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

 Però funziona solo con gli oggetti...


What's the question? :)
 
-- 
Kiuhnm
 
Mosquitoes are stingy.

Kiuhnm formulated the question :

La domanda è se questa distinzione sia netta o una semplice prevalenza.
 
"even the apple which William Tell shot from the head of his son, 
cannot be compared to this!"
 
"A branch of the apple which bore buds , flowers and fully - ripened 
fruit ( sometimes known as the Silver Bough ) , was a kind of magical 
charm..."


https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/5/is-there-any-difference-between-which-and-that
 



Da alcuni commenti in quella pagina parrebbe trattarsi di una regola 
inventata da qualche grammatico ma non realmente adottata dai parlanti.
 
You may encounter another rule, which is loudly disputed. About a 
century ago the Fowler brothers suggested a “division of labour”—using 
that only at the head of restrictive clauses and which only at the head 
of nonrestrictive clauses. This proposal made sense to many people, it 
was picked up by several prestigious grammarians and style guides, and 
in consequence it’s often cited as a “rule”.
 
But the fact is, this division has never been generally adopted, and 
there’s no reason to follow it. I myself don’t follow it; quite the 
opposite, I employ “which” wherever I can, because I believe that that 
has entirely too much work to do already and a multiplicity of thats is 
likely to confuse the reader.
 
[...]
 
 
 
As commented by @bytebuster, although there is a potential "rule" in 
play here, most native speakers are either unaware of it, or ignore it 
anyway. For all practical purposes I think the right level of answer 
here on ELL is No, there's no difference in sentences like OP's quoted 
examples.
 
There are other types of sentence where they are used differently 
(Which do you want? That one!), but I assume OP isn't asking about 
contexts like that.
 
[...]
 
 
 
There is also a geographical reason besides most of the other points 
that have been said.
 
I have a car which is blue. This usage is UK English. I have a car that 
is blue. This usage is US English.
 
Apart from that, no difference whatsoever. The geographical line of 
distinction has become quite blurred on this now and people throughout 
the world use these subordinating conjunctions interchangeably 
nowadays.


Although the use of "that" versus "which" is of little interest to most 
native speakers, their different contributions to meaning in a sentence 
remain. Those people who want to speak unambiguously or convey an exact 
meaning will use "which" to identify a single instance and "that" to 
identify one of a possible number of instances if that information is 
relevant in the communication. In situations where the number of 
instances is not part of what needs to be communicated, either will do.

Tony the Ice Man was thinking very hard :

If the rule is of little interest to most native speakers, how do we 
know if they meant to convey that exact meaning, or even get it in case 
we use it?
Could you please discuss some examples?
Thanks!

 Thanks!
 
Contesto, ma alla fine, non si sa per certo.
 
Se qualcuno dice: "That's literally the worst thing you can do" si crede 
che l'interlocutore intenda che non ho la capacità da fare una cosa più 
brutta? È sbagliato in parlata e in fantasia.
 
Se qualcuno dice "My bike, that is red, is in the shop for repair" non 
sapiamo che l'interlocutore abbia alcune bici e una è rossa, o che 
l'interlocutore sia sciatto nella sua comunicazione.
 
Ma probabilmente il numero delle altre bici non importa a chiunque. Se è 
importante, si direbbe "Of all my bikes, it's the red one that's in the 
shop for repair" per dire che si ha molte bici, o "My only bike, which 
is red, is in the shop for repair"  per dire che si ha l'unica bici.
 
Communque, delle persone direbbero "Of all my bikes, it's the red one 
which is in the shop for repair." Ecco l'esempio di come per qualche 
persona non ne frega niente di "that/which."
 
Which brings to mind a question, is "non me ne frega niente" pleonastic 
or is "me ne frega niente" aphoristic?
 
I purposely did not write "That brings to mind a question..." but either 
is acceptable.

Tony the Ice Man brought next idea :

Grazie.
 
 
Nella frase
 
"My bike, that is red, is in the shop for repair"
 
sento anch'io che c'è un saporino strano, mentre
 
"My only bike, which is red, is  in the shop for repair"
 
scorre gradevolmente come un bicchiere di buon vino.
 
 
All'inverso, preferisco
 
"That's literally the worst thing you can do".
 
oppure
 
"That's literally the worst thing that you can do".
 
a
 
"That's literally the worst thing which you can do".
 
 
Forse è una questione di stile più che di ambiguità?
Il senso è comunque chiaro dal contesto, mi pare, oltre che per l'uso 
delle virgole nello scritto.

 is acceptable.
 
In this case, "that" would be a demonstrative pronoun and "which" a 
relative pronoun.


 "me ne frega niente" is wrong in both standard and neostandard Italian.
 
Yet I've heard it said, but probably by Italians who don't give a damn 
about standards.

 delle virgole nello scritto.
 
I would not say any of them because I avoid using "literally" when I 
mean "virtually."

