A Dictionary of Cont..

the
that’s to defining clauses. But he must not read
this distinction into other men’s writing, and he
must not expect his readers to recognize it in his
own. It is sometimes necessary to show that a
clause is purely descriptive and not defining, but
this cannot be accomplished by using the word
who or which. In order to make this fact clear,
the descriptive clause must be set off by a pair
of commas, which have the effect of parenthesis
marks, or the sentence must be recast.
In current English which is used in place of
that chiefly for variety. The essential difference
between these words today is described by a
grammarian writing fifty years ago, who said:
“In all ages of the English tongue thnt has been
the standard relative of the body of the people,
and to this day which is stiff and formal, suggestive
of the student’s lamp or the pedagogue’s
birch.”
When the conjunction fhat is followed by the
demonstrative pronoun that, there is a noticeable
difference in the way the two words are pronounced,
as can be heard in I believe that that is
true. When a demonstrative that is followed by
a relative that the two words are pronounced
alike, as in I have that that you gave me. As a
rule, which is preferred to that in this construction
and we say that which you gave me or what
you gave me. On the other hand, that is the only
relative used after who. We say who that has any
pride and not who who or who wl~ich. That is
generally preferred to who or which following
the word same, as in it is the sume man that wns
here yesterday. The relative that cannot be preceded
by a preposition, as which can. We say the
box that I spoke about and not the box about
that I spoke. Sometimes this determines which
word is used. But with these exceptions, the
words are pretty much interchangeable.
That and which are both singular or plural
depending on the word they represent. Theoretically
that may be first, second, or third person,
but as a rule it is treated as a third person
pronoun. (For special problems of person and
number, see agreement: verbs and one.) In literary
English whose is the possessive form for
both thut and which, as in the house whose foundations
are being laid, stars whose light has not
yet reuched US. Thirty years ago the avoidance
of whose in favor of of which was considered
characteristic of the writing of people who had
had very little education. Today it is seen too
often in scientific work to be called anything but
standard, but it is still un-literary.
In natural English a relative clause always follows
the word it qualifies. It is sometimes said
that a that clause must follow immediately and
that which is required when there are intervening
words. The lines quoted above from the House
that Juck Built show that this is not true. Either
pronoun is likely to attach itself to the nearest
available word, which may not be the word that
was intended, as in the package on the table
which Z just wrapped up. A comma before the
relative pronoun will prevent its being attached
to the immediatelv urecedinn word.
A clause that is distinctly descriptive and capable
of being set off from the rest of the sentence
by commas must be self-contained, and
therefore must have its relative pronoun. In a
defining clause, on the other hand, the relative
pronoun can usually be omitted, as in the people
I stayed with. A clause of this kind that does not
have a relative pronoun is called a contact clause.
The construction is as acceptable in written English
as it is in speech, and is used frequently by
Shakespeare, Swift, Fielding, Goldsmith, Sterne,
Burke, Byron, Shelley, Carlyle, Dickens, Thackeray,
Tennyson, Ruskin, R. L. Stevenson, and by
all writers whose style is easy and natural.
Formerly the relative pronoun could be omitted
even when it was clearly the subject of the
following verb, as in wilt thou ascribe that to
merit now, wus mere fortune and there arose a
clutter might wake the dead. This is no longer
acceptable and a sentence of this kind is now
either archaic or dialectal. But, except when
used in a comparison, the relative may be omitted
from any position in which the speech instinct
calls for an objective rather than a
subjective pronoun. It may be omitted when it
is the object of a verb, as in the songs we used
to sing; or the object of a preposition, as in the
boy we gave the apples to; or the complement
of some form of the verb to be, as in he is not
the man his father was, or technically the subject
of the verb to be but standing in the complement
position, as in we gave him all there
was. See subjective pronouns.
the. This word is a weakened form of that and its
principal function is to distinguish one thing
from others of the same kind.
In principle, the is not used before any word
whose meaning is sufficiently definite without it,
such as a proper name. Nor is it used in speaking
of classes of things that have no individuality,
where there is no need to distinguish one specimen
from another, as in sugar is sweet. But no
clear-cut rules are possible here. We may need to
distinguish a proper name, as in the John Adams
I am talking about; and we may need to speak of
some particular lot of sugar, as in the sugar is on
the table.
Because the individualizes one out of a class
of things, it may be used to mark something
non-human as unique or individual, even when
it does not belong to a class of things, such as
the universe, the moon, the Creation. Here the
competes with the function of a proper name
and we have such variation as the Bible and
Genesis, the Bronx and Manhattan. (For the
question of capitalizing the before a proper
name, see proper nouns.)
When not used in speaking of a unique thing,
the means “that particular one out of the lot of
them.” We may know what particular one is
meant by what has been said before, or the
identifying clause may follow immediately. The
man who lives next door might be the opening
words of some statement, but the man said to me
requires something before it to give it meaning.
When the does not refer back and is not followed