Re: facts v. history; which and that

On Wed, 29 Apr 1998, Robert Cumbow <cumbr[_at_]perkinscoie.com> wrote:
>
> Marie Lasnier <lasnier[_at_]dag.ca> wrote:
> >
> > is it not more a difference resulting from the use or the omission
> > of the comma than from a difference between "that" and "which"?
> > (In french the same difference of meaning would come from the
> > use or not of that comma.)
>
> You're absolutely right. The comma (or its absence) does much to
> clarify a "which" or "that" construction. According to strict English
> grammar, "which" constructions generally take a comma and "that"
> constructions do not.

Hello folks:

Just my 2 cents.

I agree that, at times, the which/that distinction is extremely important. I would like to offer another example that might prove illustrative. Consider the following lines that might be part of a set of instructions.

"Go to the third house that is green."

                and

"Go to the third house, which is green."

The first sentence identifies the third green house. While the house in question could be the 10th house on a particular street, but it is the third *green* one. The second sentence identifies the third house, a house that happens to be green. Misconstruing these sentences could place you at the wrong house for your surprise party.

As some point out, there are many circumstances where the distinction seems unimportant. It is, however, often the case that we cannot predict when the distinction will be important in circumstance we do not foresee (fuel for the legal profession). So absent a crystal ball, I recommend being as precise with "which" and "that" as possible. And yes, I believe that whether or not you use the comma is linked with which word you choose.

Pax,

Jack

Jack Bernard
<bernar[_at_]umich.edu> Received on Thu Apr 30 1998 - 13:12:27 GMT