That vs Which: Why is the grammatical distinction considered minor or quibbling?

VS.

"did you build that house?"
"which one?"

"Did you build that house?"
"That which you indicate, yes."

But no, they don't! Which supplies an additional attribute. That is a PART of the subject of the clause. In "the house that I built," the subject isn't really just "house," because -- in context -- that would be too vague. The subject is that particular house, the one I built. The "that" part isn't adding attributes, it's restricting from a set down to an individual. (It's almost like a definite article -- restricting from "a house" to "the house" -- except it specifies the definition itself.)

I tend to add a comma before "which" in this context, as in nabisco's example.

hey ho. such, sadly, is life.

"The house, which I built," is different from "The house which I built".

In the former you're just providing extra information about the house in the latter you're distingushing it from other houses.

The latter, I think, has the same meaning as "The house that I built" but not the former.

(from The Cambridge Guide To English Usage)

I agree that people tend not to have a good sense of this in writing, but like I said up top -- I think people do use this distinction heavily and naturally in everyday speech. ("No, not that one, the one that's sticking up.")

Both 'which' and 'that' are functioning in a similar manner here.

"Let's go to the red house which I left my baby in"
"Let's go to the red house that I left my baby in"

I'll agree here that the second, the example with 'that', appears to indicate that there is more than one red house. It's an almost imperceptible subtlety, though, and I don't think it's a crime to say one meaning the other.

In British English, at least, "No, not that one, the one which is sticking up." would sound just as natural.

Arrgh, Scourage, the reason they're functioning similarly in your first set is that you've put commas around "that," leading us to read it as non-restrictive.

Everybody understands the way the commas work on these. The that/which rule is pretty much exactly the same. Which is handy, because you can't necessarily hear commas when people talk.

(Ha, Alba, I can't help you on that one: my favorite part of that DFW tennis article from the other day was the bit where he writes "British grammar is a bit dodgy.")

Well yeah, that's fine if you're using them youself. But I'm guessing people aren't calling you a quibbler for just applying the distinction in your own language. It's when you correct other people. And for that, then it's handy to have historical precedent on your side and not just "it seems a useful rule to me".

me too. but that's about style; and, as every sub knows, style and grammar are uneasy bedfellows.

Well but "useful" in that sentence means "useful if we all adopt it," not just a unilateral thing. No standard develops historical precedent without people evangelizing it a bit.

But you're right, maybe it's rude to do that in the form of correction. From now on I'll just asked confused and be an educator: "I'm sorry, I'm still not sure what you're saying -- are you suggesting there are other screwdrivers nearby? I recommend using the handy that/what distinction to clarify."

except for a living, natch.

but no, i accept that there's a world of difference between editing/correcting the written word and being a pedant who's going to get a savage chinning. actually stopping someone mid-sentence and saying: "actually, i think you'll find ..." makes you a spurting bell-end of the first order.

http://www.streetplay.com/aboutus/images/safire.jpg

xpost: hang on, "novel" is a howler, as is "sould" ... there were more, weren't there? and you were aware of them all? yes, of course you were.

xpost

Shit. Ah well, I lost this one. Bill Bryson's Mother Tongue/Made In America come pretty close to grinding me further into the ground, but he's an honourary Brit nowadays. :-D

x-post: HONORARY!

oh no, i am a spurting bell-end.

Incidentally, you spelt "should" wrong. I missed an "it" out of my post. Shit happens. But "would of"...GRRRRRRRR.

I have a whole other level of hatred for apostrophe misuse.

(xpost)

I'm C, incidentally; the semi-colon can be a fantastic way of creating a punchy division between a the main statement and it's explanatory sub-clause.

SRSLY, though, semi-colon or no?

Yes, semi-colons. There's a reason for them, therefore they are necessary, therefore classic.

http://www.usa-decouverte.com/culture/images/jazz-singer.jpg

and if we're going to collapse both who/that and that/which, then i guess we're headed for a world of "she was the girl which stole my heart." and that is not a world in which i wish to live!

in technical or scientific explanations, the distinctions is almost always essential.

the electrons, which are in the d orbital, will... - the electrons that are in the d orbital will...

WTF? The comma is for non-restrictive clauses. "Which" is for non-restrictive clauses. You use both. You can't rely on the comma alone, though, because people do not say "That's the house comma which I built."

WAH?

why was the boy afraid to go to the beach?
because of all the sand which is there.

(sand which is/sand witches, see? do you see?)

"because of all the sand that is there" gives the boy no reason for fear. unless he's just afraid of sand. but that's not funny. hmm. i'll have to think about whether to pass this joke on to my son. i'd hate to set him on the road to that/which confusion. otoh, i guess i survived it ok.

Globocorp Kiddie Jamboree is intended for children in good health and without serious illnesses, which would create a hazard for themselves or other customers.

This is more or less an incomplete sentence claiming that Globocorp's no-sickies rule would create a hazard for ill children (if not for ... something).

Delete the comma (visual cue) and change to "that" (audio cue), and now they're against any illness that creates a hazard, which makes more sense.