1. Moderator note: multiple threads merged to create this one

    "Nevertheless, there may be vulnerabilities that/which are not in the list"
    first i wrote which, then i change to that and now i do not know :)

    In which case should I use that or which ?
    Thanks
     
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2008
  2. la grive solitaire

    la grive solitaire Senior Member

    United States, English
    Hi superromu,

    It's "that":

    Nevertheless, there may be vulnerabilities that are not on the list...

    Here's an example with "which": Nevertheless, the vulnerabilities, which are not on the list, are...
     
  3. SoupleCommeLeVent Senior Member

    I don't disagree with la grive solitaire but many native speakers would happily use either word without giving any thought to it.

    However, may I suggest that the rest of the sentence doesn't sound quite right - I'm not quite sure what a vulnerability is?
     
  4. Jabote Senior Member

    Mirabel, Quebec, Canada
    French from France
    In fact, the only difference is that if you use "that" you don't need a comma before "that", and if you use "which", the comma is required before "which".
     
  5. Gil Senior Member

    Français, Canada
    ...and does it mean the same thing?;)
     
  6. la grive solitaire

    la grive solitaire Senior Member

    United States, English
  7. Wordsmyth

    Wordsmyth Senior Member

    Location: Mostly SW France
    Native language: English (BrE)
    Salut Jabote,

    (Leaving aside the 'that/which' controversy, because I've seen so many conflicting arguments, none more authoritative than any other), here's a thought about "comma before which".

    Consider:
    (a) - The apples which are in the bowl are red.
    (b) - The apples, which are in the bowl, are red.

    (a) implies that there may be other apples (not in the bowl) that are green or yellow or ... . The sentence defines which apples we're talking about.

    (b) implies no other apples, but tells us (as secondary but less essential information) where the apples are.

    If you speak the sentences, with pauses for the commas, the difference is very clear.

    As you may guess, I'm a strong supporter of the principle that (at least in English) commas represent spoken pauses, and are not determined by artificial grammatical rules.

    You'll notice, in that last sentence, that I used " , and". The traditionalist school forbids a comma before 'and' (presumably because it's traditional :eek: -- I can't see any other reason). Modern usage accepts it, if you would pause before the "and" in speaking.

    Aha, the joys of the English language : because there's no "Académie Anglaise" to make things rigidly right or wrong :p

    W :):)

    PS. I've just seen la grive's post arrive while I was writing this. Merci la grive :) . Sections 3 & 4 in the linked webpage comprehensively cover my 'apples' example (although favouring 'that' rather than 'which' -- I think there's a bigger preference for 'that' in AE than in BE :cool: )
     
  8. LV4-26

    LV4-26 Senior Member

    I like this thread. This is exactly what my "mémoire de maîtrise" was about a good many years ago. It was entitled "Relative Clauses in English" (Les propositions relatives en anglais contemporain). Funny, isn't it ? And a substantial part was about the difference between restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses (déterminatives et appositives). (Today I can't believe I managed to write 100 pages on that.:) )

    So I strongly support Wordsmyth as far as relative clauses are concerned.

    And also about commas and pauses in speech.
    And I think this is also valid for French. When I revise what I've translated, I often delete commas which force me to pause while I'm reading and often add some for the opposite reason. (don't ask me to word what the "opposite reason" is, my brains are too tired)
     
  9. la grive solitaire

    la grive solitaire Senior Member

    United States, English
    De rien, Wordsmyth. :) Académie Anglaise--lol--it made me smile. You're right, "that" is much more in use here and I often wish it weren't. Grammar aside, to my ear there's a nice difference.
     
  10. Ruthie Junior Member

    Australia
    Unfortunately, my generation was not taught the particulars of grammar throughout our primary or highshool education (other than basic punctuation). Apart from causing me hellish difficulties in working out, for example, exactly what a subjunctive is (!) in terms of foreign language study, it means I mainly rely on what feels 'natural' and extensive reading to gain grammatical knowledge.

    Now to the point! It seems to me that in this context, the word 'which' is becoming far less frequently used in both spoken and written English, and even the word 'that' doesn't seem quite right.

    My preference in this sentence would be to say:
    "Nevertheless, there may be vulnerabilities that are not present in the list."
     
  11. Joelline

    Joelline Senior Member

    USA (W. Pennsylvania)
    American English
    Wordsmyth writes the following:
    As you may guess, I'm a strong supporter of the principle that (at least in English) commas represent spoken pauses, and are not determined by artificial grammatical rules.

