[Grammar] a large floating mass of ice detached from a glacier

[kadioguy]

iceberg
noun

1 : a large floating mass of ice detached from a glacier

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/iceberg
----
1) If I had to lengthen the explanation, which is better? I mean, which does the original mean?

a. a large floating mass of ice which is detached from a glacier

b. a large floating mass of ice which was detached from a glacier

c. a large floating mass of ice which has been detached from a glacier

2) What is the difference in meaning between them?

 

[5jj]

i

2) What is the difference in meaning between them?

The normal difference between present, past and present perfect forms.

 

[kadioguy]

The normal difference between present, past and present perfect forms.

a. a large floating mass of ice which is detached from a glacier. (This explains its state: a detached one. The view of time is at the present.)

b. a large floating mass of ice which was detached from a glacier. (This explains the action "detach" happened in the past. The view of time is at the past.)

c. a large floating mass of ice which has been detached from a glacier (This explains the action "detach" has done now. The view of time is at the present.)

Is that right? And, in this context it seems that all three are OK to me. :-?

 

[tedmc]

What do you mean by "lengthen the explanation"? There is no explanation to start with. "Which" is optional; having it doesnt make any difference to the sentence. I don't understand your question. The different tenses serve different purposes, obviously.

 

[Rover_KE]

I agree with Ted.

You've gone to a lot of trouble to 'lengthen the explanation' and I've no idea why you wanted to.

 

[emsr2d2]

Is it not enough for you to understand that the definition simply means that an iceberg is a mass of ice that's not attached to a glacier?

 

[kadioguy]

What do you mean by "lengthen the explanation"? There is no explanation to start with.

The explanation is this: a large floating mass of ice detached from a glacier.

I just wanted to know in this context which one to use: (a), (b), or (c)?

As you know, Chinese has no verb tenses, so l was trying to know more about that in English.

(Cross-posted with emsr2d2)

 

[Rover_KE]

I just wanted to know in this context which one to use: (a), (b), or (c)?
As you know, Chinese has no verb tense, so l was trying to know more about that in English.

OK. Fair enough.

 

[emsr2d2]

If I had to expand the sentence, I wouldn't use "which" at all.

An iceberg is a floating mass of ice that has become detached from a glacier.

 

[kadioguy]

If I had to expand the sentence, I wouldn't use "which" at all.

An iceberg is a floating mass of ice that has become detached from a glacier.

What is the difference between "which" and "that" in this context? They are both pronoun and can both refer to things without life, in this case, a floating mass of ice.

Could you please tell me? :-?

 

[jutfrank]

It seems you've reverted to your old habit of rephrasing authentic sentences and then proceeding to ask us what you mean.

If you want to focus on the use of verb tenses, find authentic examples to analyse. If you want to focus on the use of dictionary definitions (which I don't recommend), then leave them as they are.

 

[kadioguy]

What is the difference between "which" and "that" in this context? They are both pronoun and can both refer to things without life, in this case, a floating mass of ice.

Could you please tell me?

Is it because of a quantifier "mass" in the original?

(Practical English Usage 494.5)

That is especially common after quantifiers like all, every(thing), some(thing), any(thing), no(thing), none, little, few, much, only, and after superlatives.

Is this all that's left? (More natural than ... all which is left?)

Have you got anything that belongs to me? (More natural than ... anything which ... )

The only thing that matters is to find our way home.

I hope the little that I've done has been useful.

It's the best film that's ever been made about madness.

 

[emsr2d2]

What is the difference between "which" and "that" in this context? They are both pronouns and can both refer to things without life - in this case, a floating mass of ice.

Is it because of a quantifier "mass" in the original? No.

(Practical English Usage 494.5)

That is especially common after quantifiers like all, every(thing), some(thing), any(thing), no(thing), none, little, few, much, only, and after superlatives.

Is this all that's left? (More natural than ... all which is left?) Not just more natural - "which" is wrong.
Have you got anything that belongs to me? (More natural than ... anything which ... ) Not just more natural - "which" is wrong.

The only thing that matters is to find our way home. :tick:
I hope the little that I've done has been useful. :tick:
It's the best film that's ever been made about madness. :tick:

Look at these two sentences:

An iceberg is a floating mass of ice that has become detached from a glacier.
This is an iceberg, which is a floating mass of ice that has become detached from a glacier.

Note that "which" refers back to "an iceberg" and is preceded by a comma.

 

[kadioguy]

Look at these two sentences:

An iceberg is a floating mass of ice that has become detached from a glacier.
This is an iceberg, which is a floating mass of ice that has become detached from a glacier.

Note that "which" refers back to "an iceberg" and is preceded by a comma.

If you don't mind, do you agree with this?
----
Usage

[...]
Is there any difference between the use of that and which in sentences such as any book that gets children reading is worth having, and any book which gets children reading is worth having?

The general rule in British English is that, in restrictive relative clauses, where the relative clause serves to define or restrict the reference to the particular one described, which can replace that. However, in non-restrictive relative clauses, where the relative clause serves only to give additional information, that cannot be used: this book, which is set in the last century, is very popular with teenagers but not this book, that is set in the last century, is very popular with teenagers. In US English which is generally used only for non-restrictive relative clauses.

https://www.lexico.com/definition/that

 

[emsr2d2]

I know that others will disagree with me on this but, for me, only the first (that) is grammatically correct.