Please help, Effect or affect?

I would write: 'Things THAT could affect the resistance'

http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Writing/t.html
That versus Which.

According to the more quibbling self-styled grammar experts, that is restrictive, while which is not.

Many grammarians insist on a distinction without any historical justification. Many of the best writers in the language couldn't tell you the difference between them, while many of the worst think they know.

Don't that and which have the same meaning? I know that who and that

can be used related to a person pronoun, but not which,

Yes, Navigator, 'that' and 'which' are both relative pronouns and they have the same "meaning". They can both be used for restrictive clauses but 'that' is rarely used for non-restrictive clauses.

Of course, there are register differences, 'that' predominates in speech and fiction, 'which' predominates in academic prose. But predominating in one register doesn't mean excluding in another. 'which' is used in speech to effect a more formal bearing.

Native speakers of any language are acutely aware of these minor nuances and they deploy them with no conscious thought given to their use. This is but one example of the real rules that define language.

He was the person who killed the girl.

He was the person that killed the girl.

but not,

He was the person which killed the girl.

There are some situations, rare indeed where 'which' is used with a person reference but there is no direct "identity" involved. (1)

Example: Remember that they have a house-keeper, which we don't have.

Likewise, 'who' is also used for animals when we want to "convey a greater degree of empathy or personal interest and involvement".

{(1) denotes idea, quotes and example are from the CGEL}

Ticomaya wrote:

I would write: 'Things THAT could affect the resistance'

Tico misleads by suggesting that 'that' is a better choice. He is, almost certainly operating under the false rule that says only 'that' can be used for restrictive clauses.

Quote:

http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Writing/t.html
That versus Which.

According to the more quibbling self-styled grammar experts, that is restrictive, while which is not.

Many grammarians insist on a distinction without any historical justification. Many of the best writers in the language couldn't tell you the difference between them, while many of the worst think they know.

For the curious, however, the relative pronoun that is restrictive, which means it tells you a necessary piece of information about its antecedent: for example, "The word processor that is used most often is WordPerfect." Here the that phrase answers an important question: which of the many word processors are we talking about? And the answer is the one that is used most often.

Which is non-restrictive: it does not limit the word it refers to. An example is "Penn's ID center, which is called CUPID, has been successful so far." Here that is unnecessary: the which does not tell us which of Penn's many ID centers we're considering; it simply provides an extra piece of information about the plan we're already discussing. "Penn's ID Center" tells us all we really need to know to identify it.

It boils down to this: if you can tell which thing is being discussed without the which or that clause, use which; if you can't, use that.

There are two rules of thumb you can keep in mind. First, if the phrase needs a comma, you probably mean which.

JTT wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

I would write: 'Things THAT could affect the resistance'

Tico misleads by suggesting that 'that' is a better choice. He is, almost certainly operating under the false rule that says only 'that' can be used for restrictive clauses.

Quote:

http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Writing/t.html
That versus Which.

According to the more quibbling self-styled grammar experts, that is restrictive, while which is not.

Many grammarians insist on a distinction without any historical justification. Many of the best writers in the language couldn't tell you the difference between them, while many of the worst think they know.

Everyone should feel free to ignore JTT, and it seems to be the best course of action in most cases.

My rule, which JTT is free to disagree with, is you use the word "which" after a comma, and "that" if it doesn't follow a comma.

The site to which JTT directs our attention substantiates my claim that "that" is the better choice.

Quote:

For the curious, however, the relative pronoun that is restrictive, which means it tells you a necessary piece of information about its antecedent: for example, "The word processor that is used most often is WordPerfect." Here the that phrase answers an important question: which of the many word processors are we talking about? And the answer is the one that is used most often.

Which is non-restrictive: it does not limit the word it refers to. An example is "Penn's ID center, which is called CUPID, has been successful so far." Here that is unnecessary: the which does not tell us which of Penn's many ID centers we're considering; it simply provides an extra piece of information about the plan we're already discussing. "Penn's ID Center" tells us all we really need to know to identify it.

It boils down to this: if you can tell which thing is being discussed without the which or that clause, use which; if you can't, use that.

It then goes on to state my rule thusly:

Quote:

There are two rules of thumb you can keep in mind. First, if the phrase needs a comma, you probably mean which.

[/lesson]

This stands as a great example, Tico, of why you shouldn't be left in charge of ascertaining the meaning of anything more complicated than a comic book.

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.

... that is a demonstrative pronoun, so it demonstrates differences between things. If you're defining something by distinguishing it from a larger class of which it's a member, you use that.

This is the house that Jack built. (Not the house that Tom, Dick or Harry built.)

That is restrictive (or defining), which means it tells you a necessary piece of information about its antecedent. In the example above, the that phrase answers an important question: which of the many recently constructed houses are we talking about? And the answer is, the one "that Jack built."

Which is non-restrictive (or non-defining): it doesn't limit the word it refers to in any way, so when the general class is not being limited or defined in some way, which is appropriate - and you always use a comma before AND after the non-defining clause introduced by 'which':

The trees he planted, which are called eucalyptus rosea, have grown well so far.

And

... we need padded thingummies, which stick to the chair legs, to protect our floor.

Here that is unnecessary: the which doesn't tell us which of the many trees called eucalyptus rosea we're considering; it simply provides an extra piece of information about the trees we're already discussing. And the which doesn't tell us anything that's vital to the key meaning of the sentence. In other words, you can safely leave out the which clause and not alter the essential meaning of the sentence, but you can't leave out the that clause.