    You'll notice, in that last sentence, that I used " , and". The traditionalist school forbids a comma before 'and' (presumably because it's traditional :eek: -- I can't see any other reason). Modern usage accepts it, if you would pause before the "and" in speaking.

    In fact, the traditionalist school requires a comma before "and" if you have 2 independent clauses (to avoid the dreaded "comma splice"!): He liked the car, and he bought it.

    On the other hand, the comma before "and" should be omitted if you have a compound verb (i.e., one subject governing 2 verbs): He saw the car and bought it.

    And none of this is important if you're not a traditionalist, I suppose.
     
  12. killerbelge Junior Member

    France, Francais
    the results that are obtained with the Mastersizer
    are on the figure 14.
    les resultats qui sont obtenus avec le Mastersizer
    sont sur la figure 14.
    dois je utiliser that ou which?
    bye ;)
     
  13. captain_rusty Senior Member

    Central France
    England
    I think both are good. Or you could even omit it here (the results obtained...)
    And it's "in figure 14"
    :)
     
  14. Aupick

    Aupick Senior Member

    Strasbourg, France
    UK, English
    Sans pouvoir dire que "which" est faux, je préfère "that". Je crois que certains diraient que "which" ne s'utilisent que pour des propositions appositives (séparées par des virgules), mais je me perds un peu là, puisque dans la plupart des cas ils sont équivalents. Je trouve "that" un peu plus léger.

    Ou bien tu pourrais éviter le problème en disant "The results obtained...".
     
  15. qwix New Member

    french, France
    Bonjour à tous.
    Est-ce que quelqu'un pourrait m'expliquer la différence entre which et that.

    Par exemple je voit des phrases du genre:
    et
    [...]

    Je vous remercie d'avance.

    Amicalement.

    :)
     
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2008
  16. frenchaudrey Senior Member

    Lyon
    French, France
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2008
  17. Fany

    Fany Senior Member

    Bonjour!

    J'ai du mal à faire la différence en anglais entre "that" et "which".
    Par exemple si je veux traduire: "Les entreprises qui recrutent des femmes vont bénéficier de...":

    "The companies that recruit women will benefit..."?
    "The companies which recruit women..."?
     
  18. hunternet

    hunternet Senior Member

    Paris
    France - French
    Tu peux utiliser les deux, mais si je ne m'abuse, "which" s'utilise spécifiquement avec le terme qui le précède, "that peut reprendre un ensemble plus large.
     
  19. Benours Senior Member

    Lyon, France
    French
    I don't know which word to choose between "which" and "that" in this sentence:

    "*to permit access to the only station which/that are close enough to use it."

    Could you help me to choose and quickly explain why? Thank you!
     
  20. Welshie

    Welshie Senior Member

    France
    England, English
    "Which" sounds better to me but both are fine:

    ...to permit access to the only station which is close enough to use it.
     
  21. Asr

    Asr Senior Member

    Turquie :)
    In our English classes long time ago they had taught us that if the subordinate clause is a must of the sentence, (i.e if your sentence wouldn't have any meaning without it) then you have to stick with "that". If it is merely giving additional descriptive info, which can be avoided, then you can also use "which". (And you should also put a comma before the word which)

    Well, of course it would be better if a native could confirm this.
     
  22. mtmjr

    mtmjr Senior Member

    California/Ohio (US)
    English (US)
    I would agree with Welshie, both are fine. Personally, I would say:

    ...to permit access to the only station that's close enough to use it.

    As for Asr's observations...

    I would say the comma is up to the speaker's preference as to how the sentence should be interpreted. Without a comma, the sentence is read in one fluid motion. (In this case, "which" and "that" are interchangable...but I generally prefer "that".) With a comma, though, the second clause seems more like an afterthought, something that the speaker decided to add only for description. (Here, only "which" would make sense.) So, I guess Asr's rule is mostly true.
     
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2008
  23. MaLaet Junior Member

    Canada
    French
    Salut!
    Ça fait longtemps que j'essaie de comprendre quand il faut introduire une subordonnée par "that" ou "which".

    Exemple:
    - It is a social utility that connects people...
    - It is a social utility which connects people...

    Laquelle de ces phrases est correcte et pourquoi?

