Newsgroup: it.cultura.linguistica.inglese
Titolo: That which

Ciao raga,
You may have noticed that one of the contributors to this newsgroup wrote the
following sentence.
"Therefore, it's really a spelling error; a type of error which I believe I'm
genetically prone to repeat ad infinitum."
I'd suggest that this person is also prone to another type of error: using
"which" in a restrictive clause instead of "that." People often make this error
because they prefer the literary sound of "which." In fact, although I'm not
sure of this, I believe that the British do not make this distinction and permit
the use of "which" in restrictive clauses. We statunitense are not so forgiving.
There is a simple rule of thumb* to help determine when to use the conjunction
"that" and when to use "which." If the conjunction can be omitted, use "that;"
if a comma can be inserted before the conjunction, use "which." So, it would
have been better to write either of the following sentences.
"Therefore, it's really a spelling error; a type of error that I believe I'm
genetically prone to repeat ad infinitum."
"Therefore, it's really a spelling error; a type of error I believe I'm
genetically prone to repeat ad infinitum."
Ciao,
Ron
USA
*rule of thumb = guideline, common sense rule

 wrote in message
92g1q3$72t5n$1...@ID-55125.news.dfncis.de...


 Ron...perchè firma con USA????
USA = gli Stati Uniti
Scrivo i miei commenti dalla prospettiva di un madrelingua inglese che è nato e
abita negli Stati Uniti. Credo che quest'informazione sia importante per la
gente che legge i miei post. C`è qualche differenza nella lingua tra le regioni
diverse nel mondo.
Ciao,
Ron
USA quasi sempre questo saluto

Perché SUI é il grido di maiale.
Martino


 Perché SUI é il grido di maiale.
Che bizzarro questo mondo! Allora, da tua casa quando il maiale grida "SUI," i
braccianti vengono per mangiare?
Ciao,
Ron
USA troppo la sua immaginazione

 gente che legge i miei post. C`č qualche differenza nella lingua tra le


Bizzarro per niente, C'č come il nome italiano SUIno.
Martino


 in restrictive clauses. We statunitense are not so forgiving.
I know not of that which you speak.  :-)  
But I take it that you've been reading a grammar book again!
Loki
-- 
lo...@REMOVE-ASGARDclear.net.nz

 Grazie =))))
So the rest of us will make allowances for him <heheheh>
cheers,
Loki
-- 
lo...@REMOVE-ASGARDclear.net.nz

if a comma can be inserted before the conjunction, use "which."
Ron, thanks for the tip.  I had never heard of this rule.   Unfortunately, in
spite of your clear explanation I still don't understand it.  In the sentence
mentioned above is "that" a conjunction? I would say it's a relative pronoun.  
 Parts of speech are not my forte, but I think than is a sentece such as "I
know that you speak English"  *that* is a conjunction, but in "a type of error
that I believe I'm....."   I thought *that* was a pronoun (Object of I'm).  O
sbaglio???  If you translate that sentence into Italian, "that" would be
translated with a pronoun: "...un tipo di errore *che* io sono geneticamente
predisposto a ripetere ad infinitum".  Forse non ho capito proprio niente o ho
ragione?  
ciao
Arianna

 mentioned above is "that" a conjunction? I would say it's a relative pronoun.
Also for me, parts of speech are not a strength. It seems to me, in my bemused
ignorance, that there is a hierarchy of identifiers in grammar that apply at
different levels to words. I considered using the term "relative pronoun" but
thought it might be too high-level of a category and might be confusing. I
believe in this case "that" can be considered a subordinating conjunction in
addition to a relative pronoun. You might be right, I'm not certain.
Ciao,
Ron
USA

 But I take it that you've been reading a grammar book again!
For those who haven't already gleaned this fact from my posts, I have regular
contact with professional editors for a variety of applications who are either
personal friends or business acquaintances. Maybe you noticed that I was the
person who originally wrote the offending sentence? In any case, I felt uneasy
while writing it and I finally asked someone about it.
Ciao,
Ron
USA

 Bizzarro per niente, C'č come il nome italiano SUIno.
Interessante! Ho la tentazione di fare l'supposizione etimologica.
Ciao,
Ron
USA

 studiare!)
Volentieri.
Ciao,
Ron
USA

 Interessante! Ho la tentazione di fare l'supposizione etimologica.
Pensavo alla parola inglese "assumption" che comminica con una vocale.

