[Grammar] Which version is better?

[Charlie Bernstein]

I think #1 would be OK with a comma after "majors". I agree with emsr2d2 about 4, 5 and 6.

I wouldn't put a comma there. It's not a compound sentence. It's a series of two very long items. If it said "...and I found it....," then it would be a compound sentence and a comma would be right.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

Thank you for replying to my question, emsr2d2.

Then would you please do me a fovour and tell me what's wrong with 1 and why 5, which has two which's, and 6, which has omitted one which, are both correct? Is it possible that if there is another sentence preceding 1 and in it there is already a mention of the website to be recommended to the receiver of the letter and we change 1 to "I found the website very useful to us English majors and would like to recommend it to you.", then this slightly changed version will also be right? In other words, my understanding of what's wrong with 1 is that the intentions of the writer of expressing the two ideas of "find a website" and "find the website useful to someone" converge on one place of the sentence but actually they should be expressed separately.

Looking forward to your answer.

It is an odd construction. What you're getting at is that the meaning is a little bit unclear. I'm reading it as "I found a website that can be very useful...."

I don't see anything grammatically wrong with the sentence, but I agree that the wording is somewhat off.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

Dear teachers,

The following are 6 versions of the first sentence of the body of an email recommending a website to someone. Which one or ones do you native speakers of English think is or are the way(s) you native speakers of English express the idea?

1. I found a website very useful to us English majors and would like to recommend it to you. Weak, vague. Is a particular website useful, or is finding one useful? The reader will probably understand that you're talking about a particular website, but you're not making it clear.

It's also not clear whether you're using found in the sense of discovered or in the sense of judged. Again, the reader will probably understand that you meant the second sense, but again, the wording is unclear.

2. I have found a website that is very useful to us English majors and would like to recommend it to you.

3. I have found a website that is very useful to us English majors, and I would like to recommend it to you. Mind your commas!

4. Yesterday evening I logged on to a website that I found very useful to us English majors, and I would like to recommend it to you. Compound sentences are separated by commas.

5. Yesterday evening I logged on to a website that I found very useful to us English majors and that I would like to recommend to you.

6. Yesterday evening I logged on to a website that I found very useful to us English majors, and I would like to recommend it to you. Again, use commas in compound sentences.

I personally like 3 and 4 better than the others, but I find it so hard to explain my reason for this preference. I am especially confused about whether we should use one or two which's in 5 and 6 if we have "I found very useful to us English majors" and "I would like to recommend to you" as two parallel relative clauses both modifying "a website". Would you please tell me which one or ones is or are the way(s) you native speakers express the idea? Besides, I beg you to also point out what is wrong with the other versions you do not use in this situation.

Thanks a lot.

All are fine except for the first one.

Some of the other helpers here will probably disagree with me for changing which to that. Here's my reasoning:

You have a choice. You can either use which with a comma before it or that with no comma before it:

- ...a website, which I found useful....

- ...a website that I found useful...

If you say which, it's not clear whether a particular website was useful, logging into that website was useful, for the act of logging in, regardless of the website, was useful.

If you say that, it's clear that the website itself was useful, and I think that's what you meant.

See this link: Which versus that

 

[ohmyrichard]

I wouldn't put a comma there. It's not a compound sentence. It's a series of two very long items. If it said "...and I found it....," then it would be a compound sentence and a comma would be right.

Thanks for your reply. And your reply has naturally caused me to want to ask you this question: Of 2 and 3 (the only difference between the two is the use of "I" twice or only once) in my OP, which one is the way you native speakers of English more often use? Or could it be that either will be fine? Please tell me about this aspect of the question under discussion. Thanks.

 

[ohmyrichard]

It is an odd construction. What you're getting at is that the meaning is a little bit unclear. I'm reading it as "I found a website that can be very useful...."

I don't see anything grammatically wrong with the sentence, but I agree that the wording is somewhat off.

Thank you very much. Then do you agree with what I said in post # 3?

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

Both are fine as corrected. The only one that doesn't work is the first one. As you've seen, most of us agree about that one. The rest are all natural, conversational standard American English and - I think - British English.

 

[ohmyrichard]

Both are fine as corrected. The only one that doesn't work is the first one. As you've seen, most of us agree about that one. The rest are all natural, conversational standard American English and - I think - British English.

