This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

5
6

When to use the word "which" as opposed to "that"? (self.grammar)

ujustdontgetdubstep が 投稿

I'm documenting some code and I ran across this:

A getter that retrieves a boolean value which represents whether or not the object

and

A setter which sets a boolean value which determines

... This got me thinking.. when do I use "which" as opposed to "that"? Also, is using "which" twice in a row (like in the second quote) grammatically correct?

全 8 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]Schwallex 8ポイント9ポイント  (6子コメント)

Both options are grammatical. So is using which twice in a row.

This answer on ELU discusses it in further detail, and links to this Language Log post that discusses it in further detail still.

To these, the only thing I will add is that of course you should aim for consistency in your documentation. Pick one and stick with it. That is a question of style, though, not grammar.

[–]abby89 1ポイント2ポイント  (5子コメント)

This is true of British English, but American English distinguishes the two. "That" is restrictive. It narrows a category or identifies a particular item being talked about (the gun that he carried was covered in his fingerprints). "Which" is nonrestrictive. It adds something about an item already identified (alongside the officer trotted a toy poodle, which is hardly a typical police dog). Does that make sense? Let me know if you need further examples.

[–]bfootdav 7ポイント8ポイント  (3子コメント)

Making the that/which distinction has never been widely followed in American English. It's often prescribed by style guides but rarely observed even by the best writers (a point often made by Language Log and others). It is dying even more rapidly than the who/whom distinction.

[–]PhillipBrandon 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

I don't think it's dying so much as being born. The that/which distinction for restrictive and non-restrictive clauses is something grammarians are trying to make happen. Whether it goes the way of "fetch" is yet to be seen. We seldom see prescriptivism from the front end, but I think this is it.

[–]bfootdav 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

It's not worth researching but I think I remember reading that it appeared in S&W in the '50s and there was another guide in the early 20th C. and maybe a couple of more in the late 19th that mention it? Something like that. Of course you could be correct that it's only begun to really take hold in more recent times in which case it will be interesting to see if it becomes standard (though I doubt it will).

[–]NeilZod 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Fowler suggested it would be a useful distinction.

[–]brontojem 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Thank you!

[–]IANANarwhal 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Here's another post on that, from a legal writing blog: http://briefright.com/thatwhich/.