Why "that" not "which"?

Status
Not open for further replies.

roseriver1012

Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2009
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Chinese
Home Country
China
Current Location
China
Our city is no longer the shabby town __________ it used to be.

"That" can be filled in the blank, but why "which" can't be? Thanks!
 

MikeNewYork

VIP Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
American English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
Our city is no longer the shabby town __________ it used to be.

"That" can be filled in the blank, but why "which" can't be? Thanks!

In AmE, we use "that" for defining clauses. The rules may be different in BrE.
 

roseriver1012

Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2009
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Chinese
Home Country
China
Current Location
China
In AmE, we use "that" for defining clauses. The rules may be different in BrE.

When we are learning the English grammar, we usually learn some rules. For the part of the attributive clause, we are told that there are several situations in which the relative "that" should be used instead of " which" like there is "something" or "nothing" before the clause and so on. But in this sentence, I can't find any rule that shows "which" can't be used. So, help me please.
 

philo2009

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2009
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
Japan
It is not strictly ungrammatical, but highly unidiomatic to use 'which' or 'who' to introduce a restrictive relative clause predicated by a copular (as opposed to a simple transitive) verb, even in BrE, which often tolerates the latter.
 

Rover_KE

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Member Type
Retired English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
Most native speakers would say

'Our city is no longer the shabby town it used to be'.
 

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
It is not strictly ungrammatical, but highly unidiomatic to use 'which' or 'who' to introduce a restrictive relative clause predicated by a copular (as opposed to a simple transitive) verb, even in BrE, which often tolerates the latter.
I agree that speakers of BrE often use 'which'. This hardly makes it highly unidiomatic.
 
Last edited:

philo2009

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2009
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
Japan
I agree that speakers of BrE often use 'which'. This hardly makes it highly unidiomatic.

No, of course not!

As my response, I believe, makes clear, the highly unidiomatic (/borderline ungrammatical) nature of the construction under investigation is in spite, not because, of this tolerance.
 

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
As my response, I believe, makes clear, the highly unidiomatic (/borderline ungrammatical) nature of the construction under investigation is in spite, not because, of this tolerance.
I am afraid that sentence makes no sense to me. If the form is commonly used, then it is not unidiomatic. What on earth makes it ungrammatical? And where does tolerance come into this? We don't tolerate this construction - it's a natural part of the language.
 

philo2009

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2009
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
Japan
I am afraid that sentence makes no sense to me.

Not surprising, since you don't appear to have properly read my original post, in which I confirmed that the sentence under consideration

Our city is no longer the shabby town which it used to be.

is (on account of the copular predicator) unidiomatic, even by BrE standards, which would happily allow, e.g.

This is the money which I borrowed from you.

(Cf. AmE:...that I borrowed...).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top