Re: Message from Internet

["Brad Barnes (T)" <blb -at- FORMTEK -dot- COM>]

Karen,

Would you mind citing your source that states which can be both restrictive and non-restrictive? The sources I have read clearly make the distinction that which is non-restrictive, and that is restrictive. Also, are you using British or American English?

Brad Barnes


>   --------------------  ORIGINAL MESSAGE TEXT  --------------------
> >     1. The record description is a text entry which has no conditional
> >     logic.
> >
> >     2. The record description is a text entry which does not have
> >     conditional logic.

> If this is not a definition, as seems likely from the context, the sentence
> should be something like "The record description is a text entry. It
> contains no conditional logic."

> Both of your sentences are grammatically correct, but you need a comma
> before "which," because the clause is non-restrictive.  ...RM

> Richard Mateosian        http://www.c2.org/~srm/   President, Berkeley STC
> Freelance Technical Writer     srm -at- c2 -dot- org        Review Editor, IEEE Micro

>   --------------------  END OF ORIGINAL MESSAGE  --------------------


>   Ah, but is it? "Which" can be correctly used in non-restrictive AND
>   restrictive clauses (vs. "that," which is used only in restrictive
>   clauses). Inserting a comma changes the implied meaning of the sentences.
>   Take for example:

>   The lawnmower which is in the garage is broken.
>      (There's more than one lawnmower, and it's the one in the garage that
>   we're talking about.)
>   The lawnmower that is in the garage is broken.
>      (Same meaning as the above example)
>   The lawnmower, which is in the garage, is broken.
>      (There may or may not be other lawnmowers. The fact that the broken
>   one is in the garage is simply extra information -- the main point is
>   that the lawnmower is broken.)

>   -- karen