Difference between which and that...

[Pragshana Arulrajan]

What is the difference between “which” vs “that” in relative clauses, and when does it really matter?

 

[emsr2d2]

What is the difference between “which” vs and “that” in relative clauses, and when does it really matter?

It's always important to use the right word! What do you already know about the difference between "which" and "that"? You'd be better off giving us specific sentences in which you're not sure which to use.

 

[Pragshana Arulrajan]

It's always important to use the right word! What do you already know about the difference between "which" and "that"? You'd be better off giving us specific sentences in which you're not sure which to use.

"The book that is on the table is mine." , "The book which is on the table is mine."
what is the major difference between these two sentences?

 

[5jj]

"The book that is on the table is mine." , "The book which is on the table is mine."
what is the major difference between these two sentences?

In meaning, none, except that the first is more natural.

 

[Rover_KE]

I expect you also know that you can more succinctly say 'The book on the table is mine'.

Read about reduced relative clauses.

 

[emsr2d2]

1. "The book that is on the table is mine."
2. "The book which is on the table is mine."

Whenever you give us more than one sentence to look at, present them as a numbered list. It makes it easier for us to refer to them in our responses.

What is the major difference between these two sentences?

Start every sentence with a capital letter. Although we sometimes say that there are "minor" differences between things, we don't use the opposite and ask about "major" differences.

 

[Pragshana Arulrajan]

Whenever you give us more than one sentence to look at, present them as a numbered list. It makes it easier for us to refer to them in our responses.

Start every sentence with a capital letter. Although we sometimes say that there are "minor" differences between things, we don't use the opposite and ask about "major" differences.

I'll present perfectly next time, Thank you! for pointing out my mistake.

 

[Pragshana Arulrajan]

In meaning, none, except that the first is more natural.

Got it! Thanks.

 

[Pragshana Arulrajan]

I expect you also know that you can more succinctly say 'The book on the table is mine'.

Read about reduced relative clauses.

Yes, That’s a reduced relative clause - ‘(which is) on the table’ is shortened to ‘on the table'.
Thank you!

 

[Annabel Lee]

What is the difference between “which” vs “that” in relative clauses, and when does it really matter?

One important difference is that, in relative clauses in which the relative pronoun functions as the object of a preposition (you have just finished reading such a relative clause), "which" can be placed after the preposition, but "that" cannot:

She wrote a relative clause in which the relative pronoun functioned as the object of a preposition.​

*She wrote a relative clause in that the relative pronoun functioned as the object of a preposition.​

​

Another important difference is that, in nonrestrictive relative clauses, which are set of by a comma (like the one you have just finished reading), "that" cannot be used instead of "which":

She wrote a nonrestrictive relative clause, which needed to be set off by a comma.​

*She wrote a nonrestrictive relative clause, that needed to be set off by a comma.​

​

I have noticed that the second restriction seems not to have existed in the 1600s and earlier. Exceptions are plentiful in the King James Bible. In modern English, however, we cannot introduce a nonrestrictive relative clause with "that."

 

[emsr2d2]

I'll present write perfectly next time. Thank you no exclamation mark here for pointing out my mistakes.

 

[Pragshana Arulrajan]

I expect you also know that you can more succinctly say 'The book on the table is mine'.

Read about reduced relative clauses.

Yes, That’s a reduced relative clause - ‘(which is) on the table’ is shortened to ‘on the table'.
Thank you!
Got it! Thanks.

 

[Pragshana Arulrajan]

One important difference is that, in relative clauses in which the relative pronoun functions as the object of a preposition (you have just finished reading such a relative clause), "which" can be placed after the preposition, but "that" cannot:

She wrote a relative clause in which the relative pronoun functioned as the object of a preposition.​

*She wrote a relative clause in that the relative pronoun functioned as the object of a preposition.​

​

Another important difference is that, in nonrestrictive relative clauses, which are set of by a comma (like the one you have just finished reading), "that" cannot be used instead of "which":

She wrote a nonrestrictive relative clause, which needed to be set off by a comma.​

*She wrote a nonrestrictive relative clause, that needed to be set off by a comma.​

​

I have noticed that the second restriction seems not to have existed in the 1600s and earlier. Exceptions are plentiful in the King James Bible. In modern English, however, we cannot introduce a nonrestrictive relative clause with "that."

“That” is used only in restrictive clauses, while “which” is used for nonrestrictive clauses. So although historical exceptions exist, using “that” after a comma is no longer considered correct today.

 

[Annabel Lee]

“That” is used only in restrictive clauses, while “which” is used for nonrestrictive clauses. So although historical exceptions exist, using “that” after a comma is no longer considered correct today.

Yes. If "that" is used as the relative pronoun in nonrestrictive clauses, the result, in today's English, is a run-on sentence:

They vacationed at Lake Tahoe. That is in California. [two sentences]​

They vacationed at Lake Tahoe, which is in California. [one sentence with a subordinate clause]​

They vacationed at Lake Tahoe, that is in California. [run-on sentence]​

 

[Pragshana Arulrajan]

Yes. If "that" is used as the relative pronoun in nonrestrictive clauses, the result, in today's English, is a run-on sentence:

They vacationed at Lake Tahoe. That is in California. [two sentences]​

They vacationed at Lake Tahoe, which is in California. [one sentence with a subordinate clause]​

They vacationed at Lake Tahoe, that is in California. [run-on sentence]​

Got it! Thanks.

 

[Alex Case]

Mostly covered very well above. Perhaps the only missing point is that "that" can also replace "who", but "a person which" is not standard (though some people also dislike "a person that")