    Merci!! :)
     
  24. L'Inconnu Senior Member

    US
    English
    I am not an expert in Grammar, but English is my native language. I can't say for sure which one is absolutely correct, but I have done some publishing in my profession. I am fairly certain that both sentences are acceptable.
     
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2012
  25. bloomiegirl

    bloomiegirl Senior Member

    New York
    US English
    There is a distinction between "that" and "which" in American English, although not all Americans adhere to the rule. But still, it’s found in all the style books that are in my library... so here are a few references:

    1. "Use that, not which, in a restrictive clause—a clause necessary to the reader’s understanding of the sentence. The town that the pitcher calls home is tiny Hawley, Pa. (The sentence serves no purpose without that the pitcher calls home.) Note that there are no commas around the clause. In a nonrestrictive clause—one providing added information, not essential to understand the sentence—use which, preceded by a comma: Hawley, Pa., which the pitcher calls home, is tiny. (The sentence is understandable without which the pitcher calls home.)" -- Siegal & Connolly, The NY Times Manual of Style and Usage, ©1999, p. 331.

    2. Online, the Chicago Manual of Style FAQ contains an detailed discussion of the distinction between "that" and "which."

    3. The Elements of Style, granddaddy of them all, first published by Strunk in 1918 and reissued (illustrated) in 2005 by Strunk & White (pp. 87-88), says, authoritatively:
    "That is the defining, or restrictive pronoun, which the nondefining, or nonrestrictive.
    "The lawnmower that is broken is in the garage. (Tells which one.)
    "The lawnmower, which is broken, is in the garage. (Adds a fact about the only mower in question.)"
    The Elements of Style notes ambiguous practice of the rule and then adds: "But it would be a convenience to all if these two pronouns were used with precision. Careful writers, watchful for small conveniences, go which-hunting, remove the defining whiches, and by so doing improve their work." This discussion can be seen online in the 1918 edition -- search for "that. which."

    4. Finally, Patricia O’Connor uses the same reasoning in Woe is I, ©1999, pp. 3-4, and adds a cute little ditty:
    "Commas, which cut out the fat,
    "Go with which, never with that."

    Edit: To return to MaLaet's original question... I think the entire sentence is needed to determine if the clause is meant to be restrictive or not. And the context would help too, since it's not clear if "it" is the real subject (referring to an antecedent in a previous sentence) or if it's being used in an impersonal construction. :confused:

    :warning: Also, did I say? I don't think the that/which distinction is made by the Brits; it's a Yankee invention.
     
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2008
  26. miou-pixel New Member

    French
    Hello it's my first post ... erf i'm doing my homeworks and i have a question. I had to read a text and to answer to the questions ...<<( um there is it ok to say that? ;o )

    What period of the narrator's life is mentioned?
    >>> The period of the narrator's life which is mentioned is his childhood
    Can i make which there? I have some problem with who / which...
    [...]
     
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2008
  27. jann

    jann co-mod'

    English - USA
    You cannot use "who" here because it is for people, or perhaps animals (like dogs and cats, but not wild animals).

    This means you must choose between "which" and "that." Even native speakers disagree about the "correct" use of these relative pronouns. I have transferred this question into an existing discussion on that topic. :)

    Jann
    member and moderator

    PS. "Homework" is always singular in English, and we must always capitalize the pronon "I." And in English, the "question" is the COD of the verb "to answer" so you do not "answer to a question"... unlike French, where you say répondre à une question. :)
     
  28. Emilie Liliane New Member

    French France
    I am sure that at school in English lessons, we learnt the difference between using either WHICH or THAT as a relative pronoun to replace que, qui, ie:
    le chat que j'ai vu, le chien qui aboie.

    The difference would be that
    - one of them (I can't remember if that is That or Which) would be used for QUI that is a subject in the sentence: Le chien qui aboie
    - the other would be used for QUE that is an object: le chat que j'ai vu.

    When I look at the translation of Which on Word Reference, it does not make that distinction, and it is used either as a subject or as an object in the sentence. Living in England I hear people using both with no particular rule. When I ask people to tell me which one is correct, they tell me there is no difference...

    What is the correct use of Which and of That in English?
     
  29. joueurdebasson

    joueurdebasson Senior Member

    Indiana, Etats-Unis
    English/United States
    typically, 'that' corresponds to 'que', because it is followed by a 2nd subject. 'which' replaces 'qui', because it is still referring to the original verb. although in AE 'that' is very commonly used for both cases.
    ex.
    The cat that I saw.
    or
    The dog that barks.
     
