|
|
Post by geoffrey on Sept 15, 2023 9:05:52 GMT -6
We will say which for that... I'm still not clear about the rules for using "which" vs. "that".  |
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Sept 15, 2023 9:10:20 GMT -6
I had an English professor back around 1990 who said that, at the rate the English language is going, eventually it will have one and only one vowel sound: "uh" as in "ugh".
|
|
Parzival
Level 6 Magician
Is a little Stir Crazy this year...
Posts: 401
|
Post by Parzival on Sept 15, 2023 16:25:10 GMT -6
We will say which for that... I'm still not clear about the rules for using "which" vs. "that". You’re in fine company. In general, “which” is to be used when the clause it introduces isn’t restrictive. “That” is to be used when the clause is restrictive. For example: The window that has the broken shutter was open. (Implies that only a particular window of many was open.) The clause “that” refers to is restrictive because it narrows the subject down to a specific thing exclusive of other possible things. It could be interpreted as meaning the phrase “the one with the” (whatever detail): The open window was the one with the broken shutter. The window, which had a broken shutter, was open. (Implies there are no other windows to consider, and the broken shutter is just a descriptive detail. It could be considered to represent “and also”): The window was open and also had a broken shutter. ”That” is exclusive— it refers only to a specific thing, and the clause it introduces is necessary to the sentence for the full meaning to be conveyed. In the example, trying to create two sentences would complicate the situation: “The window was open. I mean, the window with a broken shutter.” The statement requires both details to convey the information; two sentences makes it clumsy. ”Which” is broader, and the clause it introduces is unnecessary; it could be a separate sentence and the information would be unaffected— it could even be left out entirely, and the gist of the statement would remain: “The window was open. The window had a broken shutter.” The latter detail isn’t the gist of the statement. It conveys information, but it is secondary to the intent. However, if one can be clear while using either word, it’s really quite okay. One will naturally use “that” correctly most of the time. But even “which,” if used in “that’s” place won’t break the clarity. “The window which has the broken shutter was open,” is perfectly clear as restrictive, even if the usage is technically incorrect. In the end, the only rule which applies to language is the necessity of clarity. If a statement is clear and understandable, then it’s fine. If it leaves people parsing things to determine what one is trying to say, then quite possibly one has made a true grammar mistake. |
|
rhialto
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 128
|
Post by rhialto on Sept 16, 2023 5:00:51 GMT -6
Come for the OD&D, stay for the quantum semantics discussions...  |
|
Parzival
Level 6 Magician
Is a little Stir Crazy this year...
Posts: 401
|
Post by Parzival on Sept 16, 2023 7:24:13 GMT -6
English major. “Warning: May engage in grammar pedantry.”  |
|
skars
Level 6 Magician
Posts: 407
|
Post by skars on Sept 22, 2023 17:25:42 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by tkdco2 on Sept 22, 2023 17:33:49 GMT -6
I had forgotten about that thread! |
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Sept 22, 2023 23:00:31 GMT -6
We will say which for that... I'm still not clear about the rules for using "which" vs. "that". [/quote] This is one of those areas where English as a second language speakers have an advantage. They're actually taught this sort of thing, unlike us. "Which/Who" adds additional information about a noun. "That" provides information that identifies which noun (from many similar ones) the speaker refers to. Their daughter that broke her arm must go to the hospital. -> Shows that she has at least one sister, and that only the sister with the broken arm must go to the hospital.Their daughter who broke her arm must go to the hospital. -> Shows that there is only one daughter that could reasonably be referred to.In reality, however, I use whichever one sounds better in any given sentence. |
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Sept 23, 2023 16:53:31 GMT -6
Yeah, as soon as you get into "natural speech" in any language, a lot of those distinctions go out the window and it's all about individual constructions and associations. I suspect the which/that distinction as taught in American grammar is one of those instances like the split infinitive, or proper use of commas, or the correct use of "less" vs "fewer," where someone with a big fetish for Latin grammar wrote a book with a lot of made up hot opinions about the way English ought to work, and his friends in the academic publishing industry all took it at face value.