But to be frank, your changing "which" to "that" in my sentences frightens me. When I was in middle school and high school, my former teachers repeatedly told me and my peers (and I have also repeatedly told my Chinese students) that it is "which", rather than "that" that can be used to lead a nonrestrictive relative clause if the antecedent of the relative clause is a thing, while if the antecedent of a restrictive relative sentence is a thing, then the relative pronoun can be either "which" or "that". I went to the webpage you referred me to and read what's on it. But I got an example sentence from the dictionary of Collins COBUILD English Usage on p. 780, reading "Last week we heard about the awful conditions which exist in British prisons", in which "which" is used and I think "that" can be used to replace "which" and does not confuse the reader to any extent.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

I went to the webpage you referred me to and read what's on it. But I got an example sentence from the dictionary of Collins COBUILD English Usage on p. 780, reading "Last week we heard about the awful conditions which exist in British prisons", in which "which" is used and I think "that" can be used to replace "which" and does not confuse the reader to any extent.

That helps. Thank you for doing the checking!

Which without the comma before it sounds somewhat awkward to me, but that's probably just my American ear. I'm sure it sounds fine to people who use British English. So I'd say that as long as you include the comma, both which and that are fine.

I didn't mean to scare you!

 

[ohmyrichard]

Thanks a lot, Charlie. Your further explanation has caused me to think more deeply about the use of "which" or "that" in a relative clause. By saying "frighten me",I meant that I had never expected that this language issue could be so complicated. As you have reminded me in your last post, I remember that sometimes I do come across in my reading a comma being placed before "that" that leads a nonrestrictive relative clause. By the way, my Collins COBUILD English Usage dictionary insists on p. 580 that "When a non-defining clause relates to a thing or a group of things, you use 'which' as the subject or object", followed by two example sentences, but I have checked its inside front cover and found that its publisher is a British company.

Now after reflecting on it for a long time, I come to realize your insistence on changing "which" to "that" makes sense. Thank you very much.

P.S.: Do you know why the Thank and Like buttons do not work?

P.S.: I have managed to do all the thanking and liking jobs.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

I've never tried the Thank and Like buttons. When it's not election day, I usually avoid popularity contests.

This morning I looked in Diana Hacker's A Writer's Reference, the American English guide used at the university where I used to tutor. She simply says: "Many writers reserve that for restrictive clauses, which for nonrestrictive clauses."

I guess I'm one of them! Anyhow, she doesn't slap her "nonstandard" label on your use of which. And again, she's American.

Later (now that I'm curious) I'll see what The Chicago Manual of Style says. That's the most comprehensive American English guide.

PS: I've checked Chicago. See the post below.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

THAT version is better!

Chicago agrees with me. (Whew!)

that; which: These are both relative pronouns. In polished American prose, that is used restrictively to narrow a category or identify a particular item being talked about [any building that is taller must be outside the state]; which is used nonrestrictively - to to narrow a class or identify a particular item or to add something about an item already identified [alongside the officer trotted a toy poodle, which is hardly a typical police dog]. Which should be used restrictively only when it is preceded by a preposition [the situation in which we find ourselves]. Otherwise it is almost always preceded by a comma, a parenthesis, or a dash. In British English, writers and editors seldom observe the distinction between the two words.​

Keep in mind, of course, that not all American prose is polished! (Or Britished.)

 

[ohmyrichard]

Thanks for going to such great lengths to explain this language issue to me. I love your humorous claim that not all American prose is polished or Britished, but I fear that you might be accused of not being politically correct (or being not politically correct?).

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

Thanks for going to such great lengths to explain this language issue to me. I love your humorous claim that not all American prose is polished or Britished, but I fear that you might be accused of not being politically correct (or being not politically correct?).

I've always thought it was funny that polish and Polish are spelled the same. I can't imagine anything rude about that, but I confess that I'm not always Mr. Manners.

I do know that standard American English is often decidedly un-standard-British, especially in attitude. So maybe I'm just politically incorrect in the U.K.

Does that make me a Whig or a Tory? If I have a choice, I mostly identify with the Diggers, Fenians, and Luddites.