  30. krika-tew New Member

    France
    French
    Bonjour tout le monde! C'est mon premier poste... depuis le boulot! :)

    I have been cogitating about the matter and I came up with some easy way to remeber which one of "that" or "which" to stick in the phrase.

    Is it right if I say "that" refers to a subject which is active, and "which" refers to to a passive subject?
     
  31. bloomiegirl

    bloomiegirl Senior Member

    New York
    US English
    Bienvenue au forum, Krika-tew ! :D

    But no, that is not correct.:( The following sentences are both correct... but they have different meanings:
    The lawnmower that is broken is in the garage.
    The lawnmower, which is broken, is in the garage.
    For more information, see my previous post on this thread (#32, I think).:)
     
  32. Gil Senior Member

    Français, Canada
    Ce que je comprends:

    The lawnmower that is broken is in the garage. => proposition relative déterminative en français
    The lawnmower, which is broken, is in the garage. => proposition relative explicative en français
     
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2012
  33. bloomiegirl

    bloomiegirl Senior Member

    New York
    US English
    Oui, c'est ça (coucou, Gil :)), comme l'a dit Strunk en 1918 :
    "That. Which. That is the defining, or restrictive, pronoun, which the nondefining, or nonrestrictive."
    Et ça marche toujours, du moins en anglais des USA. ;)
     
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2009
  34. Forero Senior Member

    Houston, Texas, USA
    USA English
    The matter of how to translate qui and que can be very complicated, and involves also when the qui or que is not even expressed in English (e.g. "companies recruiting women", "vulnerabilities not on the list") and when it is expressed with that, which, who, or whom.

    First, a brief note about the commas, parentheses, or other punctuation used to set off a nonrestrictive relative clause. They are not used arbitrarily but serve the same purpose as intonation and rhythm in speaking, which are obviously absent in writing. As used by skilled speakers and writers, it is intonation, rhythm, or punctuation that signals a nonrestrictive (parenthetical) relative clause.

    In regard to which vs. that in translating qui, the truth is that for a person new to the language, the rule of which for nonrestrictive, that or nothing for restrictive, can go a long way, but in native sentences written by expressive authors outside of an employer's dictates, either which or that can be used in a restrictive or nonrestrictive relative clause. The main issue between whether to use which or that is a matter of style, not grammar. Which tends to slow down a sentence, and this makes it useful for accompanying the commas, parentheses, dashes, etc. that signal the suspension of a clause, but sometimes that can be used to advantage in the same context. Similarly, that (or especially the absence of a relative pronoun) can be used to help keep a sentence moving.

    A special case is the cleft sentence. Cleft sentences are more common in French than in English, but when they occur in English, they generally use that (and sometimes nothing), rather than which:

    Qu'est-ce qui est là?
    What is there?
    ou What is it that is there? [pas which, et rarement sans pronom relatif]

    C'est le bureau qui me plaît le plus.
    It's the desk (that) I like most. [pas which]
     
  35. bloomiegirl

    bloomiegirl Senior Member

    New York
    US English
    It depends on the meaning of the sentence...

    "The companies that recruit women will benefit" means: The companies that will benefit are those that recruit women. [defining or restrictive clause]

    "The companies, which recruit women, will benefit" means: The aforementioned companies will benefit. And by the way, they recruit women. [nondefining or nonrestirctive clause]
     
  36. Mauvais sang New Member

    English
    It is only until relatively recently that grammatarians have insisted that we use "which" only if there is a comma (e.g. "the lawnmower, which is broken, is in the garage.")

    I really dislike this rule, because if you read the classics like Shakespeare or Byron, up until even the 20th century, you will see that "which" and "that" were used interchangeably.

    So follow the rule if you don't want some professor snob to correct you. I personally don't see the need for the rule (in fact, I think in some cases it can lead to confusion), so I don't follow it.
     
  37. bloomiegirl

    bloomiegirl Senior Member

    New York
    US English
    Welcome to the forum, Mauvais sang! :D

    I don't mean to spread bad blood, but if you write: "The lawnmower which is broken is in the garage," without commas, I don't know which of the following you mean:
    The lawnmower that is broken is in the garage. (Tells which one.)
    The lawnmower, which is broken, is in the garage. (Adds a fact about the only mower in question.)
    Some people say "which" universally: with pauses when they really mean "which," and without pauses when they mean "that." Commas are just a mechanism to indicate the pause in written English.