The trees he planted have grown well so far. (Leave out the which clause and it makes sense still.)

The trees he planted that are called eucalyptus rosea have grown well so far. (You can't leave out the that clause because doing so would completely alter the meaning of the sentence ... Here we're specifically referring to the growing habits of trees called eucalyptus rosea, not just to trees in general.)

So, if you can tell which thing is being discussed without the which or that clause, use which; if you can't tell, use that.

If you still have difficulty keeping them straight, just imagine by the way following every which: "The trees he planted, which (by the way) are called eucalyptus rosea, have grown well so far.

The which adds a useful, but not grammatically necessary, piece of information. On the other hand, we wouldn't say "The house which (by the way) Jack built." because The house on its own isn't enough information - which house?

....

If anyone whats to listen to and believe your explanation of why you think I'm wrong, they certainly may do so. However, I believe this indicates where you are coming from:

JTT wrote:

This stands as a great example, Tico, of why you shouldn't be left in charge of ascertaining the meaning of anything more complicated than a comic book.

Yes, it does. Your inability to discuss and point up anything to defend your viewpoint only confirms what I wrote. Everything you've offered [the nonsense to come] confirms what I said. Fowler was mightily confused and Mr Quinion is at least as bad.

The originator of this thread was seeking assistance, which is why I provided the assistance I did. I did not try and state a rule that I believe must be followed by everyone, which seems to be what you think I tried to do. I merely pointed out the word "I" would use, which you seem to have mistaken as my attempt to pontificate on the correct use of language, a task I generally prefer to leave to you et al. on that other thread.

You dissemble, Tico, what's new? Your last posting was a full on attempt to justify this silly rule. It failed because you are unable to look past the prescriptive dogma you've ingested on this issue.

I also helpfully provided a rule of thumb, which was also stated on the link you provided, which you now claim should not be followed. You also now quote your dear Professor Lynch as he describes himself as "not a linguist, nor a scholar of the history of the language," which prompts me to wonder if you think this guy should be listened to, or not. Because if appears you are suggesting that we should follow a portion of what he says, just not that which lends itself to Tico's point of view, which is telling concerning whether anyone should listen to you at all on this particular point. I have surmised this is because you are seeking to be insulting and boorish, whether intentionally or just naturally, which is not a good thing.

Turn off the waterworks, Tico. You've been caught out. Language is not your forte. No problem. Nothing above in any way provides support for your position on this particular language issue.

Many of the things Professor Lynch states on his site, wrt language, are valid. You have to be capable of discerning what is and what is not valid.


Henry Fowler's rule:

Henry Fowler, in [i]Modern English Usage[/i] wrote:

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.

The "support" from Fowler seems to negate your viewpoint; let me throw you a lifeline. Fowler is best used as fire starter for your woodstove.

Quote:

The Decline of Grammar
Geoffrey Nunberg

Take Modern English Usage, by that good man H. W. Fowler, "a Christian in all but actual faith," as the Dictionary of National Biography called him. Despite a revision in 1965, it is out-of-date,

Much of Fowler was out of date when it was first written.

I thought I explained it very simply, but evidently you still don't understand. Let me repeat.

JTT: [from previous thread] In corpus based studies of actual usage for Fiction, News, and Academic Prose, 'which' is common in both restrictive and non-restrictive clauses.

In which category, restrictive or non-restrictive is 'which' more commonly used? In all three categories, 'which' is more common in restrictive clauses, and note well, by a fairly wide margin.

Yes, it does. Your inability to discuss and point up anything to defend your viewpoint only confirms what I wrote. Everything you've offered [the nonsense to come] confirms what I said. Fowler was mightily confused and Mr Quinion is at least as bad.

Tico wrote:

I also helpfully provided a rule of thumb, which was also stated on the link you provided, which you now claim should not be followed. You also now quote your dear Professor Lynch as he describes himself as "not a linguist, nor a scholar of the history of the language," which prompts me to wonder if you think this guy should be listened to, or not. Because if appears you are suggesting that we should follow a portion of what he says, just not that which lends itself to Tico's point of view, which is telling concerning whether anyone should listen to you at all on this particular point. I have surmised this is because you are seeking to be insulting and boorish, whether intentionally or just naturally, which is not a good thing.

Turn off the waterworks, Tico. You've been caught out. Language is not your forte. No problem. Nothing above in any way provides support for your position on this particular language issue.

Many of the things Professor Lynch states on his site, wrt language, are valid. You have to be capable of discerning what is and what is not valid.

Tico wrote:

Henry Fowler's rule:

Henry Fowler, in [i]Modern English Usage[/i] wrote:

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.

The "support" from Fowler seems to negate your viewpoint; let me throw you a lifeline. Fowler is best used as fire starter for your woodstove.

Much of Fowler was out of date when it was first written.

I thought I explained it very simply, but evidently you still don't understand. Let me repeat.

In corpus based studies of actual usage for Fiction, News, and Academic Prose, 'which' is common in both restrictive and non-restrictive clauses.

In which category, restrictive or non-restrictive is 'which' more commonly used? In all three categories, 'which' is more common in restrictive clauses, and note well, by a fairly wide margin

Mr JTT, I can't understand with all this quoting business...
Where are your own words in your latest post?