-1

Here'are two sentences:

  1. It's not beer WHICH destroys people, it's beer WHICH does it to them.
  2. It's not beer THAT destroys people, it's beer THAT does it to them.

Pretty weird sentences but they are qoutes from a Russian movie translated into English :)

Which sentence sound more natural? To me both are okay as both, 'that' and 'which', may introduce a restrictive relative clause.

Here's what Oxford says: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/words/that-or-which

Thank you for your answers!

user73643
  • 21
  • 2
  • Is a specific beer mentioned before this sentence? As it stands, there is not enough to go on here. – Edwin Ashworth Apr 30 '14 at 07:29
  • No, there isn't. It's just about beer in general and, according to the person who pronounces the phrase, beer doesn't destroy people at all, but it may be even useful. Hopefully, it has become a bit more clear. Sorry for that. – user73643 Apr 30 '14 at 07:36
  • 1
    In that case, these are it-clefts requiring 'that'. – Edwin Ashworth Apr 30 '14 at 07:51
  • A more plausible English translation might be: 2' "It's not beer that destroys the man; beer actually makes the man." – Edwin Ashworth Apr 30 '14 at 07:56
  • The one who says that thinks that water destroys the man and beer doesn't. So, if I'd like to be closer to the Russian phrase it would be better to say: It's not beer that destroys the man, it's water. Right? – user73643 Apr 30 '14 at 08:14
  • 1
    And I'll just add that 'which' is possible after an it-cleft, but there needs to be a particularisation: It was John’s book {which/that} got me interested in fungi'. Choosing 'which' here selects the meaning 'John’s book was the one {which/that} got me interested in fungi'. – Edwin Ashworth Apr 30 '14 at 08:16
  • #user73.. This sentence doesn't come close in meaning to your original, but is fine grammatically, and fine as regards idiomaticity (how natives actually talk). I'm not sure about whether it's true, though :-) – Edwin Ashworth Apr 30 '14 at 08:20
  • Oh! it is close as in russian it sounds like: Губит людей не пиво, губит людей вода which literally means: It's not beer that destroys people, it's water that destroys people. Thank you, anyway! I've never heard of it-clefts before. – user73643 Apr 30 '14 at 08:53
  • The 'it' involved is just a meaningless filler, to postpone the normal subject. 'It's plain that he's a troublemaker' is far more idiomatic than 'T[he fact t]hat he's a troublemaker is plain'. Contrast 'referential it' in 'Charlesberg. It's the beer that refreshes the whole person.' – Edwin Ashworth Apr 30 '14 at 09:07
  • Possible duplicate: When to use “that” and when to use “which” – Tragicomic Apr 30 '14 at 09:55
  • Does it mean that it-cleft is the same as Relative Clause which may be divided into 2 groups: restrictive relative clause and non-restrictive relative clause? But then it says (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/words/that-or-which) you can use both, 'which' and 'that', with a non-restrictive relative clause which is the case I've mentioned above. Does 'that' just sound better in my case? Or am I wrong? – user73643 Apr 30 '14 at 10:53

1 Answers1

0

As your link said, you can use both since you are not introducing beer in your sentence.

But for something like:

It's not beard which kills them, it's beer; which I don't like.

In this sentence, I am introducing a fact that I don't like beer.. so I may not use that..

ps: the sentence is weird, but it serves its purpose.

Yohanes Khosiawan 许先汉
  • 172