    But you're right, people don't always follow grammar rules. Even masterful writers don't always follow them; but then, that's not their job... That's why we have... grammarians. ;)

    Finally, Strunk's Elements of Style (online) was first published in 1918. I'll grant that as "recent" in the history of language, but not in my lifetime... :rolleyes:

    EDIT: That was apparently not my final word on this. I just found this link: which repeats the rules for restrictive and nonrestrictive clauses. Interestingly, the link is for Chicago-Kent College of Law... The presence or absence of a comma can make a material difference in a legal contract. It's not just "professor snobs" who care about these distinctions.
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2009
  38. Wordsmyth

    Wordsmyth Senior Member

    Location: Mostly SW France
    Native language: English (BrE)
    I heartily agree with Mauvais sang. Artificial rules (by which I mean those that make no sense or serve no purpose) are pointless.

    One of the most pertinent points in this thread, to my mind, is in Forero's post #46. It is the punctuation that shows whether a relative clause is restrictive or non-restrictive. Thereafter the choice of that or which can affect the flow or balance of the sentence.

    This is a choice that many native speakers make instinctively, and which doesn't change the meaning of the sentence — although in some cases it can avoid confusion over the different uses of that.

    PS. I've just done a "which-hunt" on what I've written above. Score: 'which' 2, 'that' 3 ... by pure instinct, and I wouldn't change any of them in retrospect.

    Ws:)
     
  39. bloomiegirl

    bloomiegirl Senior Member

    New York
    US English
    I agree with you completely, Wordsmyth. But not everyone has an instinctive grasp of "that" and "which." Grammar rules exist to help those of us who need some help with normative usage, and -- apparently -- lawyers. ;) (In fact, I know a lawyer who got his client a very large settlement, all based on the placement of a comma in the sentence.)
     
  40. Mauvais sang New Member

    English
    Hello! :D

    Exactly: by "recently" I mean 20th century.

    As to the lawnmower example, you make a good point (but is there really a difference in meaning?).

    It is interesting to note that we do find historical cases in which "that" is used to introduce a clause stating something additional about the antecedent. For example:

    Chaucer: Smale foweles maken melodye, That slepen al the nyght with open eye

    Likewise, we can find examples where "which" is used defining the antecedent to complete the sense:

    Newman: This is the path which leads to death

    Supposedly the modern rule helps clarify ambiguity, but I find the rule confusing in for example:

    There are so many machines that .....

    According to the rule, you MUST use "that" in this sentence as a relative pronoun. But the sentence can continue in 2 different ways:

    1) There are so many machines that break down after a month

    2) There are so many machines that I think I'll go mad!

    The slight confusion can be removed if you simply use "which" (for the first version):

    There are so many machines which break down after a month

    For it would simply be incorrect to say:

    There are so many machines which I think I'll go mad!

    So you see, in my opinion the rule can actually slow down reading.

    I prefer pre-20th century writing, in which the choice between that/which seems to have simply depended on what sounds nicer, from a purely aesthetic point of view. Take the following lines from Keats:

    Save from one gradual solitary gust
    Which comes upon the silence


    How ugly it would have sounded, had Keats used "That!"

    Save from one gradual solitary gust
    That comes upon the silence


    See what I mean?
     
  41. bloomiegirl

    bloomiegirl Senior Member

    New York
    US English
    I'll skip the use of English by Chaucer et al. (especially its poetic use). But thank you for the references, and yes, I like the Keats.

    I think your sample sentences are correct and unambiguous, but illustrate different usages of "that."
    There are so many machines that break down after a month
    There are so many machines that I think I'll go mad!

    Only the first one uses "that" as a relative pronoun. I don't understand why you're tempted to try the non-restrictive "which" in this sentence. (In which case, the sentence would be incomplete as it stands.)
    In the second sentence, "that" is a conjunction... there should be no confusion with "which," which is only a pronoun.
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2009
  42. Wordsmyth

    Wordsmyth Senior Member

    Location: Mostly SW France
    Native language: English (BrE)
    But bloomiegirl, wouldn't "without commas" tell you that it's the first one (tells which one)?

    If there's a rule involved in this, that apparently nobody is contesting, it's the use of commas around non-restrictive clauses. It's a rule which is based on reality (the written form represents the way people actually do distinguish in speech). Given that you have one rule, why would you need a second, especially as (Strunk or no Strunk) there's a strong swell of opinion that it doesn't represent a universal reality?

