2

I found the phrase “... the horse which ran was not the horse nor of the age which he was represented to be at the time of entry ...” in a sentence of Codes, Rules and Regulations of the State of New York 9 Executive (E) - Chapter 1, Subchapter A : State Racing Board Thoroughbred Rules, 4039.19. [→]

Is which wrong in the phrase above, or is it the exact word as the horse is a brute animal?

To be clear, which is grammatical : "... the horse which ran ..." or "... the horse who¹ ran ..."?

¹ See the following nGram for "cat who" (cat: no brute), "dog who" (dog: no brute), "horse who" (horse: brute) and "bull who" (bull: brute).

enter image description here

  • 2
    or 'the horse that ran...'? – cornbread ninja 麵包忍者 May 01 '12 at 21:23
  • I did not added the option you said in your comment as on nyt, for example, I have read "the cat who alerted her owners to carbon monoxide fumes", not " ...the cat that ..." –  May 01 '12 at 21:55
  • ... as the cat is no-brute animal. –  May 01 '12 at 21:56
  • 1
    You haven't spent too much time around cats, eh? – cornbread ninja 麵包忍者 May 01 '12 at 21:57
  • 3
    No, generally I am not intersted to the cats. –  May 01 '12 at 22:04
  • @JLG - This is a good answer. Why do not you post that in this way rather than as a comment. Furthermore, as your comment prove, my question have aspects that should not considered as trivial. –  May 01 '12 at 22:20
  • When you say a “brute animal”, do you mean a wild/feral animal? “Brute” is kind of, I dunno, brutish. With animals, whether one says “it” vs “he/she” depends largely on familiarity; household cats and dogs and such get treated with people-pronouns, but critters whose genders we don’t know tend to be “it”. I’d usually use “cat/dog which/that”, but Ngrams suggests that things like “dog who” are not unheard of, however. – tchrist May 01 '12 at 23:53
  • See this three-way ngram for “horse/dog/cat who”. – tchrist May 01 '12 at 23:58
  • 2
    An ngrams for horse/dog/cat x that/which/who is more informative; it shows that being well out in front of which or who for all three species. – James Waldby - jwpat7 May 02 '12 at 00:29
  • @jwpat7 You’re certainly correct, but I was still surprised by the who frequency. Aesop has a fable about a fox who lost his tail. That sounds perfectly natural to me. Odd. You often find horses with who, too, as in “mare who”. – tchrist May 02 '12 at 01:25
  • Note that this sentence sounds awkward at any rate: I don't even know how to interpret not...nor without commas. So better not take this as an example of good style—officials are often not very skilled with the pen. This looks like it is meant to sound very formal, but the writer didn't quite know how. – Cerberus - Reinstate Monica May 02 '12 at 03:35
  • 1
    By brute animals, you seem to mean "animals other than pets." – Kris May 02 '12 at 05:13
  • The phrase “brute animals” doesn’t actually mean anything in English. The closest would be brutal, which has connotations of cruelty. – tchrist May 02 '12 at 12:26
  • 2
    @tchrist, incorrect. Wiktionary's first two senses of adj. brute are: "Without reason or intelligence (of animals). [from 15th c.]" and "Characteristic of unthinking animals; senseless, unreasoning (of humans). [from 16th c.]". In my experience, brute as applied to animals usually says no more than "without reason or intelligence", ie says nothing of cruelty or kindness. – James Waldby - jwpat7 May 02 '12 at 14:06
  • @jwpat7 I wasn’t familiar with “brute beasts”; it’s not current. The OED2 gives as its first sense: “1. Of animals: Wanting in reason or understanding; chiefly in phrases *brute beasts, the brute creation*, = the ‘lower animals’.” Its second sense is much more common: “2 a. Of human beings, their actions, and attributes: Brute-like, brutish; dull, senseless, stupid; unintelligent, unreasoning, uninstructed; sensual. b. Rough, rude, wanting in sensibility.” I continue not to see what makes a horse or bull “brute”, but a dog or a cat “non-brute”. I do not understand. – tchrist May 02 '12 at 14:22
  • "Brute beast" or "brute animal" is a term that encompasses all animals that are not human beings. It has, however, come to be more associated with large livestock animals (cows, hogs, horses). I don't know anyone who would say a "brute parakeet." It remains in current use at least in legal proceedings (albeit in icky cases). – JLG May 03 '12 at 13:50

3 Answers3

6

I agree that that sounds best.

