[Grammar] Which version is better?

[ohmyrichard]

"But I vaguely remember I have read sentences in which a nonrestrictive relative clause is led by the relative pronoun "that"."

Ohmyrichard, can you produce some of them?

When I have keyed in "nonrestrictive that" in the google search box, I get "About 3,050 results". If you give it a try, you will get the same number of search results. If you like, please take a look at one of them: https://stancarey.wordpress.com/2011/11/14/that-elusive-non-restrictive-that/.

This is something controversial, but I remember that I have encountered "nonrestrictive that" in my reading, most probably in example sentences in my Oxford dictionary.

 

[MikeNewYork]

Thanks for the posting. There are very few and many are arguably restrictive clauses, but your point is taken.

 

[ohmyrichard]

6. Yesterday evening I logged on to a website which I found very useful to us English majors and I would like to recommend it to you.
You don't need a second 'which', but you do need some reference

Dear Raymott,

Things can be terribly complicated beyond our imagination sometimes. Right now I read in a BBC News story a one-sentence paragraph, which goes as follows:

Unsurprisingly, the ban [on C-h-i-n-e-s-e amateur weathermen issuing unofficial weather forecasts] has been widely mocked online by a public that is increasingly sceptical about government announcements and which goes elsewhere to find information.

Why are two relative pronouns, instead of only one, used in this sentence? Why are they different when the antecedent of "a public" clearly refers to a large number of people, rather than things? Have you got a way to explain this?

Looking forward to your reply. Thanks a lot.

 

[Matthew Wai]

Have you got a way to explain this?

A simple explanation is that it is not correct.

Not a teacher.

 

[Raymott]

I don't think it's incorrect. There are a lot of ways of writing correct English.
To answer your specific questions: Two relative pronouns are used because they start two relative clauses (Whether they are both necessary is a different argument, and hinges on the fact that we sometimes drop relative pronouns, and that sometimes we don't). They are different possibly for the sake of variety.

 

[ohmyrichard]

A simple explanation is that it is not correct.

Not a teacher.

Do you mean that if we change it to the following versions, then it will be correct?

1. Unsurprisingly, the ban [on C-h-i-n-e-s-e amateur weathermen issuing unofficial weather forecasts] has been widely mocked online by a public that is increasingly skeptical about government announcements and that goes elsewhere to find information.

OR

2.Unsurprisingly, the ban [on C-h-i-n-e-s-e amateur weathermen issuing unofficial weather forecasts] has been widely mocked online by a public which is increasingly skeptical about government announcements and which goes elsewhere to find information.

OR

3. Unsurprisingly, the ban [on C-h-i-n-e-s-e amateur weathermen issuing unofficial weather forecasts] has been widely mocked online by a public who is increasingly skeptical about government announcements and who goes elsewhere to find information.

OR

4. Unsurprisingly, the ban [on C-h-i-n-e-s-e amateur weathermen issuing unofficial weather forecasts] has been widely mocked online by a public who are increasingly skeptical about government announcements and who go elsewhere to find information.

Which version above is correct? Are they all correct? Can we omit one of the two relative pronouns in any of these sentences? Why (not)?

 

[ohmyrichard]

I don't think it's incorrect. There are a lot of ways of writing correct English.
To answer your specific questions: Two relative pronouns are used because they start two relative clauses (Whether they are both necessary is a different argument, and hinges on the fact that we sometimes drop relative pronouns, and that sometimes we don't). They are different possibly for the sake of variety.

Thanks.

But is there a rule concerning when to drop relative pronouns and when not to? I cannot find any grammar books or online materials that enlighten me on this.

There is another issue I want to know about. My Collins COBUILD English Usage says on p. 780 that "in relative clauses, which always refers to things, never to people." Is it that a public in the sentence of "Unsurprisingly, the ban [on C-h-i-n-e-s-e amateur weathermen issuing unofficial weather forecasts] has been widely mocked online by a public that is increasingly skeptical about government announcements and which goes elsewhere to find information" is treated as a group of people earlier and then later as a thing the same way we treat words like committee either as a group of people or as something (an institution)? Or could it be that BBC journalists sometimes write hurriedly and thus make some minor mistakes, wishing to send out their news reports as soon as possible and having no time to polish them?

Forgive me for being stubborn, but if you can help me with it, please do me this favor. Thanks.

 

[Raymott]

There's no rule except that if you drop the pronoun and get an inferior sentence (not clear, ambiguous, etc), then you should put it back in. There are too many grammatical contexts to make a rule out of that. I don't like pronouns being dropped when subsequently the sentence seems to run on well until you realise you've obviously missed something.

