Conference thebay::joyoflex

      I believe that 'which' and 'that' are sometimes interchangeable.
      You wouldn't say "I believe which 'which' and 'that' are
      interchangeable," would you?  This problem is further complicated
      by the fact that ('which' wouldn't go there, either) the word
      'what' is sometimes the equivalent of the phrase 'that which'.
      "That which goes up, must come down."  You wouldn't say "Which
      which..." or "That that...," though sometimes 'that that' is
      correct.  Hear!  Hear!  
      
      I, too, learned that the personal relative pronouns should
      always be used to refer to persons (though these days, it seems,
      these pronouns are also used to refer to animals, and, of course,
      anything personified) and should never be used to refer to
      inanimate objects or abstractions.  
      
      (I learned all this on a Thursday, .627 of the way through
      the 50-minute English class in Room 109.   :-)  )
      
      Interrogative pronouns present a different problem.  When used
      interrogatively, 'which' is proper to use for persons.  "Which
      witch is that?"  ( "That witch is which." )
      
      Dave C.

    I seem to remember learning at school (on a warm Tuesday 
    morning, it was) that there is a rule which says something 
    like :
    	Use WHAT and WHICH for things, and WHO or WHOM for people.
    	Example:
    		The people who are in the woods which you see
    
    and there is an exception like:
    	Use THAT instead of the pronoun WHAT/WHICH when it
    	means "which has the property of" or "which is defined by".
    
    	Example:
    		All is not gold, that glitters
    
    I can't remember wether it is correct to use THAT for WHO with
    the same connotation (I was missing that afternoon).
    
            				roger
    
    PS: In case there's anything wrong in this text, please bear with me;
    	I'm not a "native speaker" - just a naive one.
    
        
    

    Re .2  In this case, *not* being a native speaker is a definite
    advantage.  You have learned English as a foreign language, and
    so have had proper grammar rules taught to you in class.  As you
    are (obviously) fluent in the language, you probably use it better
    than most of us who just picked it up going along :-).
    
    ['better' feels wrong in that sentence.  I have this mysterious
    urge to use 'betterly' or 'weller'].
    
    Jeff.

    The following (within the asterisks) is a quoted excerpt from 
    Strunk and White's "The Elements of Style":
    
    **********************************************************************
    
    That, which.  That is the defining, or restrictive pronoun, which
    is the nondefining, or nonrestrictive pronoun.
    
       The lawn mower that is broken is in the garage.  (tells which
       one)
       
       The lawn mower, which is broken, is in the garage.  (adds a 
       fact about the only mower in question)
    
    **********************************************************************
    
    Another explanation I received:  
    
    If you can remove the phrase without changing the meaning of the 
    sentence, then the phrase is nonrestrictive; it should begin with 
    the word "which", and should be set off by commas.  
    
    If removing the phrase changes the meaning of the sentence, then 
    the phrase is restrictive; it should begin with the word "that", 
    and should not be set off.
    
    I recommend Strunk and White's book to anyone interested in 
    "English as she is spoke".
    
    					andrew
    
    

  I appreciate the efforts of all of you, and I'll remember them :-)
    
    						Ann B.

Strunk and White concludes its section on that/which by saying:

	.... The careful writer, watchful for small conveniences, goes
	'which' hunting, removing the defining 'whiches,' and by so doing
	improves his work.

Well put.  They even included a pun.

--PSW

    Re: .4
    
    I believe there is a minor exception to the general rule of using
    "that" for the restrictive relative pronoun: when the relative clause
    applies a preposition to the noun.
    
    	The lawn mower that is broken is in the garage.

    		but
    
    	The lawn mower into which I dropped my fountain pen is in the
    garage.

    
    Lew Lasher

    I just got my manual back from its edit pass, and the editor wants
    me to change 
    
    "...the fully qualified fields on which it depends"
   
    to 
    
    "...the fully qualified fields that it depends on."
    
    Now, I'm rather fond of 'which' myself, but in general I'll go
    along with the 'which' hunting (which is not, by the way, a pun in
    Western-American accents; we aspirate the 'h' in 'which' and the
    two words are quite distinct), but I draw the line at introducing
    a dangling preposition.  (Not that I mind ending a sentence with a
    preposition when it's the most appropriate thing to do. After
    all, writers of English have been doing it since Chaucer.) 

    --bonnie

	Re: .-1
    
    > "...the fully qualified fields that it depends on."