To quote Building English Skills (McDougall, Littell, and Company):

The pronouns which and that also require special attention. Use that to introduce adjective clauses that are essential to the sentence. Use which to introduce nonessential clauses.

  • There is the painting that he loves so much. (that he loves so much is essential to the sentence.)
  • The painting, which he loves so much, is not for sale. (Here, the clause is not essential to the sentence.)

(Littell, Joy. "Sentence and Clause." Building English Skills: Yellow Level. Evanston, Illinois: McDougal, Littell & Co., 1985. 528. Print.)

In the sentence mentioned, it should be that, as the sentence qualifies the horse. It shows that the horse you're referring to is the one that ran, perhaps singling it out from a group of other horses that did not. You're not simply describing it, noting that it ran, as you would be were the sentence "The horse, which ran, ...".

Also, a clause containing which should be separated by commas: "The horse, which ran, ...", which is not the case for a clause containing that: "The horse that ran..."

James Waldby - jwpat7
  • 66,660
wchargin
  • 841
  • Certainly "that" sounds better than anything else, especially if the sentence is uttered instead of written down. It was interesting but slightly surprising to read the excerpt you pasted, because I have not found a similar recommendation in British English texts. Surely "that" cannot be used in non essential clauses, but I don't think that the opposite holds (that is, that we cannot use "which" in essential ones). Would your text argue the same if it were referred to a person, then using "who"? – Paola May 02 '12 at 10:58
  • @Paola - Sincerely, what do you think of my question and of the difference I referred to brute and no brute animals when we have to choice between "who" and "which"? –  May 02 '12 at 12:31
  • 2
    @Carlo_R. I agree with what others said before about this sentence being slightly "oddly worded". As for the relative pronoun, I don't have any problem with it; "that" might be more frequent but "which" is definitely correct. Pets, or animals which are closely connected to someone (for example, a donkey for the person who uses it every day), may be referred to as individuals and thus you could use "him/her", "his/her" and consequently even "who", though it would sound out of place to my ear. – Paola May 02 '12 at 12:54
  • 1
    @Carlo_R. As an afterthought, just consider that we may refer to a male cat as a "tomcat" and a female one as a "she-cat", so nobody would wince if you used "he/she" referring to them. Finally, think of the relation between the Alpine soldier and his mule in Salvatores' film "Mediterraneo". No wonder that in the film the animal would be referred to as a human being, although a mule is rarely a pet. – Paola May 02 '12 at 12:58
  • @Paola: Yes, the same would apply using who as a relative pronoun. – wchargin May 06 '12 at 05:54
3

In our veterinary publications, we don't generally use "who" as a pronoun for animals. (In fact, we avoid "his" and "her," too.) Exceptions might be made when the animal is named and the publication's intended audience is the pet owner. I agree with cornbread ninja's comment that the which in both places should be that. Based on the given excerpt, these appear to be restrictive clauses.

