which refer to a previous clause

< Previous | Next >

taraa

Senior Member
Persian
Why doesn't it say "that"? Can't "that" refer to the whole of a previous clause? Isn't it because it's a non-defining clause so just 'which' is correct or something else?

"'which' can refer not only to a noun, but also to the whole of a previous clause."
Swan's Practical English Usage
 
  • Barque

    Banned
    Tamil
    Why doesn't it say "that"? Can't "that" refer to the whole of a previous clause?
    We can't answer that without a specific sentence.

    Both words are used to refer to an earlier clause. Sometimes, depending on the actual sentence and context, both can be used and sometimes only one.
     

    taraa

    Senior Member
    Persian
    We can't answer that without a specific sentence.

    Both words are used to refer to an earlier clause. Sometimes, depending on the actual sentence and context, both can be used and sometimes only one.
    How the book says that as a rule?
     

    entangledbank

    Senior Member
    English - South-East England
    I can't think of an example of 'that' used to refer to a clause, though it is occasionally used for non-defining relative clauses (attached to a noun) and marked off with a comma. When 'which' refers to a previous clause, it always (in my experience) requires the intonation break that is indicated in writing by a comma, just as it does when it begins a non-defining relative clause attached to a noun.
     

    taraa

    Senior Member
    Persian
    We can't answer that without a specific sentence.

    Both words are used to refer to an earlier clause. Sometimes, depending on the actual sentence and context, both can be used and sometimes only one.
    Many thanks.
    I can't think of an example of 'that' used to refer to a clause, though it is occasionally used for non-defining relative clauses (attached to a noun) and marked off with a comma. When 'which' refers to a previous clause, it always (in my experience) requires the intonation break that is indicated in writing by a comma, just as it does when it begins a non-defining relative clause attached to a noun.
    Many thanks. :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
    I can't think of an example of 'that' used to refer to a clause, though it is occasionally used for non-defining relative clauses (attached to a noun) and marked off with a comma.
    Do you consider 'that' in non-defining clauses as correct, please? Since I read in books that just 'which' is used for that?
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top