Newsgroup: it.cultura.linguistica.inglese
Titolo: that or which

"I'm looking at the photograph which you sent me with your letter."
I was under the impression that "which" could be used only when adding 
additional information, and not to identify one object in particular.
I'm looking at a photograph. What photograph? The photograph (THAT) you 
sent me with your letter.
The problem is that I keep coming across countless sentences like that 
above. I'm a little confused.
Kiuhnm

It's exactly the same, u can use either one or the other one. 

 additional information, and not to identify one object in particular.
I get the impression some such distinction exists in US English.

Il 22/09/2007, Adam Atkinson ha detto :

I'm looking at the photograph you sent me with your letter.
-- 
EU®
---
avast! Antivirus: In partenza messaggio pulito.
Virus Database (VPS): 000775-6, 22/09/2007
Controllato il: 22/09/2007 18:28:43
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

 I get the impression some such distinction exists in US English.
This supports your thesis:
http://separatedbyacommonlanguage.blogspot.com/2006/08/which-vs-that.html
Kiuhnm


Mi pare che la questione venne affrontata da Joey Dee qualche tempo fa... 

"Kiuhnm" <kiuhnm03_NO@SPAM_yahoo.it> wrote in message
news:fd2urt$2pd$1...@aioe.org...

«that = who/which
We often use that instead of who or which, especially in an informal style.
I like people that smile a lot.
This is the key that opens the garage.
Do you remember the people that we met in Italy?
I forget most of the films that I see.»
(Swan 494)
Joe from Massachusetts


Kiuhnm

"Kiuhnm" <kiuhnm03_NO@SPAM_yahoo.it> wrote in message
news:fdalrl$nmv$1...@aioe.org...

The choice in your example is not between "that" and "which", but between
"that" and "who", so "which" doesn't enter into the picture at all.
Joe from Massachusetts


That's a statement with which I would agree. In fact, that's a statement 
that I do agree with. 

 "that" and "who", so "which" doesn't enter into the picture at all.
Ok, another lapse... Anyway, your post doesn't answer my initial 
question. I know that I can use /that/ instead of /which/ (and /who/) 
but can I use /which/ in place of /that/? I see that unfortunately there 
is no general agreement on this matter.
Kiuhnm

 wrote in message 
news:13fibv6...@corp.supernews.com...


 the heathens making such statements!
Well, if he'd said "That Art" then everyone would think that his name was 
Arthur. 

 heathens making such statements!
Why Which and not Who? Never mind.
I think that THAT wouldn't be appropriate. It's OBVIOUS that we are 
speaking of God. That WHICH doesn't define WHO we are talking about.
But that's not my prime objection to your argument :-)
Kiuhnm

 speaking of God. That WHICH doesn't define WHO we are talking about.
Joking aside, I would imagine that most people say "who". I've heard it both
ways, "who" or "which". I guess if you're going to say "art" then you might
as well disregard modern grammar.

"Kiuhnm" <kiuhnm03_NO@SPAM_yahoo.it> wrote in message
news:fdbe8o$t2e$1...@aioe.org...

That that which replaced a which can be replaced by a which, but that that
that replaced a who cannot be replaced by a which.
Joe from Massachusetts

 that replaced a who cannot be replaced by a which.
So you're basically saying that that which which that replaced could 
replace that that which replaced that which.
Kiuhnm

"Kiuhnm" <kiuhnm03_NO@SPAM_yahoo.it> wrote in message
news:fdgsu4$9o0$1...@aioe.org...

It doesn't.make sense - "..which which that"? It would if you were asking
which which that that that replaced was that which which was correct.
Joe from Massachusetts

 It doesn't.make sense - "..which which that"?
So you're basically saying that
{
   that /which/                   SUBJ1
   [
     which /that/ replaced          OBJ2 + SUBJ2 + VERB2
   ]
   could replace that /that/      VERB1 + OBJ1
   [
     which replaced that /which/    SUBJ3 + VERB3 + OBJ3
   ].
}
Level1: So you're basically saying that that /which/ [] could replace 
that /that/ [].
Kiuhnm

"Kiuhnm" <kiuhnm03_NO@SPAM_yahoo.it> wrote in message
news:fdilie$sd5$1...@aioe.org...

I'm saying that just as it is evident that that that that that which
replaces is not just any old that, but a particular that (that should be
that that, not just that), just as that which which refers to a particular
which is that which, not just any old which.
Joe from Massachusetts

 I'm saying that just as it is evident that that that that that which
Delete the "just as".


> which is that which, not just any old which.
It's clear that that that that that which which that last post of mine 
mentioned replaces it is not just any that but that that.
Kiuhnm

"Kiuhnm" <kiuhnm03_NO@SPAM_yahoo.it> wrote in message
news:fdja92$o53$1...@aioe.org...

Almost.
It's clear that that that that that which which that last post of mine
 mentioned replaces is not just any that but that that.
Maybe, if the reader has a powerful ability to concentrate.
It's things like this that make obvious why the Spanish put question marks
at the beginning of interrogative sentences - something to give the reader a
little hint of what is to come.
Joe from Massachusetts

 little hint of what is to come.
Latin writings has been found that show a series of questions each 
preceded by the word "quero". Later "quero" has become
Q
o
and then simply "?".
Kiuhnm