Shakespeare was a poet that

[ademoglu]

Hi,

*self-made*

'Shakespeare was a poet that wrote 154 sonnets.'
'England the only country that uses pounds.'

I would like to ask if I have to use 'which' in the above sentence or can I use 'that.'

Thanks.

 

[bhaisahab]

In the first one you should use "who".
The second one is not a sentence, it lacks the verb "be". Also, it's factually incorrect.

 

[bhaisahab]

I accept that "that" might be possible, but I don't like it. It sounds wrong to me.

 

[emsr2d2]

Although many people prefer who to that for people in defining relative clauses, that ​is possible in BrE, in my opinion.

You're softening in your, um, maturer years! I'm with Bhaisahab - it sounds wrong to me, though it's frequently heard.

 

[Barb_D]

To answer your question directly, you should most certainly NOT use "which" for these sentences.

I agree - I prefer "who" and would use it, but I'm not upset when others use "that."

 

[jutfrank]

Shakespeare was a poet. He wrote 154 sonnets.

It's a little unnnatural to try to connect these two facts into one sentence but if so, you could make a non-defining relative clause.

Shakespeare was a poet, who wrote 154 sonnets.

With non-defining clauses you must use who (not that). I really can't see how a defining relative clause is at all sensible. (But if it were, then that would be possible.) What is being defined?

So maybe why you might think the original sentence sounds strange with that is because your brain is hearing a non-defining clause. No?

 

[Barb_D]

I am at a total loss as to why you see connecting a poet to the poems he wrote is unnatural.

We create sentences like this all the time.

X was a painter who was famous for his landscapes.
Y was a neighbor who hosted wonderful summer barbecues.
Z is a salesperson who consistently leads her district in sales volume.

 

[ademoglu]

So maybe why you might think the original sentence sounds strange with that is because your brain is hearing a non-defining clause. No?

This is exactly what I thought! So I asked the question of you.

 

[jutfrank]

I am at a total loss as to why you see connecting a poet to the poems he wrote is unnatural.

I'm not sure what you mean. I was just asking how "a poet who wrote 154 sonnets" is defining. Is this a type of poet? What is being identified/defined?


Look what happens when you use the 'defining' article the instead of a.

Shakespeare was a poet, who wrote 154 sonnets.

Shakespeare was the poet that wrote 154 sonnets.

Does the use of that in the second sentence still sound as awkward as before? Why?

 

[Tdol]

Phyllosan

Not Gambrinus? :cheers:

 

[Tdol]

Shakespeare was the poet that wrote 154 sonnets.

Does the use of that in the second sentence still sound as awkward as before? Why?

This could distinguish him from the poet that/who wrote 153 sonnets. Admittedly, it is not a very likely distinction, but I don't see any difference in awkwardness between who/that there. (British English speaker)

 

[ademoglu]

This could distinguish him from the poet that/who wrote 153 sonnets. Admittedly, it is not a very likely distinction, but I don't see any difference in awkwardness between who/that there. (British English speaker)

So, ''Shakespeare was a poet, who wrote 154 sonnets'' and ''Shakespeare was a poet that/who wrote 154 sonnets'' are different in meaning, am I right?

 

[jutfrank]

This could distinguish him from the poet that/who wrote 153 sonnets. Admittedly, it is not a very likely distinction, but I don't see any difference in awkwardness between who/that there. (British English speaker)

Yes, that's exactly what I was getting at. When I said "unnatural" in post #8 I meant, as you put it, "not very likely". I can't sense any difference between who/that either because it's clear that we are hearing a defining clause when we use the defining article 'the poet'. But using an indefinite article, 'a poet', creates an indefinite (or non-defining) meaning.

(It's not affected by Br/AmE)