removed? Or if two commas are put in 2 to ensure fairness.
>
> Regardless of what style fascists tell you, you can use either "which" or "that"
> in restrictive relative clauses, only "which" in non-restrictive relative clauses.

Quite apart from what one should tell learners of the language,
non-restrictives with "that" don't feel that bad to me. This might
be an example:

No town that I know of in all the world has such a panorama of perpetual
beauty spread before it as Denver has in this best and broadest belt of
the Rocky Mountains, that rises up from the valley in which it is built,
and winds away to the right and to the left as far as the eye can see....
- Samuel Bowles, Across the Continent (1865)

Another (punctuation aside):

Two of the largest canals connecting major water bodies are the Panama
Canal that connects the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and the Suez Canal
that connects the Mediterranean Sea to the Red Sea.
- James Carlton, Invasive Species: Vectors and Management Strategies (2003)

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 2:01:45 AM UTC-4, Ross wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 3:41:59 PM UTC+12, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Monday, April 17, 2017 at 11:32:46 PM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 1:22:46 PM UTC+10, Dingbat wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 8:12:15 AM UTC+5:30, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > > Are there any rules for "which" versus "that" usage?
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > Arindam Banerjee
> > > >
> > > > 1) In 'that which', 'that' comes first:->
> > > > 2) 'Ding dong, that witch is dead,' however, doesn't have a 'which':->
> > > >
> > > > For less facetious answers, try this:
> > > > https://www.google.com/search?q=which+vs.+that
> > >
> > > http://www.writersdigest.com/online-editor/which-vs-that
> > > is one result and that states that the two sentences:
> > >
> > > Our office, which has two lunchrooms, is located in Cincinnati.
> > > Our office that has two lunchrooms is located in Cincinnati.
> > >
> > > are not the same as they have different meanings. Fair enough.
> > >
> > > My question is will they not have the same meaning if the commas in 1 are
> > > removed? Or if two commas are put in 2 to ensure fairness.
> >
> > Regardless of what style fascists tell you, you can use either "which" or "that"
> > in restrictive relative clauses, only "which" in non-restrictive relative clauses.
>
> Quite apart from what one should tell learners of the language,
> non-restrictives with "that" don't feel that bad to me. This might
> be an example:
>
> No town that I know of in all the world has such a panorama of perpetual
> beauty spread before it as Denver has in this best and broadest belt of
> the Rocky Mountains, that rises up from the valley in which it is built,
> and winds away to the right and to the left as far as the eye can see....
> - Samuel Bowles, Across the Continent (1865)

Would that have been written in 1965, let alone 2015?

> Another (punctuation aside):
>
> Two of the largest canals connecting major water bodies are the Panama
> Canal that connects the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and the Suez Canal
> that connects the Mediterranean Sea to the Red Sea.
> - James Carlton, Invasive Species: Vectors and Management Strategies (2003)

I suspect he's assuming that his readers have a typical knowledge of geography, i.e.
no idea where those two canals are, or that there might as well be several canals with
the same name. If you make them (with intonation/commas) into non-restrictives, they
really do sound insulting; as it is, they're informative for those who need it and
remindful for those who don't. Presumably he chose those examples because they're
the most extreme examples of the mixing of different biomes and it's important
to stress how alien the Atlantic and Pacific / Mediterranean and Red are to each other.

[Ross]

On Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 12:40:53 AM UTC+12, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 2:01:45 AM UTC-4, Ross wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 3:41:59 PM UTC+12, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > On Monday, April 17, 2017 at 11:32:46 PM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 1:22:46 PM UTC+10, Dingbat wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 8:12:15 AM UTC+5:30, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > > > Are there any rules for "which" versus "that" usage?
> > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > Arindam Banerjee
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) In 'that which', 'that' comes first:->
> > > > > 2) 'Ding dong, that witch is dead,' however, doesn't have a 'which':->
> > > > >
> > > > > For less facetious answers, try this:
> > > > > https://www.google.com/search?q=which+vs.+that
> > > >
> > > > http://www.writersdigest.com/online-editor/which-vs-that
> > > > is one result and that states that the two sentences:
> > > >
> > > > Our office, which has two lunchrooms, is located in Cincinnati.
> > > > Our office that has two lunchrooms is located in Cincinnati.
> > > >
> > > > are not the same as they have different meanings. Fair enough.
> > > >
> > > > My question is will they not have the same meaning if the commas in 1 are
> > > > removed? Or if two commas are put in 2 to ensure fairness.
> > >
> > > Regardless of what style fascists tell you, you can use either "which" or "that"
> > > in restrictive relative clauses, only "which" in non-restrictive relative clauses.
> >
> > Quite apart from what one should tell learners of the language,
> > non-restrictives with "that" don't feel that bad to me. This might
> > be an example:
> >
> > No town that I know of in all the world has such a panorama of perpetual
> > beauty spread before it as Denver has in this best and broadest belt of
> > the Rocky Mountains, that rises up from the valley in which it is built,
> > and winds away to the right and to the left as far as the eye can see....
> > - Samuel Bowles, Across the Continent (1865)
>
> Would that have been written in 1965, let alone 2015?

It doesn't sound old-fashioned to me.

> > Another (punctuation aside):
> >
> > Two of the largest canals connecting major water bodies are the Panama
> > Canal that connects the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and the Suez Canal
> > that connects the Mediterranean Sea to the Red Sea.
> > - James Carlton, Invasive Species: Vectors and Management Strategies (2003)
>
> I suspect he's assuming that his readers have a typical knowledge of geography, i.e.
> no idea where those two canals are, or that there might as well be several canals with
> the same name. If you make them (with intonation/commas) into non-restrictives, they
> really do sound insulting; as it is, they're informative for those who need it and
> remindful for those who don't. Presumably he chose those examples because they're
> the most extreme examples of the mixing of different biomes and it's important
> to stress how alien the Atlantic and Pacific / Mediterranean and Red are to each other.

Exactly. The geographical ignoramuses you mention earlier are not going
to be reading a book like this. He is simply adding information to remind
his readers of the bio-geographical implications of these canals. A
restrictive reading is impossible.

[Peter Moylan]

On 2017-Apr-19 07:02, Ross wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 12:40:53 AM UTC+12, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 2:01:45 AM UTC-4, Ross wrote:

>>> Another (punctuation aside):
>>>
>>> Two of the largest canals connecting major water bodies are the Panama
>>> Canal that connects the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and the Suez Canal
>>> that connects the Mediterranean Sea to the Red Sea.
>>> - James Carlton, Invasive Species: Vectors and Management Strategies (2003)
>>
>> I suspect he's assuming that his readers have a typical knowledge of geography, i.e.
>> no idea where those two canals are, or that there might as well be several canals with
>> the same name. If you make them (with intonation/commas) into non-restrictives, they
>> really do sound insulting; as it is, they're informative for those who need it and
>> remindful for those who don't. Presumably he chose those examples because they're
>> the most extreme examples of the mixing of different biomes and it's important
>> to stress how alien the Atlantic and Pacific / Mediterranean and Red are to each other.
>
> Exactly. The geographical ignoramuses you mention earlier are not going
> to be reading a book like this. He is simply adding information to remind
> his readers of the bio-geographical implications of these canals. A
> restrictive reading is impossible.

I know that geographical ignorance is widespread, but are there really
people in the developed world (so have gone to school) who would not
know the approximate location of those two canals? Not precise
locations, but something like "a shortcut used by ships going through
the Mediterranean" and "somewhere around central America".

