Talk:Restrictiveness

message: This should probably be rewritten from a more modern grammatical perspective, and use the terms "integrated relative clause" and "supplementary clause" more than "restrictive" and "non-restrictive".
Note that the difference between "which" and "that" in integrated relative (restrictive) clauses is specific to the modern US American dialect of English. They're equivalent in the corpus of English literature as well as in modern journalism in Britain and (largely) Canada.
- toh 21:54, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)
:... and even in the USA, most people do not follow that convention.  I think it was proposed by Fowler in his famous book, and he was British. Michael Hardy 22:56, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree in principle and for that reason I could imagine moving the last paragraph to English relative clauses.  But the rest is quite good.  It is important that we give the variety of different terminology, and explain why the different terms have their own validity.  And one English example of each kind, restrictive and non-restrictive is necessary; after all, this is the English Wiki, so English is the one language we can assume readers can work with.  Perhaps the examples could be simpler, though.  Too many unnecessary dogs at the moment! --Doric Loon 13:12, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Need for rewrite

message: Apart from the misinformation added concerning intonation, can someone explain to me why so much general information on English clauses is being added here.  We agreed (above) to put all that elsewhere.  --Doric Loon 18:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your point about about the role of intonation in ditingusihing restrictive and non-restrictive clauses in speech has been accepted. The entry on restrictive clauses needs to be simply and clearly written because it concerns a matter which people who are not linguists need to understand in order to write correctly. PeterBowing  10:42, 8 February 2006
Sure, this article should be clear to non-specialists, and some of the recent changes have helped a lot there.  But the point is, the full story of English relative clauses, including the restrictiveness rules, has an article on its own.  This article was supposed to be about the concept of restrictiveness itself, not just in English.  It has now been moved (without consultation on the talk page, which is an absolute no-no!) to a new title which fundamentally changes that.  And new material has been added which duplicates what is in the other article.  I think this is a move in the wrong direction.  --Doric Loon 13:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to "Restrictive clause (English)" and back

message: I think the underlying problem here — the one that's resulted in the English/non-English problem discussed above — is that "restrictive clause" is a mostly English-specific concept. German and Japanese don't have this concept; a clause's restrictiveness is not explicitly marked. Hebrew barely does; the Hebrew Academy endorses English-style usage (which draws the distinction), but most speakers use the German style (which doesn't). Spanish doesn't, either; a clause's restrictiveness is explicitly marked, but so is any adjective's (albeit not the same way). French doesn't completely; a clause's restrictiveness is a factor in certain markings (commas, intonation), but not the only factor.
Unless someone can present evidence that in the languages of the world, there's a greater tendency to mark clauses for restrictiveness than other adjectives, I think this page should be moved to Restrictiveness, and then non-English information can be added more naturally.
Ruakh 18:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been a few days, and no one's commented . . . am I to take that as agreement, or at least as lack of objection? I'll wait another day or two before making the move, in case anyone suddenly objects. Ruakh 23:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I am sorry, I have exactly the opposite opinion. This is not about grammar but about semantics, so it crosses language boundaries. How the semantic difference is represented in language is something else. I gather that the use of comma's (or rather the omission) of a comma both in English and Dutch (my native language) identifies a restrictive clause, but as far as a I know there is no way to express the difference for adjectives in these languages. I would be very curious how languages make the difference that do not follow the above "comma convention". Sometimes the meaning is obvious fro mthe context. If I refer to "the brilliant scholars of Harvard University", I don't mean to contrast the with the stupid scholars from that university. But there are cases where the difference is not as obvious. Rbakels (talk) 11:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fundamental Englishness of article? 

message: Question about this line: "Note that many grammarians insist that which would be incorrect in the former example." (Regarding the use of "which" in a restrictive clause).
Is there any recognized grammar guide that actually says it is correct?  Everything I have read states that it is not correct.  Unless there is a source for it, I think it should be left out, or at least have the phrasing reversed--instead of saying "many grammarians insist that which would be incorrect" say something like "some grammarians (cite) argue that which could also be used in the former example."
Has this been discussed before?--Margareta 08:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Linguists (scientists who study language, including descriptive grammarians, i.e. linguists who study grammar) all agree that which can introduce a restrictive clause. This is because linguists believe that a prohibition must have some basis in the actual language that is used, which the prohibition against restrictive which doesn't really: it's not like if you go back far enough, you'll find a time when people naturally distinguished which and that in this way. Some prescriptivist grammarians (educators who tell people how to write) have decided that which shouldn't be used to introduce restrictive relative clauses; this is a relative recent innovation, only going back to Fowler (see http://bartelby.com/116/205.html to see what he wrote), and Fowler makes quite clear that he's making up the rule. What's more, Fowler mentions a number of exceptions to his rule (where that is preferred in a non-restrictive context or which in a restrictive one), which modern prescriptivists typically ignore. (Conversely, modern prescriptivists typically do not recommend that as the human restrictive relative pronoun, which Fowler did.) —RuakhTALK 14:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I have no deep insight into this, but in Japan, it is taught that "which" can introduce a restrictive clause. English taught in Japan is intended to be American English (per guidelines from the Ministry of Education, which also screens all textbooks). In my own (American) education I do not remember being taught a rule pertaining to this consistently. Dekimasu 22:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Some guides you haven't looked at, then: The Columbia Guide to Standard American English; The American Heritage Book of English Usage. —RuakhTALK 23:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Which" in a restrictive clause 

message: We need an example of Spanish adjectives, preferably two sentences containing the same adjective, one in a restritive and oné in a non-restrictive context. --Doric Loon (talk) 13:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spanish