pet peeve: "that" vs "which"

[gusl]

My new pet peeve: people who use "which" when they should use "that". I'm seeing this everywhere now that I pay attention to it!

There may be some grey areas, but lots of people jump right over the fuzzy line:

I cringe when I see:
"We should not endorse any projects which attempt to become too big."
"How would that help us prove scientific claims which are politically-charged?"

Even I get tempted to overuse "which". That's the most annoying part.

That's probably the same reason why it annoys me when non-Dutch people misuse "de" and "het": because I'm insecure myself. Probably the same reason why an ex-smoker would be extremely annoyed at people smoking around him.


---

Here's a grey area: from here
"Chandler worked as a Data-Processor, a job which he thoroughly loathed."

Comments

[inhortte.livejournal.com]

I definately know that I am guilty of this.

http://www.worldwidewords.org/articles/which.htm

I'm on a which hunt!

[gustavolacerda.livejournal.com]

The usage is intimately linked with the distinction which grammarians made between restrictive and non-restrictive clauses.

Obviously, the text doesn't accept the idea that restrictive clauses should always begin with "that".

Re: I'm on a which hunt!

[gustavolacerda.livejournal.com]

I agree with Fowler:

The 1965 edition of Fowler’s Modern English Usage comments:

If writers would agree to regard that as the defining relative pronoun, and which as the non-defining, there would be much gain both in lucidity and in ease. Some there are who follow this principle now; but it would be idle to pretend that it is the practice either of most or of the best writers.

Re: I'm on a which hunt!

[inhortte.livejournal.com]

For the sake of clarity, I agree the use of that and which should be regularized. It's going to be pretty difficult to rustle up all the wrong-doers and lock them up, however.

Re: I'm on a which hunt!

[gustavolacerda.livejournal.com]

it's hard to understand why people make this mistake. Always use "that" unless you can't... I bet in spoken language people get it right 99% of the time.

Re: I'm on a which hunt!

[inhortte.livejournal.com]

That would be an interesting thing to try to verify. It is a pity that I am very rarely around native English speakers...

[literalgirl.livejournal.com]

I think I'd say:

"Chandler worked as a Data-Processor, a job he thoroughly loathed."

[jcreed.livejournal.com]

I don't see why you're so confident that this is a mistake, and why you think it's easy for people to "avoid making it".

I agree "it would be idle to pretend that it is the practice either of most or of the best writers," and so speakers of english grow up in an environment where there is not a regular correspondence between that/which and restrictive/non-restrictive clauses. Rather I think the clearest signal is a pause and inflectional marking (in speech) or a comma in writing.

I certainly don't generally mind reading writing in which the author carefully sticks to "which" for non-restrictive and "that" for restrictive, and I suppose an extra redundant signal of restrictivity is fine, but I never recall having a problem understanding sentences that use "which" restrictively --- they just sound a little more british to my dialect-sense, but that particular judgment may be spurious.

An example where the use of restrictive which seems downright necessary to accept as legal to me is when the demonstrative pronoun is followed by a relative: consider the title of Basitat's essay "That which is seen, and that which is not seen." Surely we are not supposed to say "That that is seen, and that that is not seen," are we?

Given this --- and moreover the existence phrasal relativizers like "in which" that undeniably use at least the token "which" in a restrictive way, and certainly have no whichless substitute --- why perpetuate the myth that consistently using which and that nonrestrictively and restrictively actually achieves much in the way of consistency and clarity?

[jcreed.livejournal.com]

By the way, I like the phrase "makes my teeth itch", which I found here.

[bram.livejournal.com]

What bugs me these days--and I don't even know that it is completely wrong, but it bugs me--is when people write, "try AND do something" instead of "try TO do something."

[williamallthing.livejournal.com]

i will try and write english in a manner which is more consistent with all of y'all's stupid opinions!

haha!

[gustavolacerda.livejournal.com]

that's definitely a British thing.

[gustavolacerda.livejournal.com]

to quote your source:

"But they're not right or wrong, and certainly not the sort of thing that a grammar guide can settle definitively: there's no authoritative answer. I find them ugly as sin, but your mileage may vary. They're a matter of taste.

I, of course, am convinced I have impeccable taste; and like most people who set up linguistic soapboxes, I sometimes offer opinions on such questions. I like to think I'm rarely perverse or pedantic, and I flatter myself that I have a better ear for style than many. But take my opinions for what they're worth: they're one guy's judgment on what sounds good. And on many issues, that's all you get."

It seems overly pedantic to use "which" when you can perfectly well say "that". Again, a matter of taste.

Instead of using "in which" restrictively, I would use "where". I can make an exception in the case of Bastiat.

[sarandipiti.livejournal.com]

Oh man, I've been commiting a livejournal faux pas and didn't even know it!

[gustavolacerda.livejournal.com]

The faux pas of "bad" English?

[frauhedgehog.livejournal.com]

Note that British usage of which/that is different from American.

[gustavolacerda.livejournal.com]

British usage: anything goes ?