 

[ohmyrichard]

I've always thought it was funny that polish and Polish are spelled the same. I can't imagine anything rude about that, but I confess that I'm not always Mr. Manners.

I do know that standard American English is often decidedly un-standard-British, especially in attitude. So maybe I'm just politically incorrect in the U.K.

Does that make me a Whig or a Tory? If I have a choice, I mostly identify with the Diggers, Fenians, and Luddites.

To be frank and fair, after reflecting on the uses of "that" and "which" in relative clauses for a whole day, I conclude that there's nothing superior or inferior involved. It seems to me that abiding by any of the two sets of rules, either British or American, never obstructs clear expression of ideas and actually we cannot say which one is incorrect. It is up to any individual, especially when it is a foreign learner or user of English, to choose which to use. I do not know whether my reasoning makes sense or not, and whether this comment will stir up controversy.

 

[MikeNewYork]

In both versions the only relative pronoun that works in nonrestrictive clauses is "which". The problem is the American mythology that only "that" can can be used in restrictive clauses. And it is exactly that -- mythology.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

To be frank and fair, after reflecting on the uses of "that" and "which" in relative clauses for a whole day, I conclude that there's nothing superior or inferior involved. It seems to me that abiding by any of the two sets of rules, either British or American, never obstructs clear expression of ideas and actually we cannot say which one is incorrect. It is up to any individual, especially when it is a foreign learner or user of English, to choose which to use. I do not know whether my reasoning makes sense or not, and whether this comment will stir up controversy.

They're very close, so I know this is hair-splitting. But there is a difference, which Chicago explains well.

First, understand that I'm only talking about American English, not British English. Since you're probably using British English, this is purely academic, right?

Here are two versions of one of your sentences. Both use which, since you prefer that word, but only one has a comma:

1. Without a comma: Yesterday evening I logged on to a website which I found very useful to us English majors and I would like to recommend to you. [In American, for reasons you read above, it would use that.

2. With a comma: Yesterday evening I logged on to a website, which I found very useful to us English majors and I would like to recommend to you.

There is a difference.

In the first, which clearly refers to the website you logged onto. And that is what you meant. That particular website was useful. The second, with a comma, might refer to the act of logging in and is not about one particular website. That is not what you meant. Right?

In American English, we would only have used which only if there had been a comma. Without the comma (as you correctly have it), it would require that.

So, because I did not know then that which is correct in British English, I changed it to that. That's why I say in my profile that I'm an American.

Sorry for the error!

 

[ohmyrichard]

Since you're probably using British English


1. Without a comma: Yesterday evening I logged on to a website which I found very useful to us English majors and I would like to recommend to you. [In American, for reasons you read above, it would use that.

2. With a comma: Yesterday evening I logged on to a website, which I found very useful to us English majors and I would like to recommend to you.

There is a difference.

In the first, which clearly refersto the website you logged onto. And that is what you meant. That particular website was useful. The second, with a comma, might refer to the act of logging in and is not about one particular website. That is not what you meant. Right?

I meant that the website is useful. But in post #23, you said the following, please notice the underlined parts of the sentences:

Some of the other helpers here will probably disagree with me for changing which to that. Here's my reasoning:

You have a choice. You can either use which with a comma before it or that with no comma before it:

- ...a website, which I found useful....

- ...a website that I found useful...

If you say which, it's not clear whether a particular website was useful, logging into that website was useful,for the act of logging in, regardless of the website, was useful.

If you say that, it's clear that the website itself was useful, and I think that's what you meant.

In American English, we would only have used which only if there had been a comma. Without the comma (as you correctly have it), it would require that.

So, because I did not know then that which is correct in British English, I changed it to that. That's why I say in my profile that I'm an American.

Sorry for the error!

Thanks for your further explanation.