    I had an English teacher tell me once, "Never end a sentence with
    a preposition."  I guess you don't have to know grammar to edit
    somebody else's work.
    
    duane

    re:.9
    
    All English teachers used to say that, but that rule has become
    pass�. I always thought it was silly. No one cared if you ended
    a phrase *within* a sentence with a preposition, only if you
    ended the sentence itself with one.
    
    My usage tends to be 50-50. In formal writing, I usually use the
    "of which" construction. In informal writing, I tend to do the
    same, but I'm not as picky about making sure I use it. With certain
    phrases, regardless of the formality of the writing, I let the
    proposition fall at the end, depending on how awkward the alternative
    sounds. For example, rather than "That's the solution of which I was
    thinking," I would say "That's the solution I was thinking of."  In
    speech, I just let the propositions fall where they will.
    
    --- jerry

    An anecdote about Winston Churchill which I heard (or made up, it
    doesn't really matter) goes something like this:
    
    A report was corrected by an offical because it contained a sentence
    ending in a preposition. WC (great initials!) sent a memo to the
    corrector, saying that such pedantry was something "up with which
    I will not put".
    
    	Andrew.

    I think .7 points to the area of doubt, tho' I'd never heard this
    exception expressed this way.  Fowler says the trouble is that English
    doesn't have an object-ive version of `that' - the thing that the
    `that' (in a defining relative clause) refers to can only be a subject:
    `...(wh)that it depends on' is the ideal, but (wh)that isn't a word. 
    
    As I remember, Fowler also refers to an old rule that had which/that
    (for inanimate things) paired with which/who (for people) - hence "Our
    Father, which art...". But I've never met this form in real life. 
    
    In Bonnie's case, I'd probably have written `that it depends
    on'; but - when I was a tech. editor - I wouldn't have objected
    to the `which' version.  That would have been, to add a bit of
    Churchill's quote, "b interference" (as the original text was
    a marginal note in pencil, what - if anything - followed the `b'
    must be a matter for conjecture).
    
    b

    Re: .10
    
    >  ...I let the proposition fall at the end, depending on how awkward 
                    ^^^^^^^^^^^
    >  the alternative sounds.
    
    > In speech, I just let the propositions fall where they will.
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^
    
    It sounds like you make a practise of going around dropping propositions  
    most anywhere.  What has been your success rate?    

Those who listen to the radio broadcasts of Boston Red Sox games will be
familiar with the solution to the which/dangling-participle problem employed 
by the sponsors of a certain contest:

    "Entrants must be of legal drinking age in the state they reside."

No awkward "which", no dangling anything.  No "where", for that matter.
There's the small matter of transitivizing an intransitive verb, but
whattaya expect from a brewery? 

    re:.13
    
    No, I didn't do that, did I?
    
    My God, I did!
    
    Well, at least I got it write [*sic*] the first time.
    
    --- jerry

    What I said in .12 just ain't so, and to make the fault even more
    heinous I dragged Fowler into it.
    
    Here's the offending bit:
    
    >   exception expressed this way.  Fowler says the trouble is that English
    >	doesn't have an object-ive version of `that' - the thing that the
    >	`that' (in a defining relative clause) refers to can only be a subject:

    The way I should have remembered it was this: the `that' in a defining
    relative clause has to be either the subject or the direct object
    of its clause.  The way Fowler put it was, of course, neater: `that'
    (in that sort of clause) has to come first. So while that-ists can
    happily observe their defining/non-defining distinction for a subject
    or a direct object, they have to fall back on `which' when there's
    a preposition about.
    
    There: I couldn't have gone off for a two-week holiday with a
    flagrant error in JOYOFLEX waiting to be refuted!
    
    b

Then of course there's the end-all for the "don't end with preposition"
school.  It's a sentence supposedly spewed forth by a child, displeased
by the book that Daddy has just brought up:

	Daddy, why did you bring the book I didn't want to be read
	to from out of up for ?


/Eric

    The way I heard it, the father bought the book for his son while
    on a business trip to Austalia:
    
    	Daddy, what did you bring the book I didn't want to
    	be read to from out of up from Down Under for?
    
    --- jerry

    Re: .8
    
    Did the editor explain why?  Your sentence is fine; the editor's
    is also fine, but a bit more awkward.  Heaven protect us from ignorant
    editors.
    
    Bernie

I can't believe that no one mentioned the rule this way:

	"Never use a preposition to end a sentence with."