Rolltop desks are named after their sliding

Rolltop desks are named after their sliding roll tops, or tambours, that cover the working surface of the upper part and can be locked.


Is "that" properly used here? What about using "which"?

Thanks!

Both 'that' and 'which' are correct.

Isn't it non-defining clause?

Freeguy said:

Isn't it non-defining clause?

Click to expand...

It is a defining clause. Don't be confused by the commas around "or tambours".

Freeguy said:

Isn't it non-defining clause?

Click to expand...

Semantically, it's non-defining. It's not as if they have other sliding roll tops that don't cover the working surface of the upper part and can't be locked.
I'd use 'which', and call it a non-defining clause. But as the sentence exists, the clause is structurally a defining clause.

Raymott said:

Semantically, it's non-defining. It's not as if they have other sliding roll tops that don't cover the working surface of the upper part and can't be locked.
I'd use 'which', and call it a non-defining clause. But as the sentence exists, the clause is structurally a defining clause.

Click to expand...

What you say is true, but some/many people have never seen a roll-top desk. For them, the clause is defining.

MikeNewYork said:

What you say is true, but some/many people have never seen a roll-top desk. For them, the clause is defining.

Click to expand...

I don't think we can take people's acquaintance with an object into account when deciding whether a a clause is defining or non-defining.

5jj said:

I don't think we can take people's acquaintance with an objject into account when deciding whether a a clause is defining or non-defining.

Click to expand...

I completely agree. Raymott's semantic objection was based on people's acquaintance with the object. As written, the clause in the sentence was "defining". That is all we really have.

MikeNewYork said:

What you say is true, but some/many people have never seen a roll-top desk. For them, the clause is defining.

Click to expand...

That's a quibble on "defining". A defining clause is also called a restrictive clause. In this case, it restricts which sliding roll tops the term "rolltop desk" is named after, ie. those "that cover the working surface ..."
What you call "defining" is actually describing. For a person who's never seen a rolltop desk, additional information given in a non-restrictive clause is just as descriptive. I haven't heard of the concept of a clause being restrictive/defining only to some people. But I agree that this sentence could be written either way.

If we leave out the sightly distracting "or tambours", we are left with Rolltop desks are named after their sliding roll tops that cover the working surface of the upper part and can be locked.

It seems to me that the part in blue is a defning/restrictive clause. It also seems to me that it shouldn't be. The sentence should be:

Rolltop desks are named after their sliding roll tops, which cover the working surface of the upper part and can be locked.

This becomes clearer in the more obviously incorrect:

Rusty got his nickname from his hair that is red.

5jj said:

Rolltop desks are named after their sliding roll tops, which cover the working surface of the upper part and can be locked.

Click to expand...

I could go either way on that. The intention of the writer controls the structure.

Can we omit "or tambours" here and write:
Rolltop desks are named after their sliding roll tops, that cover the working surface of the upper part and can be locked. (Non-defining)

Or:
Rolltop desks are named after their sliding roll tops that cover the working surface of the upper part and can be locked. (Defining)

Am I right?

Freeguy said:

Can we omit "or tambours" here and write:
Rolltop desks are named after their sliding roll tops, that cover the working surface of the upper part and can be locked. (Non-defining)

Or:
Rolltop desks are named after their sliding roll tops that cover the working surface of the upper part and can be locked. (Defining)

Am I right?

Click to expand...

You can omit "or tambours", but you can't use 'that' with a non-defining clause. Your first sentence is wrong; it needs 'which'.
Read the notes on this page:
Non-Defining Relative Clause | English Grammar

Exactly. I want to say that if we can omit "or tambours", then we must consider this sentence as a non-defining clause, as you previously mentioned. However. I don't understand why we can use either (that and which).

Freeguy said:

However. I don't understand why we can use either (that and which).

Click to expand...

However, I don't understand why we can use 'that' or 'which'.

You can't use 'that' in a non-defining clause. Raymott told you that, and so did the article he linked you to.

In the real world, a very small percentage of native speakers have even heard of defining/non-defining clauses — let alone stop to consider whether 'that' or 'which' would be more grammatically correct in casual conversation.

They just say whatever sounds right at the time.