It happens that Tony the Ice Man formulated :

Usually it's "(Non me ne) frega niente" or "Me ne frego".
The latter was used as a motto during WWI, and later by Fascist squads.


I think you've heard "me ne frego", which is perfectly OK, although a 
little rude :)


Tony the Ice Man expressed precisely :

I reused your example without giving much thought to the adverb in it.
However, I gather "literally" is commonly used in informal speech as an 
intensifier. It's not used... literally.


Yes, as I think about it, I probably heard "me ne frego." But what 
struck me was that the meaning didn't change with or without the 
negative. It may not be the same illogic working as with "affinché non" 
but it was equally confusing.
 
I remember that it was a long time ago, but having been pleased to have 
learned a colorful Italian idiomatic expression, I used it in the 
presence of some protective relatives and immediately started a 
controversy over whether I should be chided for saying it or not.
 
 


It is in a common absuse of the English language. Although the 
proponents have a long list of literary writers who have misused it at 
least once in writing.
 
So, in the spirit of acknowledging that I am not the single source of 
truth about the English language, I offer this alternative view, albeit 
descriptive as opposed to prescriptive: 
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/misuse-of-literally
 

 controversy over whether I should be chided for saying it or not.
 
I'd say that, on the vulgarmeter, "Me ne frego" is on the same level as 
"That sucks!"



It seems to elicit more indignation than cazzo or mannaggia, so I think 
I may be missing some of the more lurid connotations.


See meaning 2a and 2b:
https://www.treccani.it/vocabolario/fregare/
 



2d is especially relevant to our discussion.



È stata assunta come motto dalle camicie nere fasciste? Non sapevo. 
Allora questo fatto può spiegare il sdegno. Ecco il nostro esempio:
https://www.npr.org/2018/06/21/622410485/whats-up-with-melania-trump-s-i-really-don-t-care-do-u-jacket
 
 

 
https://www.npr.org/2018/06/21/622410485/whats-up-with-melania-trump-s-i-really-don-t-care-do-u-jacket
 
 
Boh. Dubito che la famiglia Trump abbia approfondite conoscenze 
storiche sull'Italia. Anche in Italia "Me ne frego" non è sempre un 
riferimento al Ventennio sciagurato.
Per esempio al festival di Sanremo 2020 è stata cantata una canzone dal 
titolo "Me ne frego" ma non credo che piacerebbe a Benito.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KN47Lv6xNRo
 
 
Nel caso di un bambino che dice "me ne frego!" credo che la reazione 
dei "relatives" non sia soltanto dovuta al linguaggio sgarbato ma anche 
al fatto che sta dicendo "I don't care, I don't give a damn!" delle 
regole della famiglia!

 della famiglia!
 
Per chiarimento, da bambino non conosco i miei parenti italiani in 
italia. Come adulto, li ho ricontattati da una vecchia lettera dopo aver 
imparato a comunicare un po' in italiano.

 comunicare un po' in italiano.
 
Great!

 remain.
 
I have only encountered this in the UK in the context of people saying 
there's a difference in the US which they don't understand.


That's not surprising. Many Americans don't observe the distinction, 
either. Somehow, the difference entered my sensibilities through the 
osmosis of native experience because I don't remember ever learning any 
rule or guideline.
 
The website 
writingexplained.org
 explains in regard to the difference 
between which and that:
 
"I began by saying that this is a standard American English rule. In 
British English, writers seldom observe the distinction between that vs. 
which, and even though Fowler’s Usage Guide recognizes that much is to 
be gained by recognizing the distinction, not all British writers do."
 
https://writingexplained.org/which-vs-that-difference
 
 
The Quiz and Sentence Examples from that website have very obvious 
answers for me. I wonder if the choices would be more ambiguous for you.
 
In general, I tend to follow the Chicago Manual of Style unless a 
particular bad habit is so fully ingrained that I don't want to let go 
of it. For some tasks, I've had to adapt to the AP or some other custom 
style guide.
 

On 16/10/2021 19:29, Tony the Ice Man wrote:
 
 >> I have only encountered this in the UK in the context of people saying
 >> there's a difference in the US which they don't understand.
 >
 > That's not surprising. Many Americans don't observe the distinction,
 > either. Somehow, the difference entered my sensibilities through the
 > osmosis of native experience because I don't remember ever learning any
 > rule or guideline.
Multiple UK people tell me they only know of it because of US publishing 
companies insisting on "correcting" stuff in a way they find 
incomprehensible. Mostly they say they have made no effort to try to 
understand it and take a "sure whatever you say" approach to American 
publishing companies that do.
 
I do not recall ever hearing of such a distinction until I ran into 
Americans claiming it existed. And this seems to be the typical UK
experience.


Then perhaps the fact that the British langauage Guide, Fowlder's Modern 
English Usage, says that "much is to be gained by recognizing the 
distinction," is the result of a perfidious influence by U.S. publishing 
companies.
 
I'll recite the reference which was omitted.
https://writingexplained.org/which-vs-that-difference
 

 companies.
 