"He saw the woman with the long hair and the short dress was getting on a bus." Naturally you read this sentence as though the woman is the grammatical direct object, up until that reading breaks down. The author could have avoided this by putting 'that' in after saw, "He saw that the woman ..." This isn't the best example, but it'll do for now.

As for 'people' and 'who', I think you can cut the BBC some slack here. "A public" doesn't meet the necessary criteria for having to use 'who'. You can't always draw a line. "He sang to an audience that didn't appreciate him". The audience were all people, but I think this sentence is OK. A public, a committee, an audience? It's not worth getting upset about, but if you don't like it, you could certainly use "who" in these cases.
As far as I'm concerned, you can be as stubborn as you like if you're searching for the truth honestly. But I don't think there's anything sinister in changing from 'that' to 'which'.

PS: What's the deal with "C-h-i-n-e-s-e"?

 

[Matthew Wai]

But is there a rule concerning when to drop relative pronouns and when not to?

http://linguapress.com/grammar/relative-clauses.htm

But I don't think there's anything sinister in changing from 'that' to 'which'.

There is nothing sinister, but is there a reason for doing it?

Do you mean that if we change it to the following versions, then it will be correct?

I mean that if 'that' is used in both cases, then it will safely be grammatical and you will not have to think up a reason for using 'which'.

Not a teacher.

 

[Raymott]

I've given a possible reason to do it - variety. But you don't need a reason for writing correct English. If it was wrong, it might bear looking into. You don't need to think of a reason for using 'which'. You could just accept that that's what the author wrote. He wrote 'that', and by the time he got to the next relative pronoun, he wrote 'which'.
Maybe you could email the author and ask why he did it.

"I mean that if 'that' is used in both cases, then it will safely be grammatical and you will not have to think up a reason for using 'which'."
Then use that guideline. But there's no reason that others need to.

 

[ohmyrichard]

There's no rule except that if you drop the pronoun and get an inferior sentence (not clear, ambiguous, etc), then you should put it back in. There are too many grammatical contexts to make a rule out of that. I don't like pronouns being dropped when subsequently the sentence seems to run on well until you realise you've obviously missed something.

"He saw the woman with the long hair and the short dress was getting on a bus." Naturally you read this sentence as though the woman is the grammatical direct object, up until that reading breaks down. The author could have avoided this by putting 'that' in after saw, "He saw that the woman ..." This isn't the best example, but it'll do for now.

As for 'people' and 'who', I think you can cut the BBC some slack here. "A public" doesn't meet the necessary criteria for having to use 'who'. You can't always draw a line. "He sang to an audience that didn't appreciate him". The audience were all people, but I think this sentence is OK. A public, a committee, an audience? It's not worth getting upset about, but if you don't like it, you could certainly use "who" in these cases.
As far as I'm concerned, you can be as stubborn as you like if you're searching for the truth honestly. But I don't think there's anything sinister in changing from 'that' to 'which'.

PS: What's the deal with "C-h-i-n-e-s-e"?

Thank you very much for this further reply. I especially love these highlights of your reply that directly address my concerns:

1. There's no rule except that if you drop the pronoun and get an inferior sentence (not clear, ambiguous, etc), then you should put it back in.

2. The example of "He saw the woman with the long hair and the short dress was getting on a bus."

3. It's not worth getting upset about, but if you don't like it, you could certainly use "who" in these cases.

The sentence I quoted in post #43 was taken from the webpage of http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-china-blog-32527752. It is a one-sentence paragraph, paragraph 6 beginning with "Unsurprisingly". On this webpage I cannot find any contact link to the BBC News journalist Martin Patience, but I have just written an email to Contact BBC News to seek some response. I have been thinking hard about why Martin changed "that" to "which" and right now I hit upon this inspiration, which seems to make some sense: Martin changed "that" to "which" to avoid the possible misunderstanding that what follows "and" is a report clause beginning with "that". As our memory does not serve us very well, we easily forget about what goes prior to where we've come to when we listen to others or read something. And if a sentence is structurally complicated, the listener or the reader of it will stumble over relationships between different parts of the sentence. For this reason, it is always the writer or the speaker's job to prevent this from happening or at least do something to alleviate the possible burden on his or her audience in order to convey his or her meaning to the listener or reader. I think Martin Patience did this in order to remind the reader that the last part of his sentence is not a report clause and he decided that "and which" serves the purpose best of avoiding any possible confusion about in which relationship this remaining part of the sentence is with what goes before it.

Besides, "a public" was treated by Martin Patience consistently as one unit or one thing in the quoted sentence.

