Re: facts v. history; which and that

On Tue, 28 Apr 1998, Marie Lasnier <lasnier[_at_]dag.ca> wrote:
>
> On Mon, April 27, 1998, Robert Cumbow <cumbr[_at_]perkinscoie.com> wrote:
> >
> > Steve Jamar <sjamar[_at_]law.howard.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > There is never a loss of meaning by incorrect usage of that or which.
> >
> > I beg to differ. Consider:
> >
> > "The room had one window that overlooked the parking lot."
> >
> > versus
> >
> > "The room had one window, which overlooked the parking lot."
>
> Just for my sake (english is not my mother tongue) is it not more a
> difference resulting from the use or the omission of the comma than from
> a difference between "that" and "which"?

No; "that" introduces a relative restrictive clause, and "which" introduces a relative nonrestrictive clause. The comma is a good signal, but it's not aspect that controls the meaning.

Put another way, without jargon, a relative clause introduced by "that" restricts the scope of the noun or phrase that it relates to. In Bob's example, we know there's a window from the first part of the sentence, "the room had one window...." The clause "that overlooked the parking lot" qualifies the word window, so we know that we're only talking about a specific window: the one that overlooked the parking lot. There may be other windows, but if so, they don't overlook the parking lot.[1]

The example with "which" illustrates a nonrestrictive relative clause. In non-jargon, it does not restrict the scope of the related noun or phrase. Again, in Bob's example, we know there's a single window from the first part of the sentence, "the room had one window...." In this case, however, the clause "which overlooked the parking lot" does _not_ further qualify the word window -- instead, it adds additional information: the fact that the window overlooks the parking lot. In this example, we know that there are no other windows.

Put another way, while both a "that" clause and a "which" clause add information to the sentence, a "which" clause clause can be omitted without changing the truth of the sentence. A "that" clause cannot, because it qualifies the subject of the sentence, and it's likely that omiting it can cause a falsehood.

Because the "which" clause can be discarded without changing the truth of the sentence, it's considered a parenthetical, and generally will be (but does not necessarily have to be) set off with commas. But it is not the comma that determines whether the clause is restrictive ("that") or nonrestrictive ("which").

Why do we care about these grammatical points? It's not just for the truth and beauty inherent in the proper use of the language. It's because these grammatical point impart very important distinctions of meaning to the sentence, and their correct application eliminates multiple readings of the same text. In the present case of the treaty text, it isn't too hard to unravel and realize that the drafters actually meant "that" instead of "which" (despite the presence of that misleading comma). In this case, a nonrestrictive clause would lead to some moderately absurd interpretations. However, there are cases where it's not clear at all.

I edited a law review article when I was in law school where a misuse of "which" permitted two very different interpretations of the sentence. To someone unschooled in that area of law (which included me -- the article dealt with tax implications of transferring intellectual property assets from one wholly-owned subsidiary to another), there was a 50/50 chance the wrong meaning would be perceived. This is precisely the type of case that argues for preserving this important distinction.

[1] For the sake of convenience, I'm going to treat "one" as the ordinary meaning of "exactly one," rather than in the pedantic sense of "at least one." If that bugs you, change the examples to include the word "exactly."

--
Terry Carroll       |    "'Reprehensible' is just a five-syllable
Santa Clara, CA     |    word for 'scumbag.'"
carroll[_at_]tjc.com     |               - U.S. Congressman
Modell delendus est |                 Christopher Cox (R-Cal.)