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

[Ross]

On Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 3:52:00 PM UTC+12, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 2017-Apr-19 07:02, Ross wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 12:40:53 AM UTC+12, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 2:01:45 AM UTC-4, Ross wrote:
>
> >>> Another (punctuation aside):
> >>>
> >>> Two of the largest canals connecting major water bodies are the Panama
> >>> Canal that connects the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and the Suez Canal
> >>> that connects the Mediterranean Sea to the Red Sea.
> >>> - James Carlton, Invasive Species: Vectors and Management Strategies (2003)
> >>
> >> I suspect he's assuming that his readers have a typical knowledge of geography, i.e.
> >> no idea where those two canals are, or that there might as well be several canals with
> >> the same name. If you make them (with intonation/commas) into non-restrictives, they
> >> really do sound insulting; as it is, they're informative for those who need it and
> >> remindful for those who don't. Presumably he chose those examples because they're
> >> the most extreme examples of the mixing of different biomes and it's important
> >> to stress how alien the Atlantic and Pacific / Mediterranean and Red are to each other.
> >
> > Exactly. The geographical ignoramuses you mention earlier are not going
> > to be reading a book like this. He is simply adding information to remind
> > his readers of the bio-geographical implications of these canals. A
> > restrictive reading is impossible.
>
> I know that geographical ignorance is widespread, but are there really
> people in the developed world (so have gone to school) who would not
> know the approximate location of those two canals? Not precise
> locations, but something like "a shortcut used by ships going through
> the Mediterranean" and "somewhere around central America".
>
> --
> Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
> Newcastle, NSW, Australia

I don't know. But I very much doubt the existence of the second category,
who think there is more than one "Suez Canal" or "Panama Canal". Only for
such a person would a restrictive reading of the above passage make sense.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 11:52:00 PM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 2017-Apr-19 07:02, Ross wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 12:40:53 AM UTC+12, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 2:01:45 AM UTC-4, Ross wrote:

> >>> Another (punctuation aside):
> >>> Two of the largest canals connecting major water bodies are the Panama
> >>> Canal that connects the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and the Suez Canal
> >>> that connects the Mediterranean Sea to the Red Sea.
> >>> - James Carlton, Invasive Species: Vectors and Management Strategies (2003)
> >> I suspect he's assuming that his readers have a typical knowledge of geography, i.e.
> >> no idea where those two canals are, or that there might as well be several canals with
> >> the same name. If you make them (with intonation/commas) into non-restrictives, they
> >> really do sound insulting; as it is, they're informative for those who need it and
> >> remindful for those who don't. Presumably he chose those examples because they're
> >> the most extreme examples of the mixing of different biomes and it's important
> >> to stress how alien the Atlantic and Pacific / Mediterranean and Red are to each other.
> > Exactly. The geographical ignoramuses you mention earlier are not going
> > to be reading a book like this. He is simply adding information to remind
> > his readers of the bio-geographical implications of these canals. A
> > restrictive reading is impossible.

> I know that geographical ignorance is widespread, but are there really
> people in the developed world (so have gone to school) who would not
> know the approximate location of those two canals? Not precise
> locations, but something like "a shortcut used by ships going through
> the Mediterranean" and "somewhere around central America".

On quiz shows, two of the most hated categories are "Classical Music" and "Geography."
The contestants will avoid them as long as possible, but then the questions turn out to
be of the most elementary nature.

[Jerry Friedman]

On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 12:01:45 AM UTC-6, Ross wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 3:41:59 PM UTC+12, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Monday, April 17, 2017 at 11:32:46 PM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 1:22:46 PM UTC+10, Dingbat wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 8:12:15 AM UTC+5:30, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > > Are there any rules for "which" versus "that" usage?
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > Arindam Banerjee
> > > >
> > > > 1) In 'that which', 'that' comes first:->
> > > > 2) 'Ding dong, that witch is dead,' however, doesn't have a 'which':->
> > > >
> > > > For less facetious answers, try this:
> > > > https://www.google.com/search?q=which+vs.+that
> > >
> > > http://www.writersdigest.com/online-editor/which-vs-that
> > > is one result and that states that the two sentences:
> > >
> > > Our office, which has two lunchrooms, is located in Cincinnati.
> > > Our office that has two lunchrooms is located in Cincinnati.
> > >
> > > are not the same as they have different meanings. Fair enough.
> > >
> > > My question is will they not have the same meaning if the commas in 1 are
> > > removed? Or if two commas are put in 2 to ensure fairness.
> >
> > Regardless of what style fascists tell you, you can use either "which" or "that"
> > in restrictive relative clauses, only "which" in non-restrictive relative clauses.
>
> Quite apart from what one should tell learners of the language,
> non-restrictives with "that" don't feel that bad to me. This might
> be an example:
>
> No town that I know of in all the world has such a panorama of perpetual
> beauty spread before it as Denver has in this best and broadest belt of
> the Rocky Mountains, that rises up from the valley in which it is built,
> and winds away to the right and to the left as far as the eye can see....
> - Samuel Bowles, Across the Continent (1865)
>
> Another (punctuation aside):
>
> Two of the largest canals connecting major water bodies are the Panama
> Canal that connects the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and the Suez Canal
> that connects the Mediterranean Sea to the Red Sea.
> - James Carlton, Invasive Species: Vectors and Management Strategies (2003)

