Author Topic: “Which,” “that,” and other grammar pitfalls  (Read 3162 times)

Joe Carillo

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4646
  • Karma: +202/-2
    • View Profile
    • Email
“Which,” “that,” and other grammar pitfalls
« on: May 17, 2017, 11:57:19 AM »
In any language, simplicity is a virtue. In the English language, in particular, the brief, concise, and unembellished sentence is preferable to the long and complex sentence that packs in so many ideas. This is obviously because short sentences are much easier to understand than long ones. But pursuing sentence brevity for its own sake does not necessarily mean good writing. It often leads to oversimplified, choppy, dull, and deadening prose. Stronger, clearer, and more elegant writing can, in fact, be produced by judiciously combining sentences or by adding modifying clauses to them.

Consider this passage: “The Philippines is a republic in the southwest Pacific Ocean. It is to be found between the equator and the Tropic of Cancer. It comprises more than 7,100 islands. It has islands that range in size from small rock formations to the 41,845-sq.mi. Luzon Island. This island is the biggest. Only 730 of the islands are inhabited. Eleven of the islands account for most of the total land area. These islands also account for most of the population.”

Oversimplifying prose this way, of course, either turns away readers or lulls them to sleep. Now see how much forceful and emphatic it becomes when the sentences are judiciously combined: “The Philippines, a republic consisting of 7,100 islands in the southwest Pacific Ocean, lies between the equator and the Tropic of Cancer. The islands range in size from small rock formations to the 41,845-sq.m. Luzon Island, which is the biggest. Only 730 of the islands are inhabited, and 11 of these account for most of the total land area and most of the population.” The text in italics shows the sentences or clauses that have been combined or joined for a clearer, more smooth-flowing exposition.


One purpose of combining or joining sentences is to supply them with additional information that can enrich their content and texture. When the added information or words are clauses that will modify nouns and pronouns in the sentence, they are called adjective clauses. The relative pronoun “who” and the conjunctions “which” and “that” are used to introduce these adjective clauses. “Who” is used when the antecedent noun or pronoun is a person; “which” or “that” when it is a thing or place.  

We are all familiar, of course, with the use of  “who” in adding an adjective clause to a sentence. Take these two sentences: “Albert Einstein was a German-born Swiss-American theoretical physicist. He developed the Theory of Relativity.” To add the second sentence to the first so it can modify “physicist,” we simply replace the pronoun “he” with the relative pronoun “who” and combine the two sentences: “Albert Einstein was the German-born Swiss-American theoretical physicist who developed the Theory of Relativity.” On the other hand, we use “that” when the antecedent noun is a thing or place. Take these two sentences: “The kids caught the mouse. That mouse had eaten the cheese.” We combine them as follows: “The kids caught the mouse that had eaten the cheese.” (British English usage combines with “which” instead of “that”: “The kids caught the mouse which had eaten the cheese.”)


We must take note, however, that in the two American English examples above that use “who” and “that” as combiners, the added clauses are necessary to the meaning of the combined sentences. They are called restrictive clauses. Without them, the sentences will mean something else. In some combined sentences, however, the added clauses are not absolutely necessary to their meaning. They are called non-restrictive clauses. They merely give additional information, and maybe taken out without altering the basic idea of the sentence. In such instances, the clause to be combined with “who” or “which” (“that” cannot be used in this case) should be set off with commas to indicate its non-restrictive character: “The kids, who are classmates on vacation, caught the mouse that had eaten the cheese.” “The kids caught the mouse, which had eaten the cheese.” “The mouse, which had eaten the cheese, was caught.”

Another example: “The mouse deer is indigenous to Balabac, Palawan. It has the scientific name Tragulus aquaticus.” Since the clause “has the scientific name Tragulus aquaticus” is optional information when combined with the first sentence, we must set it off with commas as follows: “The mouse deer, which has the scientific name Tragulus aquaticus, is indigenous to the Philippines.”


A very common pitfall when using “which” as a combiner is doing away with the commas: “The mouse deer which has the scientific name Tragulus aquaticus is indigenous to the Philippines.” This is, from an American English standpoint, grammatically wrong. Only “who” or “that” can be used as restrictive combiners and when used as such, they never use commas to set the adjective clause off: “The mouse deer that has the scientific name Tragulus aquaticus is indigenous to the Philippines.” “The man who discovered the mouse deer named it Tragulus aquaticus.”

This essay first appeared in the weekly column “English Plain and Simple” by Jose A. Carillo in The Manila Times and subsequently appeared as Chapter 43 in the Usage and Style section of his book English Plain and Simple: No-Nonsense Ways to Learn Today’s Global Language, © 2004 by Jose A. Carillo, © 2008 by the Manila Times Publishing Corp. All rights reserved.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2017, 12:02:50 PM by Joe Carillo »