If I were there, I wouldn't have done that

[JuanTwoThree]

Fowler on this 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.


I could just about buy a prescription based on what the "best writers and speaker do" . It would be unashamedly elitist but coherent, if it could be agreed who the best were and if there were any kind of agreement among them, which wouldn't do any good in this case because there wouldn't be.

But Fowler's is not a prescription based on the very best practices, it's a sort of whine. Based on?

[jotham]

Fowler was speaking about his generation of British writers in the early 1900s. That generation has passed and so has the rule there. American writers and editors primarily keep the rule; just look at the New York Times, or Washington Post, etc. The system facilitates better reading regardless of whether the reader keeps the rule him- or herself, or is British. Even if 99% of people don't keep the rule, but one writer does, that writer will still be more clear to the readers than will his or her contemporaries (at least in that area of detail).
It's based on the fact that one doesn't have to rely on the strength of the comma alone to determine the meaning; the pronoun choice takes on that weight as well. And people who tend to be lazy about rules anyhow may likely bollix the comma distinction as they do the which, which can really confuse: the comma is essential for meaning. The pronoun can add a double check and provide verification, and thus reinforce the intended meaning. And if you're conscious enough to keep the pronoun distinct, then you'll likely get the comma right as well.

[Stephen Jones]

One has to admire jotham's persistence in espousing lunatic theories.

Let's look at what he is saying about that and which:

if 'which' or 'who' are restricted to non-defining relative clauses then there will be less choice and thus less ambiguity (though few apart from Fowler and jotham have ever felt this to be a problem before).

However, they are not, so all of the purported advantages of clarity disappear. And we also have a rule that does not reflect what actually happens, instead of one that does.

As metal56 has pointed out it would be clearer in standard english if we have different forms for singular and plural 'you' and also different forms depending on the relationship one has with the other speaker. But to go aroiund making a rule that says we should use singular thou and you, and plural thee and you all would be absurd.

[jotham]

I don't espouse theories; scientists do. I am just informing about a key difference between prescriptionists and descriptionists. The two camps usually agree more or less on the specifics of English usage, but they disagree on a few issues like this, (and others talked about here) and when they disagree, it is usually vehement. It isn't my desire to get into that; I just wanted to adequately explain the grammarians' and American editors' view and rationale. The rule is just one of the many tools writers have at their disposal to clean up their writing. It is just a choice, and not an obligation. It a writer is perfectionist, that person will probably avail him- or herself of the rule. By the way, who doesn't figure in this. It is the same as British usage: distinguished by the comma. At any rate, you can use which however you want. I'll understand you either way. It's your choice. I guess it boils down to the "freedom, rights, and perogative" of the writer versus the convenience of the reader. You seem more eager to defend the rights of the writer. I see a parallel between the business owner and customer: customer is king. So is the reader...in my humble opinion as the writer.
And if the rule were applied, it doesn't offend anyone reading it. It doesn't sound awkward to British ears (like thee and thou). It still works in British and no one reading would notice the lack of "choice" or "variety." Not only that, it's how we naturally talk. British writers defend it for writing, (I think they say it sounds more formal or exotic or something). Why do linguists care about writing methods? Aren't they mostly concerned about how people talk? Then you'd think that the rule would be embraced if it makes writing closer to vernacular.
Perhaps someone could check the British corpus comparing the informal spoken and formal written texts in this matter. If the results are otherwise, I'll take that part back.

[jotham]

One has to admire jotham's persistence in espousing lunatic theories.

It's in the dictionary. I'm in good company. Look at the usage note at the bottom of the that entry in the Encarta dictionary:
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/ ... 1861719480
That or Which? The relative pronoun that introduces a restrictive clause, i.e., a clause that is essential for identifying the noun it follows: Any aircraft that has a leaking engine is not airworthy. It is not preceded by a comma. The relative pronoun which introduces a nonrestrictive clause, i.e., one providing additional information about the noun it follows and not essential for its identification: The second house on the block, which was built in 1980, has ten rooms. Which is preceded by a comma, and also followed by one if it does not end the sentence: He gave me a taste of it, which I enjoyed. The largest house, which stands on the corner, is up for sale. A which clause refers only to an inanimate noun or a complete sentence: I arrived late, which annoyed them.

[Stephen Jones]

It's in the dictionary. I'm in good company. Look at the usage note at the bottom of the that entry in the Encarta dictionary:
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/ ... 1861719480

So now I know the Encarta dictionary is unreliable; thanks for the info. Considering that Word's awful grammar checker follows this zombie rule together with Strunkenstiein's absurd advice on avaoiding the passive, it's not too surprising.

By the way, who doesn't figure in this. It is the same as British usage: distinguished by the comma.

It's not clear whether you are saying American usage is to use 'who' or 'that' indiscriminately in defining clasues or whether you are under the mistaken impression that British and American usage doesn't have 'that' in these cases.

