1

  1. This is the same book that I lost last year.

  2. This is the book which/that I lost last year.

What is the difference b/w these sentences. Book says we can't use "which" in case of 1 sentence. why so?

starun008
  • 1,725
  • 21
  • 54
  • 73
  • I think people must agree to disagree on this contentious issue. "This is the same book which I lost last year* strikes my ear as ungrammatical; and that's not because I was taught to use "that" with restrictive clauses. In my neck of the woods, in ordinary conversation on the street, one does not hear "which" used with restrictive clauses, especially among speakers with little or no book-learning. – TimR Mar 23 '15 at 12:40
  • Remove controversies - This is the same book I had lost last year! :P – Maulik V Mar 23 '15 at 12:48
  • But controversies are fun. They show that language, like politics, is local. – TimR Mar 23 '15 at 12:49
  • @StoneyB I read the link which/that(I don't know which one is correct) you have mentioned. I don't get the meaning of restrictive and non restrictive clause. Actually your answer is a little difficult for me to understand as a non-native speaker. I am not very good at English. Can you please elaborate this (restrictive and non restrictive clause) in a simple language so i can understand. – starun008 Mar 23 '15 at 12:51
  • @TRomano you are right. But its not about the sentences I mentioned. It's about the grammar rule that I want to know. Today or later this can create problem for me if i don't proper grammar rules. – starun008 Mar 23 '15 at 12:58
  • @TRomano I think that in ordinary conversation 1) An object relative is usually dropped (The same book I lost) and even subject relatives are dropped more often than normative grammarians like to contemplate. 2) There is very little use of express non-restrictive relatives, while actual restrictive relatives are often added 'on the fly' as supplements, so they appear intonationally to be non-restrictive. Consequently, that is overwhelmingly preferred in speech: it often acts as 'filler' while the speaker figures out where she's going next. – StoneyB on hiatus Mar 23 '15 at 13:19
  • @starun008 A restrictive clause is essential to the meaning: if I say "I like teachers who use simple language", who use simple language is restrictive: it tells *which* teachers I like and distinguishes them from all other teachers. That's the only kind of teacher I'm talking about. But if I say "I like Prof. Sartorius, who uses simple language", who uses simple language is non-restrictive: it doesn't distinguish this Prof. Sartorius from all other Professors Sartorius, it just tells something else about him--perhaps why I like him. – StoneyB on hiatus Mar 23 '15 at 13:25
  • @starun008 In written English a non-restrictive clause is usually separated from the noun phrase it modifies with commas (or parentheses or dashes). The comma reflects the intonation in ordinary speech; but as I just remarked to TRomano, non-restrictive relative clauses are rare in speech. – StoneyB on hiatus Mar 23 '15 at 13:37
  • @StoneyB Thank you. Now I get what is restrictive and non-restrictive clause. We can use "that" only for restrictive clause and "which" for both restrictive and non-restrictive. That's commas till know i don't know the power of this little things. I used to ignore commas but now i will take care if it. – starun008 Mar 23 '15 at 14:08

0 Answers0