JLG
  • 23,238
  • 2
    You don’t have to use “that” just because it’s restrictive! That’s a new American heresy, and it’s pretty frankly stupid when you look at the English corpus, where you see restrictive “which” used by plenty of well-respected authors. Use whatever your ear tells you to use. – tchrist May 01 '12 at 23:55
  • Here’s an ngram, and here’s a book search. I’m sure you can come up with a lot more. – tchrist May 02 '12 at 01:47
  • @tchrist, can you please give a couple of examples and references? I have some books on my desk that will back me up on preferring that over which for restrictive (or essential) clauses, but I'd like to see your examples. Thank you. – JLG May 02 '12 at 02:07
  • Again, this is a relatively new shibboleth that’s mostly only in America, not in Greater Anglophonia. It’s bogus. Did you not chase my book search? “The interpretations of the thingness of the thing which, predominant in the course of Western thought, have long become self-evident and are now in everyday use, may be reduced to three.” “That which the senses perceive is only the thing which has shape... Were the thing which has shape identical with the shape...” There are lots more where that came from. – tchrist May 02 '12 at 02:13
  • @tchrist, do you have a reference book or grammar website you could refer me to? I found several books that say to use that for restrictive clauses and which for nonrestrictive, but I'm afraid they're all heretical American books, though not all that new: Strunk and White's "The Elements of Style" (p. 59; c 1959), Bernstein's "The Careful Writer" (p. 444; c 1965), Cook's "Line by Line" (p.198; c 1985), "The Associated Press Stylebook" (p. 74, c 1975), and Callihan's "Grammar for Journalists" (p. 117; c 1969). (original copyright dates cited) – JLG May 02 '12 at 02:34
  • @tchrist: Fowler and many others have long recommended that for defining relative clauses, so there is a long and respectable English tradition. Although there is some freedom, as you say, and many good writers have used which from time to time, most writers and style guides recommend that. – Cerberus - Reinstate Monica May 02 '12 at 03:31
  • Oxford English Grammar (1996) section 5.9 “Restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses” on p. 225: “ Wh-relatives, such as which and who, are normally the only relatives used with non-restrictive clauses. … Restrictive clauses may also be introduced by wh-relatives. … The two types of relatives may co-occur in the same sentence: "[…]tumours which group slowly are less radio-sensitive than tumours that grow rapidly[…]" … "[…]it was part of the anomalous froth now being blown off a boom that* had run for 10 years and which had thrown up the usual number of excesses." …” – tchrist May 02 '12 at 03:42
  • The Hobbit, J.R.R. Tolkien: “There is little or no magic about them, except the ordinary everyday sort which helps them to disappear quietly and quickly when large stupid folk like you and me come blundering along, making a noise like elephants which they can hear a mile off.” “He had only just had a sip-in the corner, while the four dwarves sat around the table[…] and the depredations of dragons, and lots of other things which he did not understand[…]” “I see now they must have had a private Side-door which only they knew about.” “[…]also one barrel of ale which was still full.” – tchrist May 02 '12 at 03:48
  • There are thousands more examples where that came from, all from English literature from authors of the highest regard. Must I really continue? I shall, if you insist. The point is that this non-rule is a pure fabulation invented by busybodied nannies with no ear from the language. It is inconsistent with English as it is actually spoken and actually written. It is pure nonsense. – tchrist May 02 '12 at 03:50
  • @Cerberus See my citations. – tchrist May 02 '12 at 03:51
  • @tchrist, nope, I don't insist. Did I ever say you could NEVER use which for a restrictive clause. Even Strunk & White say, "The use of which for that is common in written and spoken language ("Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass.") Occasionaly which seems preferable to that, as in the sentence from the Bible. But it would be a convenience to all if these two pronouns were used with precision. The careful writer, watchful for small conveniences, goes which-hunting, removes the defining whiches, and by so doing improves his work." – JLG May 02 '12 at 04:07
  • To conclude, I think in the OP's example sentence, that would be preferable to which or to who. – JLG May 02 '12 at 04:08
  • @Cerberus Even Fowler, 2nd edition, in which he expounds on his desire to separate that from which, specifically states on p. 626: “Some there are who follow this principle now; but it would be idle to pretend that it is the practice either of most or of the best writers.” ’Nuff said. – tchrist May 02 '12 at 04:16
  • @tchrist: I was talking about Fowler on the one hand and modern English on the other—not literature from Fowler's time. We all know that which used to be more common. I was just showing that there is a respectable tradition recommending that (Fowler e.a.), and contending that the majority of modern style guides recommend that. This does not mean that which is actively condemned by modern style guides: just that they seem to prefer that. For that reason, recommending that to a learner of English seems sensible, although the validity of which also deserves mention. – Cerberus - Reinstate Monica May 02 '12 at 05:12
  • This has been a frequent topic over on Language Log. In a recent post under the rubric Prescriptivist Poppycock Pullum states: "What is actually true about expert users of English, when they are not being nibbled to death by copy-editing ducks, is that they use both that and which in integrated relative clauses, in proportions that aren't very far away from being 50/50." – Shoe May 03 '12 at 13:16
  • You might also look at our very own @jlawler's http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jlawler/aue/xmasthat.html which he linked on this relevant question – nohat May 03 '12 at 18:42
0

Who sounds wrong, which sounds better, that sounds best.

Brad
  • 3,018