 
You may want to take a look at the following message thread, which
showed up on a linguistic mailing list a few years ago:
 
http://linguist.emich.edu/~ask-ling/archive-1998.7/msg00076.html
One of the posters, who appears to be an American University teacher,
among other things says:  
 <<most linguists are surprised to learn that certain prescriptive
 grammars state categorically that restrictive relative clauses require
 "that" and not "which." As far as I can tell from several generations of
 students, including many who attended elite private high schools, this
 rule is not taught today in American secondary schools.>>
 
http://linguist.emich.edu/~ask-ling/archive-1998.7/msg00119.html
Max

  
http://linguist.emich.edu/~ask-ling/archive-1998.7/msg00076.html
Thank you Max. It was an interesting thread to read and illustrative to note
that the terms under discussion were identified as "relative pronouns" as
Arianna observed.
There seems to be some controversy about whether it's ok to use "which" in a
restrictive clause. My practical experience is that when I use "which" in
written text, an editor corrects it to "that." Also, my perception differs from
that of some of the posts in that thread because I believe there can be a subtle
difference in meaning when "which" is substituted for "that." The Prentice Hall
book "Words Into Type" gives these examples:
(Wrong) The commander has given orders that all of the patrol boats in the navy
which are sinking should be scrapped.
(Right) . . . boats in the navy that are sinking should be scrapped. [Clearly,
all of the patrol boats in the navy are not sinking.]
These examples are under the heading "subordinating conjunctions.
Ciao,
Ron
USA

Se tu supponi qualcosa, tu fai un "ass" of "u" and "me" = assume
Martino


 Se tu supponi qualcosa, tu fai un "ass" of "u" and "me" = assume
Bravo, Martino! :-)
Ciao,
Ron
USA

 pronoun. You might be right, I'm not certain.
In my opinion, you are perfectly correct. Relative pronouns are
conjunctions in that they serve as a mean for connecting clauses. They
may, though, be considered as ideally including a pronoun, since they work
as noun phrases within the subordinate clause. 
In fact, 'where', 'because' or 'who', for instance, are all conjuctions,
though all of them belong to more specific sub-categories, one of which
happens to be that of "relative pronouns".
Max

 ragione?  
Dear Anna,
You are not alone. I didn't understand the discourse either. So I looked
up some of my books of words for further enlightenment . (sto sperando
sempre)
I did find theses entries: 
" 'that/which': These pronouns are frequently used interchangeably in
relative clauses..."
"'Which' is used to introduce a general, non-defining clause, called
non-restrictive: e.g. His letters, which were always full of jokes,
amused us."
[Use commas for these clauses]
"'That' draws attention to something specific and restricts the meaning
of the main sentence: e.g. 'I want to read the letter that amused you.'
It can be used for persons as well. ... 
Such clauses are called restrictive, because leaving them out would make
the main sentence incomplete or vague in meaning. Note that restrictive
clauses should never be seperated by commas."
"In general, when the meaning is quite clear, you can use either 'that'
or 'which' in a restrictive clause. In some clauses, the pronoun can be
omitted altogether if the sentence runs pleasantly without it.
eg.  I know the problems that (which) you have.
      I know the problems you have."
(from: How to write and speak better 1975)
Don't ask me if I understand it all ...  ;-)))
However, I did find a small rule for those who collect these things.;-)
 "The appropriate relative pronoun is selected according to these rules:
'who' and 'whom' relate to persons; 'which' relates to things; 'that'
relates to either persons or things." (SHBurton, M.E.G.)
Chiaro???
BTW 'that' can also mean "in which; on which etc"
cheers,
Loki
-- 

 relative pronoun. You might be right, I'm not certain.
Hi Ron,
I'm no guru of grammar either and I find that too many variables get
introduced at one time in explanations of some rules.
My experience of italiano speakers is that they understand the function
and terms of grammar far better that an equivalently educated English
speaker and as such I trust them to make far better sense than I do of
the passages I quote. 
Thus do I bandy around obscure (to me) terms with panache and abandon.
Maybe some of it will rub off on me...  (sto sperando ancora) 
(SHBurton)"Relative pronouns: who, whom, whose, which, that.
Relative pronouns are introducing/linking words. They often introduce a
subordinate adjective clause and they relate to an antecedent." 
cheers,
loki
-- 



They don't edit Scientific American by any chance do they?  
cheers,
Loki
To err is human
-- 

       I know the problems you have."
The author's choice of an example for omitting "that" illustrates my point about
the problem of using "which" (unbeknownst to him or her). These two sentences
can mean different things:
I know the problems that you have. (I am familiar with the particular problems
you face.)
I know the problems which you have. (I know about problems and I know you to be
a person plagued with problems.)
Ciao,
Ron
USA

 happens to be that of "relative pronouns".
I think we agree but I would make one fine point of clarification. It is not a
simple hierarchy where relative pronouns are a subcategory of conjunctions. Not
all conjunctions are relative pronouns and not all relative pronouns are
conjunctions.
Ciao,
Ron
USA



Are there relative prononuns which (that) can't be thought of as
conjuctions?  If there are any, none of them occur to me right now.
Max