By the way, as for C-h-i-n-e-s-e and some other words I spell deliberately weirdly in your eyes, I do it for some justifiable reason, which may be difficult for you to understand, but I cannot say much about it here. Please understand that over here in my country Internet users very often need to MANAGE to log on to foreign websites, including those like this forum which have nothing worth any fuss on the part of the g-o-v. I am sure you guys will be able to correctly understand those weirdly-spelt words. So, in this sense, my saying "I am stubborn" has a dual-layered meaning. Thanks for your understanding of the difficulties I have in discussing language problems I encounter with you guys. And forgive me for the discomfort that my way of dealing with the spellings of those words may give you guys.

P.S.: on the webpage of http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-china-blog-32527752, the relative pronoun before "goes elsewhere to find information" of "which" has been deleted for a reason I do not know, but on my cell phone I can still read the "which".

 

[Matthew Wai]

I think Martin Patience did this in order to remind the reader that the last part of his sentence is not a report clause

I think readers would not mistake the relative clause for a reported clause because a noun is missing after the relative pronoun.
Not a teacher.

... in my country Internet users very often need to MANAGE to log on to foreign websites, including those like this forum which have nothing worth any fuss on the part of the g-o-v.

Do you mean you may be unable to log in to this forum if the hyphens are deleted from 'C-h-i-n-e-s-e' and 'g-o-v'?

 

[ohmyrichard]

I think readers would not mistake the relative clause for a reported clause because a noun is missing after the relative pronoun.Not a teacher. Do you mean you may be unable to log in to this forum if the hyphens are deleted from 'C-h-i-n-e-s-e' and 'g-o-v'?

You are right that the the subject is missing after "which". But what if there is a noun or pronoun after "which" when "which" or its substitute is not the subject of the clause?I mean those words are poli sensitive. BTW, are you a mainlander or Hong Konger?

 

[Matthew Wai]

But what if there is a noun or pronoun after "which" when "which" or its substitute is not the subject of the clause?

Do you mean something like 'a public that is increasingly sceptical about government announcements and that the government keeps in the dark'? If so, it will still not be mistaken because the object is missing.
Not a teacher.

BTW, are u a mainlander or Hong Konger?

I am a Hongkonger. Please note that such abbreviations as 'u' are unacceptable on this forum.

 

[ohmyrichard]

Do you mean something like 'a public that is increasingly sceptical about government announcements and that the government keeps in the dark'? If so, it will still not be mistaken because the object is missing.

I am a Hongkonger. Please note that such abbreviations as 'u' are unacceptable on this forum.

Yes, your modified example of "and that the government keeps in the dark" is what I meant. But my question is, will the BBC journalist Martin Patience still think that which in this position is better than that ​?

Thanks for reminding me about using you instead. I have changed it to you as you suggested.

 

[Matthew Wai]

... will the BBC journalist Martin Patience still think that which in this position is better than that ​?

See below.

Maybe you could email the author...

Not a teacher.

 

[Raymott]

The sentence I quoted in post #43 was taken from the webpage of http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-china-blog-32527752.
Yes, I know that. I'm saying that we all have things that we don't like about language, even if it's correct. The best we can do sometimes is not to use those construction ourselves.

I think Martin Patience did this in order to remind the reader that the last part of his sentence is not a report clause and he decided that "and which" serves the purpose best of avoiding any possible confusion about in which relationship this remaining part of the sentence is with what goes before it.
We'll probably never know.

Besides, "a public" was treated by Martin Patience consistently as one unit or one thing in the quoted sentence.
That's a distinction between singular and plural, not person and non-person.

By the way, as for C-h-i-n-e-s-e and some other words I spell deliberately weirdly in your eyes, I do it for some justifiable reason, which may be difficult for you to understand, but I cannot say much about it here.
I guess I can accept it. It does make it difficult though - this being a language site. And in this case, I thought that that is how it was written in the original.

I've replied above in green, since that colour was still available.

 

[ohmyrichard]

I've replied above in green, since that colour was still available.

In post # 51 I said, "I think Martin Patience did this in order to remind the reader that the last part of his sentence is not a report clause and he decided that "and which" serves the purpose best of avoiding any possible confusion about in which relationship this remaining part of the sentence is with what goes before it. " It seems that my reasoning makes sense. I have just got another sentence of this same nature from today's Fox News report on ISIS gaining control of Ramadi, Iraq, which goes as follows:

The takeover followed a three-day siege that began with a wave of ISIS car bombs and which dealt a devastating blow to the Baghdad government and the U.S. forces providing logistical support.

Both this journalist Fox News' Lucas Tomlinson and BBC News' Mark Patience using the same sentence structure seems not to be a mere coincidence.

There's another sentence that I have just come across in my reading of a book which also seems to support my claim. It goes, "The first of these texts is the one which originates in the MS poem addressed to Lady Byron, and which Byron caused to have circulated in London in late March and early April."