"which" as the head of a restrictive clause
I recently came across a definition for "which" that said (and I paraphrase) which can be used to introduce a restrictive clause. The example provided, see below, was cited from Oxford English:
Restrictive A suitcase which has no handles is useless. (note, no commas)
Non-Restrictive A suitcase, which has no handles, is useless. (note, commas)
The argument for "which" sans commas (Restrictive use) is this: if we take away the 'which has no handles' bit, the resulting bit is nonsense:
A suitcase is useless.
My question is this, if which is used to head a restrictive clause, then what's the difference between A and B below?
A. A suitcase which has no handles is useless.
B. A suitcase that has no handles is useless.
Uhm, is stress the key? The same person who provided the definition/examples also added that which is stressed and that that is unstressed, so speakers tend to use 'which' restrictively as a means of adding stress.
Non-Oxford English speaka. :twisted: