That wicked "which"

[Stefan Ram]

Back in the '80s, Donald E. Knuth was all about his students using
"that" for restrictive clauses and "which" for non-restrictive
ones. He'd totally lose it over the "wicked which," which he saw
as a major no-no. When someone brought up that Fowler wasn't as
anal about it, Knuth would just brush it off, saying people only
started paying attention to this rule in the '80s.

So I decided to dig a little deeper and check out what a corpus
grammar had to say about this whole shebang:

Turns out, "which" is like a rare Pokemon in spoken English, but
it's the go-to choice in written English in the UK.

Meanwhile, "that" is the bread and butter of spoken English and
the top dog in written American English.

Get this - the word "restrictive" doesn't even make a cameo in
this part of the corpus grammar!

Look, I've got mad respect for Donald Knuth, but I got to say,
his take on "which" seems a bit out there.

Using the restrictive/non-restrictive thing as a rule of thumb
when you're on the fence? Sure, knock yourself out! But for
native speakers, it's probably cool to trust their gut if
there's no chance of things getting lost in translation . . .

See:

"Mathematical Writing" (1990) by Donald E. Knuth, Tracy
Larrabee, and Paul M. Roberts 1990, based on a course of
the same name given at Stanford University during autumn
quarter, 1987.

[Peter Flynn]

Post by Stefan Ram
Back in the '80s, Donald E. Knuth was all about his students using
"that" for restrictive clauses and "which" for non-restrictive ones.

He's not alone: I remember one of my teachers in college getting cross
when people didn't use the words his way (which was different :-)

Post by Stefan Ram
Turns out, "which" is like a rare Pokemon in spoken English, but it's
the go-to choice in written English in the UK.
Meanwhile, "that" is the bread and butter of spoken English and the
top dog in written American English.

I think those are now historical curiosities which you can ignore.
I think those are now historical curiosities that you can ignore.

I would find "which" to be very common in spoken British English, but my
standards, which you may disagree with, are probably different to others'.

Post by Stefan Ram
But for native speakers, it's probably cool to trust their gut if
there's no chance of things getting lost in translation . . .

Probably the best advice.

Peter

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Peter Flynn

Post by Stefan Ram
Back in the '80s, Donald E. Knuth was all about his students using
"that" for restrictive clauses and "which" for non-restrictive ones.

He's not alone: I remember one of my teachers in college getting cross
when people didn't use the words his way (which was different :-)

Post by Stefan Ram
Turns out, "which" is like a rare Pokemon in spoken English, but it's
the go-to choice in written English in the UK.
Meanwhile, "that" is the bread and butter of spoken English and the
top dog in written American English.

I think those are now historical curiosities which you can ignore.
I think those are now historical curiosities that you can ignore.
I would find "which" to be very common in spoken British English, but
my standards, which you may disagree with, are probably different to
others'.

Without looking it up, my recollection is that 99 years ago Fowler
thought that using "which" to introduce restrictive clauses was
perfectly acceptable, but he advised use of "that" in writing, because
he thought that a comma was too weak a symbol to distinguish
unambiguously between restrictive and non-restrictive clauses.

Post by Peter Flynn

Post by Stefan Ram
But for native speakers, it's probably cool to trust their gut if
there's no chance of things getting lost in translation . . .

Probably the best advice.
Peter

[Julian Bradfield]

Post by Peter Flynn

Post by Stefan Ram
Back in the '80s, Donald E. Knuth was all about his students using
"that" for restrictive clauses and "which" for non-restrictive ones.

He's not alone: I remember one of my teachers in college getting cross
when people didn't use the words his way (which was different :-)

Post by Stefan Ram
Turns out, "which" is like a rare Pokemon in spoken English, but it's
the go-to choice in written English in the UK.
Meanwhile, "that" is the bread and butter of spoken English and the
top dog in written American English.

I think those are now historical curiosities which you can ignore.
I think those are now historical curiosities that you can ignore.
I would find "which" to be very common in spoken British English, but my
standards, which you may disagree with, are probably different to others'.

How would you go about finding "which" to be very common?
In that particular case, the most natural spoken version for my own
(generally conservative and formal) spoken BrE is to use neither
"that" nor "which". If I used one, it would probably be "that", unless
there were also a pause "I think those are now historical curiosities,
which you can ignore".

[Peter Flynn]

Post by Julian Bradfield

Post by Peter Flynn
I would find "which" to be very common in spoken British English,
but my standards, which you may disagree with, are probably
different to others'.

How would you go about finding "which" to be very common?

Just listening to how people use words, for maybe the last 60 years or
so. Language fascinated me since childhood, but no scientific basis
whatsoever.

Post by Julian Bradfield
In that particular case, the most natural spoken version for my own
(generally conservative and formal) spoken BrE is to use neither
"that" nor "which".

As in "I think those are now historical curiosities you can ignore"?

I would have marked that informal rather than formal, but I think you're
right that omission may now be the most common way of doing it.

Post by Julian Bradfield
If I used one, it would probably be "that", unless there were also a
pause "I think those are now historical curiosities, which you can
ignore".

Spoken and written can be very different.

Peter

[Dr. Engelbert Buxbauum]

Post by Peter Flynn
I think those are now historical curiosities which you can ignore.
I think those are now historical curiosities that you can ignore.

Interesting. My (US) teacher insisted that there is a comma in front of
'which', but never in front of 'that', without ever saying why.

What is the difference between 'restrictive' and 'non-restrictive' in
this context?

[Stefan Ram]

Post by Dr. Engelbert Buxbauum
What is the difference between 'restrictive' and 'non-restrictive' in
this context?

A restrictive (or "defining") relative clause serves to pinpoint
what's being talked about. It's not set off by commas.

A non-restrictive (or "non-defining") relative clause is
there to dish out extra info about something already defined.
It's cordoned off with commas.

Mary-Claire van Leunen from Digital Equipment Corp said
Fowler was all about using "that" for defining clauses and
"which" for non-defining ones. The New Yorker, being the
grammar sticklers they are, rode that wave for ages. Then
Strunk and White's "The Elements of Style" came along and
made this distinction a thing in American English.

Example sentences:

|All the students that know when to use "which" and "that"
|will pass the quiz. The exam, which took place at the
|beginning of class, was not difficult.

.

[Peter Flynn]

On 08/02/2025 14:31, Stefan Ram wrote:
[...]

Mary-Claire van Leunen from Digital Equipment Corp said Fowler was
all about using "that" for defining clauses and "which" for
non-defining ones.

That was probably true, then.

The New Yorker, being the grammar sticklers they are, rode that wave
for ages. Then Strunk and White's "The Elements of Style" came along
and made this distinction a thing in American English.

I think it was unknown in British English, where Fowler is honoured more
in the breach than the observance.

Post by Stefan Ram
All the students that know when to use "which" and "that"
will pass the quiz.

"All students that" in this context (in BrE) might be a marker for a
certain level of education. "All students who" would be what I was
taught, but "All students what" is also very common.

Post by Stefan Ram
The exam, which took place at the beginning of class, was not
difficult.

But that is a very different meaning without the commas.

1. The exam, which took place at the beginning of class, was not
difficult.
= The exam was not difficult. BTW it took place at the beginning
of class)

2. The exam which took place at the beginning of class was not
difficult.
= as opposed to the exam which took place at the end of class.


Peter

[Axel Berger]

Post by Peter Flynn
but "All students what" is also very common.

I often hear that, or something similar, when the BBC tries to mark a
character as lower class in a radio play.

[Ulrich D i e z]

[...]

Post by Peter Flynn

Post by Stefan Ram
All the students that know when to use "which" and "that"
will pass the quiz.

"All students that" in this context (in BrE) might be a marker for a
certain level of education. "All students who" would be what I was
taught, but "All students what" is also very common.