Not only that, it's how we naturally talk. British writers defend it for writing, (I think they say it sounds more formal or exotic or something).

As the original quote you gave from Fowler pointed out, British writers don't follow the rule in writing, and as for how we naturally talk all three alternatives, that, which and the zero relative are common in both British and American English. If it was the way Americans talked you wouldn't need to make a rule about it; it would just happen naturally.

The 'rule' appears to have gained strenght through the mafia of copy editors, who have a much more grandiose idea of their job on the western side of the Atlantic, but restrictive which is quite oommon amongst American writers, including Saul Below and various Supreme Court Judges.

Arnold Zwicky has made many posts on this matter. Here's a link to a couple of them.

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/language ... 02146.html
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/language ... 02189.html


As for formality and informatlity the Merriam Webster guide to Englsih Usage states that there is no difference in formality between either usage.

[jotham]

As for formality and informatlity the Merriam Webster guide to Englsih Usage states that there is no difference in formality between either usage.

I totally agree with this — which strengthens the case for keeping the rule since it doesn't take away any imagined choice of nuance. Nevertheless British writers insist there is a nuance, and that is their justification for using it. So I respect it as British style if that's what those writers who use it say. All this is so subjective ("It's formal" — "no, it's not" — "yes, it is" — "NO, it's clearly NOT"); I can't imagine a scientific linguist jumping in the middle of all this — and with strong opinions to boot.

So now I know the Encarta dictionary is unreliable.

The fact that it is unreliable to you because of linguist sentiments necessarily means it is reliable and refreshing for a good many others. In addition, Encarta isn't made for British writers, so it should be unreliable to you, just as the Oxford should be unreliable to me, an American, when the issue deals with an American-British difference. Again, no one is wrong or right; it's just a matter of cultural sensitivity. I can respect the difference, and I don't look down at people who use a cultural rule that is different from my culture. I don't get mad when I hear people say bonnet instead of hood and when they insist on using it. I don't blame it on their British mafia elitist because I think everyone should do it my way instead.
You are right that there are some American writers who don't keep the rule. They usually sympathize with the linguist camp. They aren't the majority here. But it shows that although the difference can sucessfully be generalized as British and American, it is more accurately described as prescriptionist and descriptionist. It's as simple as that. Indeed, a British prescriptionist, when one arises again, would look to the old principles found in Fowler and wouldn't be ashamed of them or feel like a traitor, but would proudly promulgate them for the most efficient writing in British, just as they are in American. I wonder sometimes if more Americans respect Fowler than British do.
As a linguist, why get involved in the personal opinions of all these details? We're talking about which and that for Pete's sake! Scientists only concentrate on the details and evolution as they happen; not on how they personally think the details and evolution should happen. And why disqualify the grammarians' influence on the language as participants in the record of evolution? Is everyone's contribution to the language legitimate except for the grammarian's? Is it even a scientist's business? When they object to certain grammar principles, or this or that detail, are they acting as scientists or as ethicists/politicians? And if a certain rule is kept in the USA because of the "Nazi" prescriptionists that predominate here, is it possible that another rule altogether is kept in the UK because of the "Nazi" descriptionists that predominate there?

[MrPedantic]

I don't find "were" convincing in this context:

1. Well, if I ___ there when the MD took off her knickers, I don't remember any of it.

To my mind, the protasis in this example is not the cause or condition of the consequent clause; rather, "if" here expresses "while accepting that."

Cf. the stressed version:

2. ??Well, if I were there when the MD took off her knickers, I don't remember any of it.

Only "was" is therefore possible, to my ears, i.e.

3. Well, if I was there when the MD took off her knickers, I don't remember any of it.

Again, I'm interested that #1 should be acceptable to AmE-speakers.

MrP

[Stephen Jones]

You still haven't given a single example of which British writers claim there is a distinction; and even Fowler was only expressing a pious wish, as opposed to laying down a rule.

when the issue deals with an American-British difference

There isn't an American-British difference here. Both variants of the language have restrictive 'which'.

And why disqualify the grammarians' influence on the language as participants in the record of evolution?

Because it's nefarious, and based on gross ignorance of the very field they are claiming expertise in. Basically they take a small subset of valid alternatives in English and then proceed to make arbitrary rules about them that have no basis in fact. And then as copy editors they will try and alter your language to fit their nonsensical rules, often with deleterious effect.

Remember 'grammarians' are not just participating in the evolution of the language by which alternative they choose; they are falsely claiming their assorted and often contradictory shibboleths are rules of proper English. And teachers are expected to waste time learning their litany of prejudices when they could be teaching how to write better, or explaining how the language really is.

If 'grammarians' were honest and said, "I prefer to do things like this, but there is no basis for my choice in the grammar of the language", then we would probably treat them like harmless cranks who assure you of social death if you can't tell a fish fork from a souffle fork.

