|
|
 Sun Jul 20, 2008 5:16 am About non-restrictive relative, "that" |
|
|
| I don't think "that" can be used after comma. |
|
Atomos
I'm new here and I like it ;-)
Joined: 18 Jul 2008
Posts: 25
Location: Vietnam
|
|
|
Alan
Co-founder
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
Posts: 7615
Location: UK
|
 |
| Tue Jul 22, 2008 6:24 am Thank you for your response. |
|
|
Hello, Alan.
Thank you for your telling me your sites. I have already read the sites. I may feel the nuances different between which and that.  |
|
Sieger
New Member
Joined: 19 Jul 2008
Posts: 5
|
|
| Tue Jul 22, 2008 9:59 am About non-restrictive relative, "that" |
|
|
| Atomos wrote: | | I don't think "that" can be used after comma. |
In informal spoken use, "that" can actually introduce non-defining relative clauses.
Example from the Cambridge Grammar of English (CGE):
And as you know, the meeting, that we’d never wanted anyway, was just foisted on us. (informal spoken) |
|
Molly
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 12 Feb 2008
Posts: 4017
|
|
| Tue Jul 22, 2008 16:45 pm About non-restrictive relative, "that" |
|
|
Dear Molly
Thank you for citing the example. It seems very interesting for me. |
|
Sieger
New Member
Joined: 19 Jul 2008
Posts: 5
|
|
| Tue Jul 22, 2008 22:51 pm About non-restrictive relative, "that" |
|
|
| sieger wrote: | Dear Molly
Thank you for citing the example. It seems very interesting for me. |
You're welcome. |
|
Molly
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 12 Feb 2008
Posts: 4017
|
|
| Tue Jul 22, 2008 23:58 pm About non-restrictive relative, "that" |
|
|
| Quote: | 1) That box, that had jewels in, was stolen.
2) That box, which had jewels in, was stolen.
|
Non-defining "that" and defining "which" are often to be found in older formal and informal writing.
Although non-defining "that" is still common in spoken English, there is a tendency nowadays among copy editors to replace non-defining "that" with "which" (and less often, to replace defining "which" with "that").
The choice is stylistic, rather than grammatical. I suspect the tendency has its origins in the first edition of Fowler's Modern English Usage, where, after a long article in which the author argues for a strict division of duties between "that" and "which", he nonetheless engagingly confesses that "it would be idle to pretend that it is the practice either of most or of the best writers".
MrP |
|
MrPedantic
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 13 Oct 2006
Posts: 1303
Location: Southern England
|
|
| Wed Jul 23, 2008 0:00 am About non-restrictive relative, "that" |
|
|
| Quote: | | The choice is stylistic, rather than grammatical. |
In the written form, you mean? |
|
Molly
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 12 Feb 2008
Posts: 4017
|
|
| Wed Jul 23, 2008 0:35 am About non-restrictive relative, "that" |
|
|
| Molly wrote: | | Quote: | | The choice is stylistic, rather than grammatical. |
In the written form, you mean? |
The choice by copy editors.
MrP |
|
MrPedantic
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 13 Oct 2006
Posts: 1303
Location: Southern England
|
|
| Wed Jul 23, 2008 6:17 am About non-restrictive relative, "that" |
|
|
Dear MrPedantic
Thank you for your advice that the choice is stylistic. I have never heard about the Fowler. I have just known it is very famous as an English usage book. The following question occurs to me.
What on earth makes the copy editors choose the non-restrictive that? |
|
Sieger
New Member
Joined: 19 Jul 2008
Posts: 5
|
|
| Wed Jul 23, 2008 23:17 pm About non-restrictive relative, "that" |
|
|
Hello Sieger,
Generally, non-restrictive "that" is changed to "which" by copy editors, in books and magazines. This makes it fairly unusual, in modern edited English. However, in unedited English (e.g. emails, memos, self-published texts, etc.) you will still encounter it. Some people simply seem to tend towards using it.
Best wishes,
MrP |
|
MrPedantic
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 13 Oct 2006
Posts: 1303
Location: Southern England
|
|
| Wed Jul 23, 2008 23:57 pm About non-restrictive relative, "that" |
|
|
.
I think there is probably also a bit of a difference in usage between BE and AmE. It seems to me you're more likely to hear a defining usage of 'which' in BE than in AmE. And the example that Molly gave of the non-defining use of 'that' sounds odd to my American ears.
. |
|
Yankee
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 16 Apr 2006
Posts: 8265
Location: USA
|
|
| Thu Jul 24, 2008 0:35 am About non-restrictive relative, "that" |
|
|
| Amy wrote: | the example that Molly gave of the non-defining use of 'that' sounds odd to my American ears.
|
1. And as you know, the meeting, that we’d never wanted anyway, was just foisted on us.
It's not a very good example. I wonder if the Cambridge folk have mistranscribed it. With dashes:
2. And as you know, the meeting – that we’d never wanted anyway – was just foisted on us.
it seems a bit more "defining".
MrP |
|
MrPedantic
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 13 Oct 2006
Posts: 1303
Location: Southern England
|
|
| Thu Jul 24, 2008 6:28 am About non-restrictive relative, "that" |
|
|
Dear MrPedantic
I feel very sorry that you should change commas to dashes in the quotation. You look too pedantic. The non-restrictive that in the quotaition would sound odd for you, native speakers, since it is ungrammatical. But your oddness against non-restrictive that might make you feel something except "strange".
Sieger |
|
Sieger
New Member
Joined: 19 Jul 2008
Posts: 5
|
|
|
| waste away | concerns between... |
