Path: ...!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Peter Flynn <peter@silmaril.ie>
Newsgroups: comp.text.tex
Subject: Re: That wicked "which"
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2025 16:12:10 +0000
Organization: Usenet Labs Bozon Detector Facility
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <m0k5aqFqurcU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <which-20250206125936@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net gvaJ81t53d/zyETBkxY6xQOhCA/+1OzIxlftzThcKZeqiIJ360
Cancel-Lock: sha1:2S0LCiFq9w3r9xF0oBEzIhFWIkc= sha256:qP4XAFfFy0u0dL6Tkfu6gkBtBRq3KRKIdm7kGPJ3heY=
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <which-20250206125936@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de>
Bytes: 1850

On 06/02/2025 12:00, Stefan Ram wrote:
> Back in the '80s, Donald E. Knuth was all about his students using 
> "that" for restrictive clauses and "which" for non-restrictive ones.
He's not alone: I remember one of my teachers in college getting cross 
when people didn't use the words his way (which was different :-)

> Turns out, "which" is like a rare Pokemon in spoken English, but it's
> the go-to choice in written English in the UK.
> 
> Meanwhile, "that" is the bread and butter of spoken English and the
> top dog in written American English.

I think those are now historical curiosities which you can ignore.
I think those are now historical curiosities that you can ignore.

I would find "which" to be very common in spoken British English, but my 
standards, which you may disagree with, are probably different to others'.

> But for native speakers, it's probably cool to trust their gut if 
> there's no chance of things getting lost in translation . . .

Probably the best advice.

Peter