3 ms·
Perhaps it's just me, but I've always found the that/which distinction fairly clear and relevant. Consider the following two sentences: 1. Don't eat the apples
by cduan 18y ago
Perhaps it's just me, but I've always found the that/which distinction fairly clear and relevant. Consider the following two sentences:
1. Don't eat the apples, which are rotten.
2. Don't eat the apples that are rotten.
To me, the first one indicates that all the apples are rotten, whereas the second only suggests that some are bad and directs me to be choosy.
Of course, I know better than to assume that everyone follows this rule to the letter, but I do make an effort to get it right myself (like a good protocol implementor: liberal with input, strict with output).
- gruseom 18y agoBut you primed your first example with a disambiguating comma. A fairer comparison would be: 1. Don't eat the apples which are rotten. 2. Don't eat the applies that are rotten. #2 sounds better to me (especially for spoken English) but the difference in meaning is not nearly as obvious.
- jfarmer 18y agoI'd just say, "Don't eat the rotten apples." Or, "Don't eat the apples, they're rotten."
- deleted 18y ago[deleted]