They feel somewhat bad, not terrible, to me. I manage to enjoy
/The Lord of the Rings/ despite several non-restrictive "that"s.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Dingbat]

On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 9:11:59 AM UTC+5:30, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Monday, April 17, 2017 at 11:32:46 PM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 1:22:46 PM UTC+10, Dingbat wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 8:12:15 AM UTC+5:30, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > Are there any rules for "which" versus "that" usage?
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Arindam Banerjee
> > >
> > > 1) In 'that which', 'that' comes first:->
> > > 2) 'Ding dong, that witch is dead,' however, doesn't have a 'which':->
> > >
> > > For less facetious answers, try this:
> > > https://www.google.com/search?q=which+vs.+that
> >
> > http://www.writersdigest.com/online-editor/which-vs-that
> > is one result and that states that the two sentences:
> >
> > Our office, which has two lunchrooms, is located in Cincinnati.
> > Our office that has two lunchrooms is located in Cincinnati.
> >
> > are not the same as they have different meanings. Fair enough.
> >
> > My question is will they not have the same meaning if the commas in 1 are
> > removed? Or if two commas are put in 2 to ensure fairness.
>
> Regardless of what style fascists tell you, you can use either "which" or "that"
> in restrictive relative clauses, only "which" in non-restrictive relative clauses.

Some mightn't want to cause their reader to frown, as per this:
English usage usually frowns on 'which' when it appears in a restrictive, or essential, clause, such as “I chose the card which is blank.”
http://www.dailywritingtips.com/when-to-use-that-which-and-who/

Does it, however, make a difference how many blank cards there are? Could you use 'which' for the express purpose of indicating that you chose the ONLY card that is blank (in a context where 'that' is the normal usage)?

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 2:48:37 AM UTC-4, Dingbat wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 9:11:59 AM UTC+5:30, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Monday, April 17, 2017 at 11:32:46 PM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 1:22:46 PM UTC+10, Dingbat wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 8:12:15 AM UTC+5:30, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > > Are there any rules for "which" versus "that" usage?
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > Arindam Banerjee
> > > >
> > > > 1) In 'that which', 'that' comes first:->
> > > > 2) 'Ding dong, that witch is dead,' however, doesn't have a 'which':->
> > > >
> > > > For less facetious answers, try this:
> > > > https://www.google.com/search?q=which+vs.+that
> > >
> > > http://www.writersdigest.com/online-editor/which-vs-that
> > > is one result and that states that the two sentences:
> > >
> > > Our office, which has two lunchrooms, is located in Cincinnati.
> > > Our office that has two lunchrooms is located in Cincinnati.
> > >
> > > are not the same as they have different meanings. Fair enough.
> > >
> > > My question is will they not have the same meaning if the commas in 1 are
> > > removed? Or if two commas are put in 2 to ensure fairness.
> >
> > Regardless of what style fascists tell you, you can use either "which" or "that"
> > in restrictive relative clauses, only "which" in non-restrictive relative clauses.
>
> Some mightn't want to cause their reader to frown, as per this:
> English usage usually frowns on 'which' when it appears in a restrictive, or essential, clause, such as “I chose the card which is blank.”

That looks like an arthur-Navi sentence. Normal people say "I chose the blank card."