    You may have noticed (though many would not ;)) that I broke the "that/which rule" twice in the paragraph above, while respecting the "commas or not" rule. I don't think the meaning suffered.

    Ws:)
     
  43. Maître Capello

    Maître Capello Mod et ratures

    Suisse romande
    French – Switzerland
    I fully agree. By the way, when talking about people, you only have one choice—who—and the only thing that makes the relative clause restrictive or not is the pair of commas…
     
  44. Mauvais sang New Member

    English
    Yes, I know. But my point is that while reading the reader may be confused. Perhaps you never experience this, but when I'm reading I often feel like "that" can be distracting in cases where you're not sure whether it is about to be used as a conjunction or as a pronoun. It causes me to pause and think "Okay, is this 'that' about to be used as a conjunction, or as a pronoun?" I know, it's a very minor quibble, but it affects the flow of the text - a matter which is of great concern to me.

    I can think of yet another reason why we should abandon the rule of which/that, and it also involves a question of flow and readability. Take the following sentences:

    "The Impressionists followed contemporary theories of color that demonstrated that sunlight contains within it all the colors that fall into the spectrum."

    There are simply too many "thats"! It's distracting. Now take a revised version:

    The Impressionists followed contemporary theories of color which demonstrated that sunlight contains within it all the colors that fall into the spectrum

    I personally prefer the 2nd version, and I don't think it is ambiguous at all. But feel free to disagree! :) I hope you don't think I'm arguing.
     
  45. Wordsmyth

    Wordsmyth Senior Member

    Location: Mostly SW France
    Native language: English (BrE)
    Bloomiegirl, your grammatical analysis is perfect. And if every reader of Mauvais sang's sentence were a grammarian, or at least conducted a pre-scan for relative pronouns and conjunctions, there'd be no problem.

    But most people don't. They read words as they come. So "There are so many machines that ..." could continue with either of the two constructions; there's a 50% chance that the brain gears up for the wrong one, gets further along the sentence, realises it's nonsense, goes back and gets it on the second shot. That may take only a few milliseconds, but, as Mauvais sang says, "the rule can actually slow down reading".

    Ws:)

    En effet, MC; and there are other examples to support punctuation as the real indicator:

    "The means by which we achieve ...", although restrictive, could not be "... by that we achieve ...".

    Similarly for "The bag from which I took an apple was third from the left" (restrictive)

    ... and any others where 'which' is preceded by a preposition.

    Ws:)
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2009
  46. Mauvais sang New Member

    English
    Ah, you explained my point perfectly!
     
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2012
  47. bloomiegirl

    bloomiegirl Senior Member

    New York
    US English
    Hello again... What a relief (whew!) that we all agree on the offsetting commas for nonrestrictive clauses.And of course the Maître is right, "who" is used for restrictive and nonrestrictive clauses alike; only the punctuation indicates the difference. So I was trying to figure out why the hairs stand up on the back of my neck every time I see a nonrestrictive "that" or a restrictive "which." Reading the posts by Mauvais sang and Wordsmyth... and then I hit "realises"!!! And it came to me, in a flash: What we have here is American usage vs. British usage. Did you guys not notice the last line of my August 16 post (#34)? Well here it is again:
    And we do our quote marks differently too. :p
     
  48. Forero Senior Member

    Houston, Texas, USA
    USA English
    Restrictive which and nonrestrictive that are fine with me, and I am an American. Is it a Yankee thing (i.e. north of the Mason-Dixon line)?

    (I am particular about the commas though. The extra one in the second Amendment bothers me every time I run across it.)
     
  49. bloomiegirl

    bloomiegirl Senior Member

    New York
    US English
    Not according to the U of Alabama, Sweet Briar, Texas A&M, and the U of North Texas.
    And if that's too academic a crowd for you (but who else would be writing about grammar?), then there's the CDC and NASA.
    Perhaps we should agree to disagree on this one. ;)
     
  50. alatien34 Senior Member

    France, French
    Hello everyone!

    I would like to know what is the best way to phrase the following:

    "In order to create objects that are aligned and therefore, obtain a more readable workflow, you have three possibilities..."

    OR

    "In order to create objects which are aligned and therefore, obtain a more readable workflow, you have three possibilities..."

    Thanks a lot!

    Bye
     

Share This Page