|Don't ask to ask, just ask|
Re^3: poll ideas quest 2015by jdporter (Canon)
|on May 17, 2015 at 05:00 UTC||Need Help??|
The which/that issue is one on which I strongly disagree with the style guide writers. The Guardian's style guide, espousing the majority view, says:
This is quite easy, really: "that" defines, "which" gives extra information (often in a clause enclosed by commas)
This is literally bass-ackwards. It is the comma -- and the comma alone -- which determines whether the clause is restrictive or nonrestrictive. Furthermore, when the clause is nonrestrictive (i.e. it is set off with commas), only "which" is correct. In restrictive clauses, either can be used, and most people seem to prefer "that"; but I maintain that "which" is often a better choice, at least in formal writing.
I have logic on my side. "Which" is close grammatical kin to "who", "where", "when", and so on. When using these other words, it's obvious that only commas make the difference between restrictive and nonrestrictive sense. Also, "which" can be used in prepositional phrases just as "whom" (etc.) can, but "that" cannot. So even granting that one should use "that" for a restrictive clause, one still must switch to using "which" when it follows a preposition. Example: "Websites that get hacked..." but "Websites for which no security..." "That" is a completely unnecessary word. We're better off just using "which" in all cases.
There is plenty of precedent to support my view.
(To reiterate: I'm only counting non-prepositional restrictive clauses, i.e. those places where "that" could reasonably substitute for "which".)
It's one thing to suggest that using "which" for restrictive clauses may lead to language so overly formal that it sounds odd to modern speakers; it's quite another to insist that the use of "which" for restrictive clauses is wrong and must be stamped out.
I reckon we are the only monastery ever to have a dungeon stuffed with 16,000 zombies.