> http://www.dailywritingtips.com/when-to-use-that-which-and-who/
>
> Does it, however, make a difference how many blank cards there are? Could you use 'which' for the express purpose of indicating that you chose the ONLY card that is blank (in a context where 'that' is the normal usage)?

That's why we have definite articles and modifying adjectives.

"I chose the card, which was [not is] blank" means that I didn't take the alternatives
-- a pencil, a puppy, a cookie.

[Dingbat]

On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 6:13:55 PM UTC+5:30, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 2:48:37 AM UTC-4, Dingbat wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 9:11:59 AM UTC+5:30, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > On Monday, April 17, 2017 at 11:32:46 PM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 1:22:46 PM UTC+10, Dingbat wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 8:12:15 AM UTC+5:30, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > > > Are there any rules for "which" versus "that" usage?
> > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > Arindam Banerjee
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) In 'that which', 'that' comes first:->
> > > > > 2) 'Ding dong, that witch is dead,' however, doesn't have a 'which':->
> > > > >
> > > > > For less facetious answers, try this:
> > > > > https://www.google.com/search?q=which+vs.+that
> > > >
> > > > http://www.writersdigest.com/online-editor/which-vs-that
> > > > is one result and that states that the two sentences:
> > > >
> > > > Our office, which has two lunchrooms, is located in Cincinnati.
> > > > Our office that has two lunchrooms is located in Cincinnati.
> > > >
> > > > are not the same as they have different meanings. Fair enough.
> > > >
> > > > My question is will they not have the same meaning if the commas in 1 are
> > > > removed? Or if two commas are put in 2 to ensure fairness.
> > >
> > > Regardless of what style fascists tell you, you can use either "which" or "that"
> > > in restrictive relative clauses, only "which" in non-restrictive relative clauses.
> >
> > Some mightn't want to cause their reader to frown, as per this:
> > English usage usually frowns on 'which' when it appears in a restrictive, or essential, clause, such as “I chose the card which is blank.”
>
> That looks like an arthur-Navi sentence. Normal people say "I chose the blank card."
>
> > http://www.dailywritingtips.com/when-to-use-that-which-and-who/
> >
> > Does it, however, make a difference how many blank cards there are? Could you use 'which' for the express purpose of indicating that you chose the ONLY card that is blank (in a context where 'that' is the normal usage)?
>
> That's why we have definite articles and modifying adjectives.
>
> "I chose the card, which was [not is] blank" means that I didn't take the alternatives
> -- a pencil, a puppy, a cookie.

The webpage claims that your sentence means that you chose an arbitrary card, which you then discovered to be blank; you didn't choose it for its blankness. See:

In “I chose the card, which is blank,” all we need to know is that the card was chosen; its quality of blankness is incidental.
http://www.dailywritingtips.com/when-to-use-that-which-and-who/

[Dr. Jai Maharaj]

In article
<ff15f47f-3e7a-4ff3-bade-***@googlegroups.com>,
Arindam Banerjee <***@gmail.com> posted:
>
> Are there any rules for "which" versus "that" usage?
>
> Cheers,
> Arindam Banerjee

Excerpt:

[...]

o THAT should be used to introduce a restrictive clause.

o WHICH should be used to introduce a non-restrictive or
parenthetical clause.

If that leaves you more confused than when you began this
article, read on . . .

A restrictive clause is one which is essential to the
meaning of a sentence -- if it's removed, the meaning of
the sentence will change. For example:

o Chairs that don't have cushions are uncomfortable to
sit on.

o Card games that involve betting money should not be
played in school.

o To our knowledge, it is the only body in the solar
system that currently sustains life . . .

A non-restrictive clause can be left out without changing
the meaning of a sentence. Non-restrictive clauses are
either in brackets or have a comma before and after them
(or only before them if they come at the end of a
sentence):

o Chairs, which are found in many places of work, are
often uncomfortable to sit on.

o I sat on an uncomfortable chair, which was in my
office.

[...]

Continues at:

http://www.dailywritingtips.com/that-vs-which/

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti

http://bit.do/jaimaharaj