>From: "Max M." 
ed...@maxim.comm2000.it
 

are you kidding?  Conjunctions have subcategories that are pronouns?  Since
when?  Did they change things since I was in school?  Or perhaps did I
misunderstand what you were trying to say?  Conjunctions are conjunctions and
pronouns are pronouns.  Some conjunctions happend to be identical to pronouns,
but are not the same part of speech.  *That* is a good example and I already
made this point in my earlier post.  In *I know that you speak English* that is
a conjunction.  In *The house that I was telling you about*  that is a pronoun.
 By the way, *that* can also be an adjective as in *I bought that house*.
Please find me an authoritative source that states that pronouns have
subcatergories that are conjunctions or vice versa. (in the sentence above the
first that is a conjunction, secon that is a pronoun)  As far  as your
questions about the existence of relative pronouns that are not conjunctions my
answer is yes...all of them.  If you want to rephrase the question and ask
whether there are relative pronouns which do not have a form which happens to
be a conjunction (as "that", does for example), I will say that "who, whom,
which" and all of the other ones do.  In fact, right now the only one that
comes to mind that is both a pronoun and a conjunction is "that".
I don't know if I've made my point. I am sure that every language has words
that are identical, but are different parts of speech and have different
meenings.  The Italian "gli" and "lo"  are good examples "Gli" is both an
article and an indirect object pronoun.  "Lo" is both an article and a direct
object pronoun.  Gli/gli and lo/lo are completely different words although they
are identical.  Following your line of reasoning I should be able to say that
Italian articles have a "pronoun" subcategrory and pronouns have an article
subcategory.
Althought these words (gli/gli  lo/lo) probably have the same origin, they are
now different words in spite of the same spelling and pronunciation.  
ciao e buon anno
arianna

 know you to be a person plagued with problems.)
So what is the meaning of the sentence without either 'that' or 'which'?
I believe the differences in your meanings are more to do with tone of
just the first clause without using the conjunction as a reason.
_I_ know your problems; I KNOW your problems; I know YOUR problems.
Anyway, it's getting beyond my expertise. 
Cheers,
Loki
-- 

 subcatergories that are conjunctions or vice versa. 
I wasn't talking about pronouns tout-court.
Thus I wasn't claiming pronouns to be a sub category of conjunctions,
which is evidently nonsense. Nor was I claiming the opposite, which is
nonsense, as well.
The term "category" is probably misleading, for it suggests that if RP is
both a subset of P and a subset of C, then either P is a subset of C or C
is a subset of P (with 'P', 'RP' and 'C' not having been picked up at
random, of course).
Let's drop the word "category", then. The term "role" is probably more
appropriate.
What I was trying to claim is that "relative pronouns" play the role of
conjuctions AND that of pronouns, depending on what perspective we look at
the sentence from. This has no implication whatsoever, though, as to what
relationship there may be between being a conjuction and being a pronoun.
Ralative pronouns act as conjuctions, as well as "because", "where" or
"when" do, in that they connect clauses. They also act as pronouns, that
is, as noun phrases wihtin the subordinate clause, either in a subject or
object position or embedded in some prepositional phrase.
Of course, I wasn't referring to those different parts of speech which
happen to be expressed by means of identical words, such as "that", or
italian "lo"; so I won't comment on what you say about that, which is
correct but not relevant to what I had written.
Well, let's forget what I've just said about relative pronouns.
What are conjuctions for you? Is "where" a conjuction, in a sentence such
as "Genoa is the town where I was born"? 
What subordinate conjuctions do you know of?
Ciao e buon (capod)anno, 
Maxim

 conjuctions?  If there are any, none of them occur to me right now.
The reference that I mentioned lists applications of  "it." In addition, it
lists applications of "they," "this," and "these."
"If your ski underwear tickles you, turn it inside out."
"Providing these data is one purpose of the Bureau of the Census."
I find that I can look at several references and find differences in whether
they identify words as pronouns or conjunctions in different applications.
Another book may call "it" an impersonal pronoun or "these" a demonstrative
pronoun. I wish this weren't the case but I imagine as in all things in life
grammar doesn't fit into neat categories and is dependent on perspective and the
particular application. However, it seems that most references rely on the term
"relative pronoun" for "which" and "that" as used in my original post and I
should have chosen that identifier for the clarity I was seeking.
I have to confess to a creeping boredom with the direction of this subject. Let
me leave this discussion with the only point that I wanted to make:  my
experience is that US editors, for reasons of clarity and accepted practice,
consider it incorrect to use "which" with a restrictive clause.
Ciao,
Ron
USA

 have been better to write either of the following sentences.
Though your rule is easier, I report the rule I learnt from my English
teacher: if the clause introduced by the conjunction can be omitted without
making a non-sense sentence out of it, use "who" or "which". If it cannot ,
use
"that".
Note that I am studying British English. However, my teacher didn't tell me
there was any difference between UK and US speechs about this rule.
--
Christian Eidolon ------------>>>>>
"Now I lay me down to sleep-pray the lord for my soul to keep
 If I die before I wake pray the lord for my soul to take"
MetallicA, "Enter Sandman"