Relative clauses- that vs. which??

JStar284 · Post by **JStar284** » Mon Apr 12, 2004 5:36 pm

How would you explain to a student when to use "that" and when to use "which" when making relative clauses? Is it a matter of formality, restrictive/nonrestrictive clauses, a combination?

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Fri Apr 16, 2004 5:14 pm

You must use 'which' in a non-defining relative clause. In defining relative clauses you can use either.

In the unlikely case (unlikely because now considered hopelessly stilted) that you put the preposition before the relative instead of at the end of the sentence, you must use which.

So
There's the car he came here in.
There's the car that he came here in.
There's the car which he came here in.
There's the car in which he came.

Andrew Patterson · Post by **Andrew Patterson** » Fri Apr 16, 2004 5:49 pm

This rule can be is extended to "who", which can be replaced by "that" in defining but not non-defining relative clauses.

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Sat Apr 17, 2004 5:28 pm

But after the preposition you must use whom

Andrew Patterson · Post by **Andrew Patterson** » Sat Apr 17, 2004 5:55 pm

Which preposition? I didn't mention any prepositions. Do you mean after a preposition?

When the preposition is "to" that's now optional. "Whom" is just more formal. Twenty or so years ago that would not have been the case, but the language has changed.

Lorikeet · Post by **Lorikeet** » Sat Apr 17, 2004 9:35 pm

Andrew Patterson wrote:Which preposition? I didn't mention any prepositions. Do you mean after a preposition?

When the preposition is "to" that's now optional. "Whom" is just more formal. Twenty or so years ago that would not have been the case, but the language has changed.

I'm sorry I didn't follow this. I can accept these sentences (from informal to formal) although I don't like the second because in my mind it mixes formal and informal, but I've seen it in books.

There's the man who you spoke to.
There's the man whom you spoke to.
There's the man to whom you spoke.

But this one, with "whom" and the "to" missing isn't right to my ear.
*There's the man whom you spoke.

What did you have in mind?

Andrew Patterson · Post by **Andrew Patterson** » Sun Apr 18, 2004 7:29 am

I meant this:

To whom are you speaking?;
To who are you speaking?

Lorikeet · Post by **Lorikeet** » Sun Apr 18, 2004 10:06 am

Ah, I see. I still have problems with "To who are you speaking." Sort of like the speaker can't make up his/her mind about being informal or formal. It doesn't work for me. I prefer to use "Who are you speaking to" or "To whom are you speaking." for formal occasions. I'm sure everyone else will have a different thought.

Andrew Patterson · Post by **Andrew Patterson** » Sun Apr 18, 2004 10:39 am

I agree about the affect that "to who" has, however, I think that:

"Who are you speaking to is now neutral," and
"To whom are you speaking," is a bit pompous rather than formal.

If you want to make it more formal, an indirect question works best for me:

"Could you tell me who you are talking to."

lolwhites · Post by **lolwhites** » Sun Apr 18, 2004 10:53 am

If you say "to who" it means you're an owl.

Lorikeet · Post by **Lorikeet** » Sun Apr 18, 2004 6:05 pm

I agree that it sounds pompous in most circumstances, Andrew, and I tell my students if they want to use "whom" it will be "correct" English but they will sound very unfriendly and snobbish in a conversation. (However, I tell them it's different if they take a test

.) Did you ever work in an office? That's what I was thinking of with respect to "formal" speech. "To whom did you wish to speak, sir?"