The Relative Pronouns "That" and "Which"

=== Digression === My opponent chooses to digress and discuss a grammar rule that I broke in my previous argument. I see that I did use "however" incorrectly in one of the two instances, and I probably have used it incorrectly on previous occasions. As for my use of commas outside the quotation marks, this is an international forum, not purely American, so using the European English style of quotation is perfectly acceptable here. (I also hold my knife and fork in the European style while eating. .. ) My opponent implies that my personal oversight of a particular rule indicates that some or all other rules can be ignored. This is obviously a fallacy of faulty generalization. I agree with my opponent; he should have stopped himself. === Rebuttal === My opponent thinks that the fact that I did not address his quote from the "American Heritage Book of English Usage" is a point in his favor, but it is not. Let's examine the quote now to show why: ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½Some people extend the rule and insist that, just as 'that' should ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½be used only in restrictive clauses, 'which' should be used only in ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½nonrestrictive clauses. .. This use of 'which' with restrictive ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½clauses is very common, even in edited prose. We can easily see that the quote agrees with the information I posted in the first round (both "that" and "which" can be used with restrictive clauses. ) In other words, the quote agrees with my contention, so there is nothing there for me to rebut. My opponent then goes on to discuss the invention of the rule noted in the "American Heritage Book of English Usage", a rule which I have already agreed isn't valid. He is focusing on the fact that the usage of "that" and "which" in restrictive clauses are interchangeable and generalizing to say they are therefore interchangeable in *all* cases, but as I have already shown, this is not true. My opponent's quotes from various dictionaries are not helpful without the definitions for the word "that" from the very same dictionaries. Meanwhile here is what I found in the "Oxford American Dictionary" under the word "restrictive": ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½In writing, a restrictive relative clause is not set off by commas, ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½and: "that" is the preferred subject or object of the clause, ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½although many writers use "which" and "who" or "whom" for such ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½clauses. A nonrestrictive clause is set off within commas, and ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½"which", "who", or "whom", not "that", is the relative pronoun to ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½use as the subject or object of the verb of the clause. Like my previous two sources this one also tells us that "that" and "which" are interchangeable for restrictive clauses, but "that" should *not* be used in nonrestrictive clauses. My opponent also says, ". .. my examples are not anecdotal. They are consensus. " Sorry, but eight examples does *not* create a consensus. Lastly, among other things my opponent says, "most professional style guides and dictionaries make no such distinction. " I have already presented citations that show that two of the most prominent style guides do in fact make a distinction as I outlined in my first round, and here is another. The Chicago Manual of Style 15th ed. also agrees with OWL at Purdue and The Little Brown Handbook, saying "Some people use 'which' restrictively, which is more or less okay (and popular among writers of British English) as long as no commas are involved. " It still requires that non-restrictive clauses start with "which" and not "that". (. http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org... . html) === Argument (Continuation from round 1) === My opponent continues to stress the rule that "that" and "which" are interchangeable in *restrictive* clauses, despite the fact that I have already conceded this particular point. This does *not* mean that they are "entirely interchangeable" as specified in the resolution. As I stated in round one, and Pro did not rebut, "that" cannot be used in a non-restrictive clause, and "that" can be substituted for "who" but "which" cannot.