-1

I was creating Instagram posts, and I noticed that there might have been something wrong with the text. Here it is:

‘Heaven’ is an uncountable noun that refers to a place where good people go after they die. On the other hand, ‘haven’ is a countable noun that refers to a safe and peaceful place, which is not as abstract as ‘heaven’ is.

According to R.Murphy (See English Grammar In Use 5th edition, page 190.), it's not correct to use 'that' if a relative clause gives extra meaning. Such as in the sentence

Anne told me about her new job, which she's enjoying a lot.

Do you think I should change "that" with "which" in these sentences? I'm not sure about the function of the relative clauses in my text, whether they give extra meaning or not.

John Lawler
  • 107,887
  • 1
    I don't like Murphy's explanation (although I'm not seeing the full context). Consider: "This is the shampoo that I use to wash my dog." Isn't the relative clause providing "extra meaning"? Nevertheless, "that" is correct. – MarcInManhattan May 03 '22 at 03:02
  • 2
    The point is that the information expressed in the relative clause is an integral part of that expressed by the matrix clause in that it delimits the set of shampoos under discussion. – BillJ May 03 '22 at 06:59
  • @Orhan torun Are you clear about this topic now? – BillJ May 03 '22 at 12:28
  • 2
    The term "extra meaning" is not a useful one in grammar. You can't measure meaning in the first place, and you can't compare one unmeasured quantity with another. There are two kinds of relative clauses in English; one of them gets special intonation and can't use that. However, "information" is not how you distinguish them. Grammatical descriptions need grammatical evidence, not something hand-wavy like "extra meaning". – John Lawler May 03 '22 at 14:33
  • @BillJ I suppose you are saying if the relative clause delimits objects (shampoos, in this case) rather than defining or depicting objects; then we should not consider them as 'extra information relative clauses' (I agree Mr Lawler that this expression is not clear enough.) Do I understand you correctly? In this case, 'that' demilits nouns under discussion in my sentence, from your perspective. So it would be OK to use 'that' as a relative clause. –  May 06 '22 at 21:33
  • 2
    Does this answer your question, 442? When to use “that” and when to use “which”, especially in relative clauses // I'd use ing-clauses in place of both 'that'-clause's here. // 'Heaven' is sometimes countified, even in Bible translations. – Edwin Ashworth Jan 03 '23 at 14:57

2 Answers2

-1

'Extra meaning' or better, 'extra information', is a good way to explain why a non-defining relative clause is correct. The 'extra' refers to the fact that it's not absolutely necessary information. In the sentence 'This is the shampo that I use to wash my dog', the clause 'that I use to wash my dog' is absolutely necessary. It's easy to see that by trying to omit it - 'This is the shampoo' is a meaningless sentence, inviting the request for necessary clarification, 'What shampoo are you talking about?' (Unless someone is holding the shampoo and showing it to you in the context of an ongoing conversation). If the shampoo has already been sufficiently defined to specify what you are talking about, as in 'This is the shampoo that Peter gave me', then a non-defining clause can be used to provide extra information, using 'which' after a comma: 'This is the shampoo that Peter gave me, which I use to wash my dog.'

Paul Hancock
  • 1
-1

According to R.Murphy (See English Grammar In Use 5th edition, page 190.), it's not correct to use 'that' if a relative clause gives extra meaning.

R Murphy seems a little too prescriptive.

There is a convention - commoner in American English - that "which/who" introduces a descriptive clause, and "that" introduces a defining clause. (I think it is a good idea but am not bothered if the guidance is not followed.)

It is commoner for defining clause to be introduced by that, who, and which than for non-defining/ descriptive clauses to be introduced by that.

As far as "that" is concerned, it is not preceded by a parenthetical comma, which restricts it to a defining role:

*The man, that sells books in his spare time, has been arrested.

It is more reliable to listen for and pronounce the pauses of the parenthetical commas of the descriptive relative:

  1. The man, who lives next door to me, is bald.

  2. The man who lives next door to me is bald.

  3. The man that lives next door to me is bald.

  4. The car, which parks next door to me, is red.

  5. The car which parks next door to me is red.

  6. The car that parks next door to me is red.

Greybeard
  • 41,737