Writing Forums

Writing Forums is a privately-owned, community managed writing environment. We provide an unlimited opportunity for writers and poets of all abilities, to share their work and communicate with other writers and creative artists. We offer an experience that is safe, welcoming and friendly, regardless of your level of participation, knowledge or skill. There are several opportunities for writers to exchange tips, engage in discussions about techniques, and grow in your craft. You can also participate in forum competitions that are exciting and helpful in building your skill level. There's so much more for you to explore!

That vs. Which (1 Viewer)

EternalGreen

Senior Member
This one is tricky and I sometimes mess it up, but "that" usually used as part of a "restrictive clause".

Two sentences:

"The dog that bit me ran away."

"The dog, which bit me, ran away."

The question is "is the fact that the dog bit you essential to its ontology"?

It is a dog that bit you, or is it a dog which happened to bite you?

If I want to describe:

"...a creepy cathedral that was built of ancient stone," then I don't use "which". The cathedral being built of ancient stone IS the meaning; it IS important to its ontology in the story. You can communicate what important and what isn't using grammar.

"...a creepy cathedral, which I had stopped to rest against, that was built of ancient stone."
 

Bloggsworth

WF Veterans
Being ignorant, I tend to use "that" for inanimate objects - Mind you, I probably get it wrong some times, but find that the sound of the phrase a reasonable guide - I'll look up ontology when I can be bothered...
 

LCLee

Financial Supporter
"The dog that bit me ran away."

"The dog, which bit me, ran away."

I would think they're both correct minus the comma before which. It is not used if the statement after is essential to the understanding.
 

EternalGreen

Senior Member
But if I say "that" I mean that the dog biting me is integral to its identity.

If I say, "the dog which bite me", then the biting part is inconsequential to who are what the dog actually is.

Grammar is bizarre.
 

Squalid Glass

WF Veterans
"The dog that bit me ran away."

Refers to the dog. It's restrictive.

"The dog, which bit me, ran away."

Mentions the bite as an aside. It's nonrestrictive.

The context of this sentence determines its grammar.
 

TL Murphy

Met3 Member
Staff member
Chief Mentor
"The dog that bit me..." means the biting is essential to the dog's being (Dogs bite people). But this can be speaker perception, not necessarily the dog's. "The dog, which bit me,..." means the biting is incidental. The dog could have done anything ("The dog, which was brown, ran away."). It just happened to bite.
 

EternalGreen

Senior Member
Exactly. "Essential to its being" is ontology.

Already my writing has gained clarity from learning this.

I can now include ontological perceptions in my prose.
 

clark

Met3 Member
Staff member
Chief Mentor
I have degrees in English and taught it for years and to this day can be stumped on whether a 'that' is a demonstrative pronoun or a demonstrative adjective. This particular usage an example of ontology? Hmm. I suppose in a much fuller context that might be a reading, but this seems a simpler situation.

"The dog that bit me ran away." Try this fuller context: "The dogs in the street went crazy when they saw the fox. Most of them are still howling and snapping at anything that moves! I think six of them are in front of the store, but the dog that bit me ran away." No ontology here that I can see, just a straightforward identifier, a modifier of the noun 'dog', distinguishing his action from all the other dogs. It is restrictive. A demonstrative adjective . Biting may be essential to a dog's being, but in this context 'that' simply identifies one dog to the exclusion of all the other dogs.

"Which' would not be grammatically incorrect, but it would be "not usual". The word is so often used in an interrogative mode, that kind of aura often hovers near it. I would instinctively shy away from it for that reason alone in this clearly demonstrative sentence.
 

EmmaSohan

WF Veterans
These answers are all kind of right, but all a little wrong.

When the preceding noun phrase begins with "the", it promises identification. A comma turns off identification, so it can't be used when the identification isn't finished, and a comma is used when the identification is finished. A good example:

1.There were nine men and one woman at the meeting. Jon sat next to the woman, who was taking notes. [good]
2.There were nine men and one woman at the meeting. Jon sat next to the woman who was taking notes. [wrong]
3.There were nine men and two women at the meeting. Jon sat next to the woman who was taking notes. [good]
4.There were nine men and two women at the meeting. Jon sat next to the woman, who was taking notes. [wrong]

So, one versus two in the first sentence flip-flops the comma usage in the second sentence. In #1, the woman finishes identification, because there's only one woman. So there is a comma (and #2 is wrong). In #3, the woman does not identify. Presumably there is only one woman taking notes, so who was taking notes finishes the identification and there can't be a comma (and #4 is wrong.

That "rule" is a good place to start. If the preceding noun phrase begins with a, then identification is not promised, it's not as clear what is promised, and things are more complicated. (Or less obvious. And often not as important.) And comma-usage doesn't quite answer which versus that, or address when identification is ambiguous.
 

bdcharles

Wɾ¡ʇ¡∩9
Staff member
Media Manager
Love it when people use all the words, "It was that one which was the one what bit me", that, which, what. Maybe it's just a London thing.

There must be a way of constructing a nested, recursive sentence with an infinite number of thats. I'm gonna try:

That that they discussed, was moot.
That that that gathered group discussed, was moot.
Of the groups, that that that that had gathered, discussed, was moot. Oh, shit, this is getting good.
That that that that that that lord had gathered, discussed, was moot.

No, it works, because "That [topic] that that [group] that that that lord had gathered, discussed, was moot. " Erkk! Hmm hang on:

"Of all the topics discussed by all the groups gathered by all the lords on whom all the tenants depended upon, that [topic] that that [group] that that [lord] that that [particular tenant] depended on, had gathered, discussed, was moot. "

Or to put it another way, Olly's way:

"Of all the topics by all the groups by all the lords upon whom all the tenants depended, that which that whom that what that particular tenant depended on, had gathered, discussed, was moot."

Tell me it's not possible. You can do the same, with "service." A service service service is a service that provides a serving service to another service, and a service service service service is a service that services that service. It's fucking beautiful.
 
Last edited:
Top