🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <16381@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, citrin@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
(Wayne Citrin) writes:
> Will someone please explain the distinction between the relative pronouns
> "which" and "that"?

The technical distinction concerns "restricted vs nonrestricted
clauses." Fowler had proposed that these should formally distinguish where
one or the other can be used, because otherwise usage seemed to be
varying randomly.

A restrictive clause is one whose removal would alter the basic
message of a sentence. According to this RC/NRC rule, it should be
introduced by "that": Helen's is the face that launched a thousand
ships.

A nonrestrictive clause is supplementary, incidental or even
parenthetical to the basic message of the sentence: Helen's face,
which was not unblemished upon close inspection, launched a thousand
ships. A heuristic rule is that usually a nonrestrictive clause is or
can be set off by commas, whereas a restrictive one can't.

That having been said, let me add that Fowler's tentative proposal for
bringing order to the arbitrary use of which and that was itself
rather arbitrary, since there are perfectly good examples where say, "that"
is preferable in an NRC for emphasis and "which" is preferable in an RC
to avoid a proliferation of "that"'s or simply to preserve or restore
a good anglo-saxon flavour.

Rules are for pedants and analphabets; stylists will always adapt them
to the uncodifiable higher purposes literary language is really meant
for.
-- 

Stevan Harnad                                  (609) - 921 7771
{allegra, bellcore, seismo, rutgers, packard}  !princeton!mind!harnad
harnad%mind@princeton.csnet