|
|
"that" and "which"Writers often complain about their editors' being which-hunters because of the editors' seemingly arbitrary habit of replacing "which" with "that." Here's the straight skinny on why they do it. Although not a which-hunter myself, I do know many editors who will replace a "which" with a "that" where there is no comma indicating a non-restrictive clause, on the altogether correct basis that the "that" is a clearer and more forceful indicator of restrictiveness than a comma-less "which." Of course, some editors think this is an absolutely inviolate rule, and they're wrong. However, as a matter of style, many publishers--especially American ones, and especially those producing technical material--insist on the practice and pay their editors to apply the rule, so it is useful to consider the editors right if you want to get along with that publisher. Many editors, and most American editors, will tell you that "which," preceded by a comma, is used with non-restrictive clauses (that is, clauses the absence of which will not materially alter the meaning of the sentence) and "that" is used with restrictive clauses (if you take the clause out, the sentence will not have the same meaning). For instance: Restrictive clause: "Give me the book that is on the table." There are a number of books in sight, but only one of them is on the table, and that is the one I want. "Give me the book" would leave the hearer confused as to which book was wanted. Non-restrictive clause: "Give me the book, which is on the table." I want the only book in the room, which happens to be on the table. "Give me the book" would have the same result, but it might take you longer to find it. The "'that' with restrictive clauses/'which' with non-restrictive clauses" rule is an extremely useful one and you'll never be wrong if you choose to follow it. It is particularly useful because the spoken sentence unambiguously has the same meaning as the written one. However, the people who insist that this is the only way to do it are wrong. It is not the choice of "which" that makes a clause non-restrictive, it is the presence of the comma preceding the "which" that makes the clause non-restrictive. (Not that you can use a "that" with a comma, but nobody wants to anyway.) So "Give me the book which is on the table" has exactly the same meaning as "Give me the book that is on the table." However, a missing comma is hard to hear when the sentence is spoken, so if it is important to you that readers know for sure that the clause is restrictive (frankly, it often doesn't matter if the clause is restrictive or not), use a "that." The people who read it or who hear you say "that" don't think to themselves, "Ah, that 'that' makes it a restrictive clause"; they just know that's what it means because that is what it has meant since they were little and learned what was what at their mother's knee. If an author has been careless in using a "which" without a comma where a clause was meant to be non-restrictive, then it is the author's problem to solve, not the editor's.
|
|
copyright © 2000 Truly Donovan -- all rights reserved website design: lunemere
|