[thethinker]

When I was working in (ELT) publishing, I had to attend a one-week course on copyediting. It was given by an American copy-editor, based in the UK, but she didn't have any teaching/ELT experience (presumably she runs this course for all sorts of publishers and organisations). Predictably, we got to the part of our course on relative clauses, and the rules on punctuation, and then she went on to outline the usual "that=defining, which=non-defining" nonsense. I said to her that in ELT we would never use this distinction because our books were based on our well-developed corpus, and that this corpus would reveal that her rule wasn't based on actual usage, which was what we were hoping to help teach students using our materials. She seemed to partially accept this, but then said that if we wanted to mix it up we should still be consistent one way or the other in each book/course! I told her that we would deliberately never do this, because when it came to teaching relative clauses we would want to show that that/who can be used with both defining and non-defining clauses.

She grumbled a bit but seemed to get the message.

[Stephen Jones]

Copy editors are notorioiusly unwilling to even consider getting the minimum of knowledge of English grammar that a four-week CELTA trained teacher has.

The chief copy editor of the Washington Post doesn't consider it useful to know what a modal auxiliary is when discussing may and might, and another chief copy editor considered I was being pretentious by even mentioning the term. And they were in the minority that knew what one was.

Then there's the grammar section in the Chicago Manual of Style that more or less ignores all twentieth century work on syntax.

Or the writers of a book on English grammar published in 2006 that discusses the passive without once mentioning the importance of topic when choosing between the active and passive.
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/language ... .html#more

[Stephen Jones]

that/who can be used with both defining and non-defining clauses

I don't think you can use 'that' with non-defining clauses for people.
*I saw John, that had just come out of the bakers.

With things it may be possible.

?I went to his house, that stands in ten acres of landscaped garden.

[jotham]

You still haven't given a single example of which British writers claim there is a distinction;

I was trying to give both sides of the story; this point would be a strength for your side — certainly not for mine. If it is untrue, I have no problem at all recanting the argument. If you can prove the argument wrong, I'd be interested. At any rate, I found a blogger on your side of the that/which issue. On his blog, there are several places I could challenge his accuracy, but all in all, he seems to have researched the matter. He thinks it odd that prescriptionists, who favor formal writing, in his opinion, would opt for the "informal" that:
"As if this all weren't odd enough, there's the fact that the prescribed variant, that, is the one that's widely perceived as being the more informal alternative. Prescriptions are generally hostile to variants that are perceived (correctly or, as is often the case, incorrectly) as being informal...The variant that is unaccented, "more reduced", than the variant which, so many careful writers choose which in order to convey seriousness and emphasis..."
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/language ... 02189.html
The blogger seems to think that the that rule will finally win the day, though he hates it.
Copy editors are more familiar with the rules than people who don't publish or write often, i.e., daily. Five years ago, before I started editing, I wasn't aware of the rule. But that's not saying much; I didn't even know that Americans put a period inside the quote. Neither do many Americans outside of publishing, as I've observed in the last five years. There are silly rules in any field that help efficiency when you're on the inside, but seem ridiculous to outsiders at face value.
Following the that rule alone doesn't make writing clear by a wave of the wand. Someone could use it faithfully but flout all other principles of good writing, and it would still stink. It's also possible that someone could ignore the rule altogether, but write so expertly, following all the other principles of clear writing, that one wouldn't notice a difference. The that rule is just one of many tools that need to be used synergistically in order to create the composite effect of clean writing. It's such a small issue. It's not worth getting so upset about it. It's like a recipe that calls for omelettes in which the egg whites are separated first to optimize the consistency, and a scientist steps in and quibbles about stupid chefs taking away the prerogative of mixing in the yolks as well, and that millions of non-chefs do it precisely this way every day at home. Well...it doesn't make that much difference. Go ahead and mix them, if you're so inclined. It's not wrong; just not...perfect (with a French accent).

[Stephen Jones]

The that rule is just one of many tools that need to be used synergistically in order to create the composite effect of clean writing. It's such a small issue.

No, it's one of an arbitrary list of personal peeves that have nothing whatsoever to do with clear writing.

Copy editors are more familiar with the rules than people who don't publish or write often, i.e., daily.

Copy editors are more familiar with them because they made them up. There is no basis for them in the language.

Also copy editors are incapable of seeing a difference between a spelling convention, which is precisely that a convention and thus artificial and amenable to prescriptive rules, and syntax which is created by the speakers of the language community. Even with punctuation, which is conventional, they will often insist on 'house rules' that are supposed to subsitute good judgement, but all too often have the opposite effect. If you insist on serial commas, or on never using serial commas, then you simply confuse writers who see a disjunct betweeen what they read elsewhere and what is the house norm, and fail to learn when to discriminate.

And seeing you think the rules are clear, which is it better to use to start a sentence, 'But' or 'However'?

[thethinker]

I don't think you can use 'that' with non-defining clauses for people.

Yes sorry I meant who/which. Your example of using that for things is interesting - I've noticed similar examples here and there, but it's not something I'd choose to use and/or teach.