(English is not my first language.)

Another off-topic question:

How about using the adjective "known"?

"All students/Those students to whom is known when to use "which" and
"that" will pass the quiz."

Sincerely

Ulrich

[Axel Berger]

Post by Ulrich D i e z
(English is not my first language.)

Nor mine, treat all my answers with caution.

Post by Ulrich D i e z
to whom is known when

That phrase requires an "it"
to whom it is known when
(Don't ask me why. I've learnt to trust my feelings but have never been
able to explain.)

Also I'd put it slightly differently:
whom it is known to when

[Peter Flynn]

Post by Axel Berger

Post by Ulrich D i e z
(English is not my first language.)

Nor mine, treat all my answers with caution.

Post by Ulrich D i e z
to whom is known when

That phrase requires an "it"
to whom it is known when

Correct.

Post by Axel Berger
(Don't ask me why. I've learnt to trust my feelings but have never been
able to explain.)

It's called an indirect antecedent referent 😂

Alle Studenten, wem es bekannt ist, werden die Prüfung bestehen.

Post by Axel Berger
whom it is known to when

Much simpler: "All students who know when to use..."

Peter

[Dr. Engelbert Buxbauum]

In article <voa1po$803$***@solani.org>, ***@web.de
says...

Post by Ulrich D i e z
How about using the adjective "known"?
"All students/Those students to whom is known when to use "which" and
"that" will pass the quiz."

KISS (keep it simple, stupid): I'd prefer a short and active "who know"
over a long and passive "to whom is known".

Those who know Heinrich Böll's satiric shortstory "Doktor Murkes
gesammeltes Schweigen [The collected silence of Dr. Murke]" will be
reminded of Prof. Dr. Dr. Bur-Malottke, who in his recorded lectures
wants the word "God" to be replaced by "the higher being we worship".

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Peter Flynn
[...]

Mary-Claire van Leunen from Digital Equipment Corp said Fowler was
all about using "that" for defining clauses and "which" for
non-defining ones.

If someone or other from a computer company really said that she was
talking through her hat and had never bothered to read Fowler's
discussion for herself. If you're seriously interested in knowing what
Fowler thought, the simplest approach is to read it yourself,
specifically the discussion on pp. 634-638 of Modern English Usage (1st
edn., 1926). The fact that it took him four pages to say it tells you
immediately that it's not something to be expressed in a few words like
"all about using 'that' for defining clauses and 'which' for
non-defining ones". The closest he comes to saying that is this: "if
writers would agree that to regard _that_ as the defining pronoun, &
_which_ as the non-defining, there would be much gain both in lucidity
& in ease. Some there are who follow this principle now; but it would
be idle to preted that it is the practice either of the most or of the
best writers".

Fowler shares with Dorothy Parker and Mark Twain the characteristic of
not having said a large proportion of what people say he said.

Post by Peter Flynn
That was probably true, then.

The New Yorker, being the grammar sticklers they are, rode that wave
for ages. Then Strunk and White's "The Elements of Style" came along
and made this distinction a thing in American English.

I think it was unknown in British English, where Fowler is honoured
more in the breach than the observance.

Post by Stefan Ram
All the students that know when to use "which" and "that"
will pass the quiz.

"All students that" in this context (in BrE) might be a marker for a
certain level of education. "All students who" would be what I was
taught, but "All students what" is also very common.

Post by Stefan Ram
The exam, which took place at the beginning of class, was not
difficult.

But that is a very different meaning without the commas.
1. The exam, which took place at the beginning of class, was not
difficult.
= The exam was not difficult. BTW it took place at the beginning
of class)
2. The exam which took place at the beginning of class was not
difficult.
= as opposed to the exam which took place at the end of class.
Peter

[Axel Berger]

Post by Stefan Ram
|All the students that know when to use "which" and "that"
|will pass the quiz. The exam, which took place at the
|beginning of class, was not difficult.

The first "that" jars my sensitivity. I want a "who" there.