Fowler isn't terribly modern any more. What can I tell you? I don't know 
of anyone who is aware of this distinction. Or I'm not aware that I do. 
Except because of US reasons of some kind.
 
 
 
 


Understood, and I'm not suggesting that you should recognize a distinction.
 
I have heard that the Inuit language contains many words for snow that 
have no equivalent in English. I don't miss those words, and I don't 
expect that if I had them, it would enrich my life. If you aren't 
accustomed to hearing any distinction between which and that, I wouldn't 
suggest that you acquire one. I have no choice in the matter, having 
somehow learned a distinction in usage without any overt cooperation on 
my part.


There are 3 kinds of people:
1. the ones who use "which" and "that" interchangeably,
2. the ones who don't use "that" for non-defining clauses, and
3. the ones who use "that" for defining and "which" for non-defining 
clauses.
 
-- 
Kiuhnm
 
https://haveibeenpwned.com/
 

 chiaro dal contesto, mi pare, oltre che per l'uso delle virgole nello scritto
 
Which brings me back to my first remark in this thread:
 
"Una virgola delimita l'incidentale nella seconda frase, però."
 
and to
https://writingexplained.org/which-vs-that-difference
 
 
"... It should be noted, however, that the commas in these sentences 
are really doing the brunt of the work, not necessarily the words which 
and that."

 Understood, and I'm not suggesting that you should recognize a distinction.
 
It seems like it could be one of those things like the will/shall and 
would/should distinction. "This is a distinction which only exists in 
some parts of the world and/or in some circles."
 
(I'm not sure will/shall is still a thing. Maybe for some people 
somewhere. If it's someone's biggest problem their English is better 
than mine.)


Consider
   "This book, that was written last November, is a great read."
 
Is that acceptable in BrE?



I still see "As we shall see" in formal writing (technical books, 
papers, etc...).


 
 
The presence of the comma matters, I think.
 
"This is the book that I mentioned" and "This is the book which I 
mentioned" both seem fine to me.
 
"I like Coca-Cola, which is brown" and "I like Coca-Cola which is brown" 
are saying two different things.


OK, but you haven't answered my question...


 
 
I know.
 
I think I might prefer ", which was" but if I hadn't specifically been 
asked about it I'm not sure I'd have noticed anything.
 
Hence my saying the comma matters. With no comma they seem the same to 
me. With it.. I'm less sure.

 me. With it.. I'm less sure.
 
I should check Swan. He'll have spent more time thinking about this than 
I have.


Swan says that "that" is unusual in non-defining clauses.
 
Here's one of the examples he provides:
--->
   I lent him "The Old Man and the Sea", which is really easy to read.
(NOT ..."The Old Man and the Sea", that is really easy to read.)
<---
 
We can conclude that one may use both "which" and "that" in defining 
clauses, but only "which" in non-defining clauses.
 
The rule some people adhere to is more stringent and only allows "that" 
in defining clauses, creating a rather artificial dicothomy between 
"that" and "which".


 
 
As usual with Swan, this seems plausible to me.
 
 > The rule some people adhere to is more stringent and only allows "that"
 > in defining clauses, creating a rather artificial dicothomy between
 > "that" and "which".
 
And these "some people" are typically American?


It appears so:
https://www.capstoneediting.com.au/blog/how-to-use-which-and-that-correctly
 
 
AmE is less rigid when it comes to verb tenses, though. I just realized 
that :)


 dichotomy between "that" and "which".
 
I understand the supporters of this dichotomy since it is difficult 
to express the presence or absence of commas orally.
 
Ciao,
Wolfgang


Or could it be... and here we hear reverberating, the hallowed voice of 
SNL's The Church Lady... SATAN?


E con "single-vaccine" e "single vaccine" dobbiamo arrivare alla 
conclusione: meglio che non ci parliamo ma invece ci scambiamo biglietti.


O scriviamo messaggi ai newsgroup.
 
Ciao,
Wolfgang


Spiega molto.


I'm not sure that distinction is as useful as some people purport it to be.


Also when speaking a lot of people would say "This is the book I told 
you about" with neither which nor that.


Knowing you as a great fan of American English, your unsureness 
seems to me a bit strange. Anyway, you should explain it.
 
Ciao,
Wolfgang

Wolfgang submitted this idea :

I would like to examine a case where the "oral ambiguity" is not solved 
by context, pauses in speech and intonation, or actually rephrasing the 
sentence.


That rule is *not* part of American English!



... or God's intervention.
(You forgot that one.)



Lets look if we are talking of the same rule.
 
In both variants of English, British and American, the use of "that" 
is limited to restrictive clauses. But only the Americans exclude 
the use of "which" in restrictive clauses whereas the British 
tolerate it in both types of clauses.
 
Or is there something I have misunderstood?
 
Ciao,
Wolfgang
 

 Or is there something I have misunderstood?
 
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/when-to-use-that-and-which
 



Vinto e convinto.
 
Buonanotte,
Wolfgang