Using "what" as a conjunction -- c/d

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

I AM THE MIDNIGHT BOMBER WHAT BOMBS AT MIDNIGHT.

― Leee (Leee), Thursday, 24 July 2003 20:45 (twenty-two years ago)

dud.

― Mr. Diamond (diamond), Thursday, 24 July 2003 20:46 (twenty-two years ago)

Can be funny, but obviously all wrong. How many people here know the difference between using 'that' and 'which' in this kind of construction (i.e. for relative clauses)? Only the grammatical pedants and ex-editors (me twice!), I expect.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Thursday, 24 July 2003 21:00 (twenty-two years ago)

MS Word sez that you use "which" when introducing non-essential information in a subordinate clause, and "that" is for essential info in a conjunctive clause. (Did I just make up "conjunctive clause"?)

― Leee (Leee), Thursday, 24 July 2003 21:03 (twenty-two years ago)

Do I mean subjunctive? Or independent clause?

― Leee (Leee), Thursday, 24 July 2003 21:05 (twenty-two years ago)

The 'rule' (kind of made up by grammarians) can be checked thus:

If the 'which' could be followed in the sentence by 'by the way' in parenthesis, then it is being correctly used. If that would make no sense, then it should be 'that'.

― N. (nickdastoor), Thursday, 24 July 2003 21:06 (twenty-two years ago)

I love doing this. It's a silver bullet though, only worth using in rare circumstances. I picked it up after reading a collection of humorous short stories dealing with two southern blue-collar bass fishermen.

― Millar (Millar), Thursday, 24 July 2003 21:06 (twenty-two years ago)

So yeah, 'which' is followed by an independent clause.

― N. (nickdastoor), Thursday, 24 July 2003 21:07 (twenty-two years ago)

Or should I say 'followed with'? Ablatives bah.

― N. (nickdastoor), Thursday, 24 July 2003 21:08 (twenty-two years ago)

All the clauses/That independent/Throw your verbs up at me

― Grammer Beyonce (Dan Perry), Thursday, 24 July 2003 21:08 (twenty-two years ago)

How many people here know the difference between using 'that' and 'which' in this kind of construction (i.e. for relative clauses)? Only the grammatical pedants and ex-editors (me twice!), I expect.

erm, yeah. i do. *ducks*

― Pabst Blue Rosen (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 24 July 2003 21:13 (twenty-two years ago)

It's more defining/non-defining. If the following clause defines which whatever you mean ("the London that is in Ontario") it is 'that', if it's just some extra info it's which.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Thursday, 24 July 2003 21:16 (twenty-two years ago)

Can we just talk about the Tick instead?

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 24 July 2003 21:41 (twenty-two years ago)

Not unless he defeats his enemies using his mighty conjunctified laser.

― Nichole Graham (Nichole Graham), Thursday, 24 July 2003 22:04 (twenty-two years ago)

ablative conjunctified laser, thank you very much

― H (Heruy), Thursday, 24 July 2003 22:08 (twenty-two years ago)

So yeah, 'which' is followed by an independent clause.

??? The "which" is part of the clause; it functions as either the subject or an object. Also, the clause is subordinate, not independent.

― Curt1s St3ph3ns, Friday, 25 July 2003 01:56 (twenty-two years ago)

I heard the uses of which&that are directly opposite in America and in England?

― Mary (Mary), Friday, 25 July 2003 02:57 (twenty-two years ago)

Curtis, yes sorry. My knowledge of grammar terminology is crappy but I knew what I meant. I should keep quiet.

― N. (nickdastoor), Friday, 25 July 2003 08:45 (twenty-two years ago)

sorry I am a grammar rockist :(

― Curt1s St3ph3ns, Friday, 25 July 2003 20:05 (twenty-two years ago)

No, you were right to call me on my bullshitting. I do know the difference between 'that' and 'which' though.

― N. (nickdastoor), Saturday, 26 July 2003 00:38 (twenty-two years ago)

I am the midnight bomber what bombs at midnight. Curiously evocative, not the sort of thing you'd say every day. Only works in English with a heavily stamped poetic licence.

― Daniel (dancity), Saturday, 26 July 2003 09:09 (twenty-two years ago)

i rule getting "that" and "which" correct HOWEVER i have never been able to explain this rule to a third party

― mark s (mark s), Saturday, 26 July 2003 09:12 (twenty-two years ago)

you use a comma before "which" but not before "that" - that is the extent of my knowledge (and it's probably not even correct)

― Curt1s St3ph3ns, Saturday, 26 July 2003 19:53 (twenty-two years ago)

It's usually the case, yes, because 'which' implies kind of optional extra information, whereas 'that' implies part of the definition of the thing to which it relates.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Sunday, 27 July 2003 09:50 (twenty-two years ago)

It's useful to know that which is used to append extra info that's not essential and that for that that is.

That makes sense, honest.

― mei (mei), Sunday, 27 July 2003 10:02 (twenty-two years ago)

It is fine if you are Alan Sillitoe or Nell Dunn. Otherwise it's dud.

― Lara (Lara), Sunday, 27 July 2003 18:34 (twenty-two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.