3 ms·

I'll assume you're correct in your explanation. I've never heard it explained that way. But as a native speaker "that" sounds slightly more correct than "which

by noahc 14y ago

I'll assume you're correct in your explanation. I've never heard it explained that way. But as a native speaker "that" sounds slightly more correct than "which" because it seems less formal, however, if I heard a non-native speaker say "which" it wouldn't sound weird nor would it be something I would have corrected them on.

Cushman 14y ago
Of course, with all of this stuff, people have different sensitivities-- and I know there are some dialects where "which" regularly references a person. I actually might not notice the first occurrence myself, although on reflection it looks a little odd. The second one jumped out at me as seeming pretty weird, though. Even so, I wouldn't correct it except that, read uncharitably, referring to a person with an inanimate term could be seen as somewhat insulting. Especially if you're writing about politics, it's probably worth getting right just to avoid that impression.
georgefox 14y ago
In American English, which is normally used in non-restrictive clauses (offset by commas), and that is normally used in restrictive clauses (not offset by commas). Using which in a restrictive clause like The senator which represents me... or The road which runs from X to Y... is somewhat uncommon. Both of those examples sound better in American English using that in place of which. If the subjects didn't need disambiguation, though, that would no longer be appropriate, e.g., Senator Jones, who represents me, ... or Foobar Street, which runs from X to Y, ... As Cushman points out, though, which used on a person doesn't quite work. That can work on a person, though, but who/whom can work for people in both restrictive and non-restrictive clauses. See http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/645/01/ http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/645/01/ if you want to read a well-structured and thorough explanation.

by noahc 14y ago

Cushman 14y ago

Of course, with all of this stuff, people have different sensitivities-- and I know there are some dialects where "which" regularly references a person. I actually might not notice the first occurrence myself, although on reflection it looks a little odd. The second one jumped out at me as seeming pretty weird, though. Even so, I wouldn't correct it except that, read uncharitably, referring to a person with an inanimate term could be seen as somewhat insulting. Especially if you're writing about politics, it's probably worth getting right just to avoid that impression.

georgefox 14y ago

In American English, which is normally used in non-restrictive clauses (offset by commas), and that is normally used in restrictive clauses (not offset by commas). Using which in a restrictive clause like The senator which represents me... or The road which runs from X to Y... is somewhat uncommon. Both of those examples sound better in American English using that in place of which. If the subjects didn't need disambiguation, though, that would no longer be appropriate, e.g., Senator Jones, who represents me, ... or Foobar Street, which runs from X to Y, ... As Cushman points out, though, which used on a person doesn't quite work. That can work on a person, though, but who/whom can work for people in both restrictive and non-restrictive clauses. See http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/645/01/ http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/645/01/ if you want to read a well-structured and thorough explanation.