1. chiefly Brit
2. It has to do with whether you're clarifying which pair of socks you're talking about, or whether you're just adding an extraneous details. For example: "I shouldn't wear the socks that are hanging up to dry, but I'll wear the socks that are in my drawer." Versus: "The socks, which are hanging up to dry, are still a little damp."
― jaymc, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 19:25 (sixteen years ago) link
1. While and among are generally thought preferable. The -st versions are a bit fusty, though I don't really dislike them myself. 2. According to the (poorly followed) rule:
"My socks that are hanging up over there" is about defining the socks you're talking about (ie the socks that are hanging up over there, rather than those other ones) "My socks, which are hanging up over there" is about adding additional information about the socks, the identity of which is not in question.
"That" defines, "which" informs.
x-post
― Alba, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 19:29 (sixteen years ago) link
Imagining pausing (or putting a comma) before the that/which gives you a pointer. If a comma/pause works, then it should be "which", if not then "that".
― Alba, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 19:32 (sixteen years ago) link
That's true, although I should note that a comma doesn't just work in front of "which": it's required. Similarly, there shouldn't be a comma before "that."
― jaymc, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 19:34 (sixteen years ago) link
Additionally, to remember which one is which, you could try the old trick of putting “by the way” after that/which. If it sounds all right, it should be “which.”
E.g.
“My socks, which (by the way) are hanging up over there.” (works) “My socks that (by the way) are hanging up over there.” (doesn’t work)
― Jeb, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 19:42 (sixteen years ago) link
hmm. try living in glasgow for a bit. "by the way" works after absolutely everything, byrraway.
― grimly fiendish, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 19:48 (sixteen years ago) link
This is all making it more clear-cut than it sometimes is. I quite often come across examples where it's kind of a grey area whether one is defining or informing. And am sometimes tempted in those cases to get across that greyness by putting a which without a comma before.
― Alba, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 19:52 (sixteen years ago) link
If you want an example of someone who flouts the that/which rule as a matter of course, download and listen to Kate Adie introduce From Our Own Correspondent each week on Radio 4. I know most people don't even know the rule, but they must instinctively have a bit of an ear for it, because Adie sticks out so much. I think someone must have once told her "that" was common or something.
― Alba, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 19:59 (sixteen years ago) link
I'm kinda endlessly surprised by how mixed people get on that/which when writing, since folks follow it pretty decently (when necessary) in speech. (The main problem seems to be that when writing, people try to use "which" for "that" on the grounds that it sounds classier, something they'd NEVER do when speaking.)
― nabisco, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 20:07 (sixteen years ago) link
Folks don't much talk classy.
― Abbott, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 20:09 (sixteen years ago) link
The situation in which I'm most likely to accidentally deviate from the rule is in a sentence with a compound "that." The second one often turns into a "which." Viz.:
"This is the kind of rule that I usually follow but which gets me into trouble sometimes."
I feel like proper usage dictates that it should be "but that gets me into trouble," but for some reason "which" just sounds better after a conjunction: it seems more solid, I guess.
― jaymc, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 20:10 (sixteen years ago) link
We had this whole 'which' / 'that' debate at great length upthread. It is true that you can't use 'that' in non-defining relative clauses (only which), but it's not true that you can't use 'which' in defining relative clauses (you can use 'which' or 'that').
― Nasty, Brutish & Short, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 20:55 (sixteen years ago) link
I think that's right nabisco. When I was writing papers, my first editing step was to just do a find on 'which' and 9 times out of 10, I'd realise it should've been a 'that'. Instinct leads you to type 'which' when trying to sound scholarly.
― aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 21:03 (sixteen years ago) link
Wikipedia says: "(re:which or that)....Of the two, only which is at all common in non-restrictive clauses. Problems arise in restrictive clauses, where traditionally either that or which could be used. This is still the case in normal speech and in British English, but in formal American English it is generally recommended to use only that for restrictive clauses." So this is obviously just a British v American thing.
― Nasty, Brutish & Short, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 21:08 (sixteen years ago) link
You wrote that wikipedia entry!
― Alba, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 21:10 (sixteen years ago) link
No, I didn't. I'm not sure what a restrictive clause is, for a start.
― Nasty, Brutish & Short, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 21:15 (sixteen years ago) link
I have never disputed that which is true. I have never disputed which which is true. I have never disputed that that is true.
― Will M., Wednesday, 10 October 2007 21:18 (sixteen years ago) link
What about which that?
― Madchen, Thursday, 11 October 2007 12:11 (sixteen years ago) link
“It’s even easier when you don’t care whom you kill.”
Doesn’t this passage look really odd? The one below looks better, IMO, but is the one above even acceptable?
“It’s even easier when you don’t care about whom you kill.”
― Jeb, Friday, 12 October 2007 13:22 (sixteen years ago) link
Eh, sentence, even.