(And yes, I'm partially singling out Strunk & White. I don't know if they addressed this particular case, but it is the sort of thing they would have made an Absolute Unambiguous Decree about)
|
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Sept 24, 2023 10:37:48 GMT -6
Yeah, as soon as you get into "natural speech" in any language, a lot of those distinctions go out the window and it's all about individual constructions and associations. I suspect the which/that distinction as taught in American grammar is one of those instances like the split infinitive, or proper use of commas, or the correct use of "less" vs "fewer," where someone with a big fetish for Latin grammar wrote a book with a lot of made up hot opinions about the way English ought to work, and his friends in the academic publishing industry all took it at face value. (And yes, I'm partially singling out Strunk & White. I don't know if they addressed this particular case, but it is the sort of thing they would have made an Absolute Unambiguous Decree about) Generally, I agree, though I have a soft spot for The Elements of Style. Strunk and White didn't always get the answers right, but they were asking interesting questions. Ultimately, however, no answers to abstract questions are truly satisfying. The that/which distinction, however, I have found useful at times, and usually does imitate natural English speech (of some dialects) fairly consistently. It's also put on the SAT (for some ungodly reason). Verb tenses, though - I love the way grammarians try to put specific rules to the use of those. When stated procedurally, the difference between present perfect and past simple is particularly laughable. |
|
|
|
Post by Desparil on Sept 24, 2023 12:20:45 GMT -6
Verb tenses, though - I love the way grammarians try to put specific rules to the use of those. When stated procedurally, the difference between present perfect and past simple is particularly laughable. Present perfect is pretty niche, but it's useful sometimes. Generally it's pretty intuitive where it's necessary, stuff like "I've lived in this town my whole life" or "he's been the undefeated champion for the past 10 years." Most of the examples that I've seen used in grammar lessons don't sound conversational at all, usually it would be much more natural to use an adverb plus simple past. Nobody says "I have eaten" when asked if they're hungry, they say "I already ate." |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2023 13:05:20 GMT -6
Verb tenses, though - I love the way grammarians try to put specific rules to the use of those. When stated procedurally, the difference between present perfect and past simple is particularly laughable. Present perfect is pretty niche, but it's useful sometimes. Generally it's pretty intuitive where it's necessary, stuff like "I've lived in this town my whole life" or "he's been the undefeated champion for the past 10 years." Most of the examples that I've seen used in grammar lessons don't sound conversational at all, usually it would be much more natural to use an adverb plus simple past. Nobody says "I have eaten" when asked if they're hungry, they say "I already ate." And drank some watered-down rum. Grog!  |
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Sept 24, 2023 15:32:12 GMT -6
Yeah, as soon as you get into "natural speech" in any language, a lot of those distinctions go out the window and it's all about individual constructions and associations. I suspect the which/that distinction as taught in American grammar is one of those instances like the split infinitive, or proper use of commas, or the correct use of "less" vs "fewer," where someone with a big fetish for Latin grammar wrote a book with a lot of made up hot opinions about the way English ought to work, and his friends in the academic publishing industry all took it at face value. (And yes, I'm partially singling out Strunk & White. I don't know if they addressed this particular case, but it is the sort of thing they would have made an Absolute Unambiguous Decree about) Generally, I agree, though I have a soft spot for The Elements of Style. Strunk and White didn't always get the answers right, but they were asking interesting questions. Ultimately, however, no answers to abstract questions are truly satisfying. The that/which distinction, however, I have found useful at times, and usually does imitate natural English speech (of some dialects) fairly consistently. It's also put on the SAT (for some ungodly reason). Verb tenses, though - I love the way grammarians try to put specific rules to the use of those. When stated procedurally, the difference between present perfect and past simple is particularly laughable. I agree, it's a fascinating book and brings up a whole new way of thinking about how you use your own language. My main issue is over the degree to which books like it get used to lock down what counts as real vs fake, or intelligent vs unlearned, or even accurate vs unclear, language. |
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Sept 24, 2023 15:33:21 GMT -6
Verb tenses, though - I love the way grammarians try to put specific rules to the use of those. When stated procedurally, the difference between present perfect and past simple is particularly laughable. Present perfect is pretty niche, but it's useful sometimes. Generally it's pretty intuitive where it's necessary, stuff like "I've lived in this town my whole life" or "he's been the undefeated champion for the past 10 years." Most of the examples that I've seen used in grammar lessons don't sound conversational at all, usually it would be much more natural to use an adverb plus simple past. Nobody says "I have eaten" when asked if they're hungry, they say "I already ate." Funny, I always go halfsies and say 'I've already eaten'!  |
|
|
|
Post by Punkrabbitt on Sept 24, 2023 15:52:09 GMT -6
I cannot begin to tell you how much I love the way this topic has taken some crazy turns.