To tell you the truth, I am not sure whether I am using British English or American English. Amusingly enough, when I was at the University of Texas at Austin for my visiting scholar program in 2011-2012, I had a chat at the university's Harry Ransom Center (a well-known research center) with a retiree volunteer, who told me that I have a British accent; however, I do not know very clearly what a British accent is. Afterwards, I guessed that maybe my limited English vocabulary and my hesitancy in thinking about which words to choose to express myself might have given her that impression. For me, a nonnative user of English, distinguishing British and American English and any other variety of the English language is often highly demanding. I confess what I am using is something hybrid. Although I always wish to purify it, this task seems to be beyond my capability. For the time being, I intend to focus on ideas and how to put them in at least acceptable English. For this reason, I admit that I often do a lot of inventive work in my English expression--that is, I often do not know or do not remember how you native speakers idiomatically express a certain idea and then I will grope my way forward by making sure that my sentence is grammatically correct, which I know very well may not be actually your way of talking about that idea. But from your response, I will be able to learn your way of accomplishing that job.

 

[ohmyrichard]

In both versions the only relative pronoun that works in nonrestrictive clauses is "which". The problem is the American mythology that only "that" can can be used in restrictive clauses. And it is exactly that -- mythology.

But I vaguely remember I have read sentences in which a nonrestrictive relative clause is led by the relative pronoun "that".

 

[ohmyrichard]

They're very close, so I know this is hair-splitting. But there is a difference, which Chicago explains well.

First, understand that I'm only talking about American English, not British English. Since you're probably using British English, this is purely academic, right?

Here are two versions of one of your sentences. Both use which, since you prefer that word, but only one has a comma:

1. Without a comma: Yesterday evening I logged on to a website which I found very useful to us English majors and I would like to recommend to you. [In American, for reasons you read above, it would use that.

2. With a comma: Yesterday evening I logged on to a website, which I found very useful to us English majors and I would like to recommend to you.

There is a difference.

In the first, which clearly refers to the website you logged onto. And that is what you meant. That particular website was useful. The second, with a comma, might refer to the act of logging in and is not about one particular website. That is not what you meant. Right?

In American English, we would only have used which only if there had been a comma. Without the comma (as you correctly have it), it would require that.

So, because I did not know then that which is correct in British English, I changed it to that. That's why I say in my profile that I'm an American.

Sorry for the error!

This post of yours seems to contradict with what you said in post # 23.

In this post you say, "In the first, which clearly refers to the website you logged onto. " But in post # 23 you said, " If you say that (...a website that I found useful), it's clear that the website itself was useful" . How come both which and that clearly refer to the website I logged onto? ! Is it that I misunderstand your meaning here?

In post # 23, you also said, “If you say which, it's not clear whether a particular website was useful, logging into that website was useful, for the act of logging in, regardless of the website, was useful.” In contrast, in the current post, you say, “which clearly refers to the website you logged onto. ”

You also say, “The second(Yesterday evening I logged on to a website, which I found very useful to us English majors and I would like to recommend to you.), with a comma, might refer to the act of logging in and is not about one particular website.” Does this understanding really happen? I assume that it rarely takes place, for our common sense works forcibly to restrict what this which actually refers to. I would like to take an example sentence from Collins COBUILD English Usage again for proof. The sentence goes, “He was a man of considerable inherited wealth, which he ultimately spent on his experiments.” Our common sense tells us that it couldn’t be [his] being a man of considerable inherited wealth that was spent on his experiments and that it is only possible and sensible to understand that it was his considerable inherited wealth that was spent on his experiments. And I firmly believe that our common sense works the same way with another example sentence on the same page (p.580)

I know that you meant to say that according to American English usage, all the which’s should be changed to that and the sentences in my OP do not need to be changed to ones containing non-restrictive relative clauses.

By the way, in post # 23, you repeatedly reminded me that a comma should be used in a compound sentence before the conjunction, but you have forgotten to add it in your two sentences:

1. Without a comma: Yesterday evening I logged on to a website which I found very useful to us English majors [,]and I would like to recommend to you. [In American, for reasons you read above, it would use that.

2. With a comma: Yesterday evening I logged on to a website, which I found very useful to us English majors [,]and I would like to recommend to you.

Anyway, I do not mean to belittle your contribution to a global understanding of this language issue here. In fact I highly appreciate your help, which I believe surely leads me to achieve a thorough understanding of this issue. If this post of mine makes you feel offended, I will apologize for it. Thank you very much.

 

[MikeNewYork]

"But I vaguely remember I have read sentences in which a nonrestrictive relative clause is led by the relative pronoun "that"."

Ohmyrichard, can you produce some of them?