"It's even easier when you don't care who you kill."
Fixed!
― Tracer Hand, Friday, 12 October 2007 13:44 (sixteen years ago) link
Isn't "caring about" ambiguous here, because it could mean not having feelings for the victim rather than not caring about their identity?
― Alba, Friday, 12 October 2007 13:53 (sixteen years ago) link
I think we're seeing a breakdown of the who/whom distinction. There are cases in which the use of 'whom', although tradionally correct, now looks a bit odd and you should use 'who' instead.
― Zelda Zonk, Friday, 12 October 2007 14:09 (sixteen years ago) link
Thanks. I found it in this Slate piece, which is why I was a bit puzzled. =)
― Jeb, Friday, 12 October 2007 15:43 (sixteen years ago) link
― Jeb, Friday, 12 October 2007 15:45 (sixteen years ago) link
isn't "who you kill" a subject/predicate on its own? So who is acceptable over whom? It's been a while since I studied this stuff. I'm rusty and mostly operating by feel.
― Will M., Friday, 12 October 2007 15:48 (sixteen years ago) link
I think I only use "whom" when it's part of a prepositional phrase. "Around whom did you fanny" for instance.
― Tracer Hand, Friday, 12 October 2007 17:03 (sixteen years ago) link
MS Office tells me this is wrong, is it?
"...this task could take an additional three or four man-hours to sort out..."
It says that I should delete the word "an." WTF?
― Will M., Friday, 12 October 2007 20:10 (sixteen years ago) link
MS Office is full of shit half of the time.
― Pleasant Plains, Friday, 12 October 2007 20:12 (sixteen years ago) link
Man, just do CTRL-A, DELETE... problem solved.
― Eyeball Kicks, Friday, 12 October 2007 20:12 (sixteen years ago) link
WTF I JUST DID THAT YOU ASSHOLE
― Will M., Friday, 12 October 2007 20:21 (sixteen years ago) link
HOW DO I MAKE IT GO BACK OH GOD IT WAS 18 PAGES LONG
― Will M., Friday, 12 October 2007 20:22 (sixteen years ago) link
I GUESS THAT'S 3-4 LESS MAN-HOURS
Funny guy.
― Eyeball Kicks, Friday, 12 October 2007 20:29 (sixteen years ago) link
"Treatment for asthma and pulmonary disease are not identical"
― Dr Morbius, Friday, 19 October 2007 14:25 (sixteen years ago) link
the prob I see with using "treatments" is it no longer reads like a 1-to-1 comparison.
― Dr Morbius, Friday, 19 October 2007 14:27 (sixteen years ago) link
Add a "the" to the start?
― Alba, Friday, 19 October 2007 14:36 (sixteen years ago) link
I'd keep treatment singular, but add another 'for' for clarity: "Treatment for asthma and for pulmonary disease are not identical"
― Zelda Zonk, Friday, 19 October 2007 14:37 (sixteen years ago) link
The treatment (singular) sits clunkily with "are" though.
― ailsa, Friday, 19 October 2007 14:46 (sixteen years ago) link
"Treatment ... are"?
xpost
― Tracer Hand, Friday, 19 October 2007 14:47 (sixteen years ago) link
I'm putting the s on in a query, ja
― Dr Morbius, Friday, 19 October 2007 14:52 (sixteen years ago) link
The treatment for asthma and that for pulmonary disease are not identical.
― jaymc, Friday, 19 October 2007 15:07 (sixteen years ago) link
I r a medical editor. Therefore you must do as I say and use 'The treatments.'
xpost jaymc I love you but that is horrible.
― quincie, Friday, 19 October 2007 15:08 (sixteen years ago) link
yes, esp as it also has to go in a callout.
― Dr Morbius, Friday, 19 October 2007 15:11 (sixteen years ago) link
wait asthma IS a pulmonary disease!
― quincie, Friday, 19 October 2007 15:13 (sixteen years ago) link
Sentence is too long. Consider simply going with "Fixin' lungs is tough."
― Will M., Friday, 19 October 2007 15:13 (sixteen years ago) link
Asthma is treated differently than other pulmonary diseases.
― quincie, Friday, 19 October 2007 15:14 (sixteen years ago) link
Well, if it were up to me, I'd probably use "treatments," but the good Dr. Morbius seemed like he wanted to avoid that.
― jaymc, Friday, 19 October 2007 15:14 (sixteen years ago) link
"The treatment for asthma is not identical to the treatment for pulmonary disease."
― s1ocki, Friday, 19 October 2007 15:15 (sixteen years ago) link
I shortened it, quincie; the other disease is actually COPD, but I didn't wnat to confuse the civilians...
― Dr Morbius, Friday, 19 October 2007 15:15 (sixteen years ago) link