My people!
|
|
|
|
Post by Piper on Sept 24, 2023 19:35:26 GMT -6
Nobody says "I have eaten" when asked if they're hungry, they say "I already ate." False. I may be a throwback but I say it often. Apologies. |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Sept 25, 2023 6:15:46 GMT -6
Things will be spelled, pronounced, structured and defined according to the whims of either speakers or writers and occasionally both. Robert E Howard was fond of having characters find "jools" instead of jewels. I am no linguist, but he does it several times and so I assume this must have been in vogue at some point. |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Sept 25, 2023 6:21:21 GMT -6
Yeah, as soon as you get into "natural speech" in any language, a lot of those distinctions go out the window and it's all about individual constructions and associations. And ... we are back to the "in order" discussion again ...  |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Sept 25, 2023 6:28:29 GMT -6
I cannot begin to tell you how much I love the way this topic has taken some crazy turns. My people! Love the conversation, understand only fragments of it. That's the problem I have with Tolkien -- he talks about all sorts of stuff I wish I understood about linguistics.  |
|
|
|
Post by rredmond on Sept 25, 2023 6:51:34 GMT -6
It also says a lot about these forums. This is the most agreeable discourse I may have ever seen online. |
|
|
|
Post by DungeonDevil on Sept 26, 2023 10:57:10 GMT -6
I cannot begin to tell you how much I love the way this topic has taken some crazy turns. My people! Love the conversation, understand only fragments of it. That's the problem I have with Tolkien -- he talks about all sorts of stuff I wish I understood about linguistics. Well, I am a Linguist, and became one because I was inspired by the good Doctor! If you have any Linguistics-related questions, I'd be happy to answer (if the subject is within my professional wheelhouse). |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Sept 26, 2023 14:18:00 GMT -6
I cannot begin to tell you how much I love the way this topic has taken some crazy turns. My people! Love the conversation, understand only fragments of it. That's the problem I have with Tolkien -- he talks about all sorts of stuff I wish I understood about linguistics. I find Tolkien's translation of Beowulf to be some of the most delightful English I've ever read. This is not to take anything away from the Seamus Heaney translation of Beowulf, which is also a masterpiece of English literature IMHO. |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Sept 26, 2023 14:26:36 GMT -6
(And yes, I'm partially singling out Strunk & White. I don't know if they addressed this particular case, but it is the sort of thing they would have made an Absolute Unambiguous Decree about) I keep going back to Strunk & White every few years, I love that book. Not to say it is the end-all-be-all of English rules, but it's pretty excellent. I liken it to this: you have to know the rules in order to break them. And language is more Art than Science, so the rules are meant to be broken. That is how we end up with beautiful poetry and the like. I also have a Dictionary of English Proverbs that is an immense source of inspiration, with language going back to Middle English and even further. |
|
