Pronouns

“That” vs. “Which”

Common English Blunders, Pronouns, Versus

I often see “which” where “that” is appropriate.

Problem:
The pronoun “which” is not interchangeable with the pronoun “that”.

Explanation:
Some speakers and writers tend to favor “which” over “that” because they believe that “which” sounds more elegant or sophisticated than “that”. Unfortunately, most of the time they should use “that” instead of “which”.

When used to introduce a clause, these two pronouns are not interchangeable. Only one of these examples is correct: Nobody likes a cat that scratches. vs. Nobody likes a cat which scratches. The first example is correct.

One way to remember which pronoun to use (no pun intended) is to see whether you can put the clause inside commas. You would not write Nobody likes a cat, which scratches. because you need the scratching behavior to identify the cat. The comma in this example tells the reader that the clause is unnecessary, which is not your intent. The clause is necessary to identify the cat. You should instead write Nobody likes a cat that scratches. (notice the lack of commas).

Here are two more examples, and each shows correct use of “that” or “which”:

  • Joe’s car, which could go from zero to sixty miles per hour in three seconds, won the contest for the fastest car on the drag strip.
  • The car that won the contest for the fastest car on the drag strip was Joe’s car.

Notice that we can remove the “which” clause and its commas without destroying the significant point of the first example: Joe’s car won the contest for the fastest car on the drag strip.

Solution:
Use “that” when when you must keep the (“that”) clause to maintain the point of the sentence. Use “which” when you can maintain the point of the sentence after dropping the (“which”) clause. Also, make sure that “that” clauses do not go inside commas and that “which” clauses do go inside commas.

“She don’t love you no more.”

Common English Blunders, Contractions, Devolution toward Simpler, Foreign Languages, Pronouns, Self-negation

I heard this on a TV show.

Problems:
1. The verb doesn’t match the subject.
2. Double-negation nullifies the speaker’s intended message.

Explanation:
1. The pronoun “she” does not go with the verb “do”, even if the verb is in a contraction with “not”. The pronoun “she” requires “does” (or “doesn’t”), as in “She does …” (or “She doesn’t …”).
2. The “not” in the contraction combined later in the sentence with the “no” in “no more” leads to a sentence with a double-negative. Assuming that the speaker wanted to tell the listener that the third-party female (to which the pronoun “she” referred) no longer loved the listener, “no” should have been replaced with “any” in the sentence.

I believe that there are two forces that led to this double-trouble sentence.

The first force is consistent with my “Devolution toward Simpler” hypothesis: the single-syllable “don’t” is simpler to say than the double-syllable “doesn’t”.

The second force, I believe, is the influence on American English today of a relatively large population of native-Spanish speakers. If one uses a negative Spanish pronoun, adjective or adverb after a verb, the verb must be preceded by “no” (which means the same as “no” in English) or another negative pronoun or adjective.

For example, the pronoun “nada” in Spanish means nothing, and “encontró” means (he/she/it) found.

So to say “He found nothing.” in Spanish requires us to write “Él no encontró nada.” or more simply “No encontró nada.” — NOT “Encontró nada.” (or “Él encontró nada.”), which native-English speakers expect when first learning Spanish.

In other words, the above Spanish construction could be called a double-negative that is non-self-negating, and the construction is the correct way to write or say a such a negative in Spanish. In contrast and as far as I know, all double-negative constructions in English ARE self-negating.

As more native-Spanish speakers in the U.S. learn English, they will tend to use — mistakenly — (self-negating) double-negatives in English because (non-self-negating) double-negatives are a required part of their native language.

Solution:
“She doesn’t love you any more.”

“10 lucky employees and there one guest have …”

Common English Blunders, Nouns, Possessives, Pronouns

I saw this in an email message.

Problems:
1. Numbers that begin sentences should be written as words.
2. The word “there” is not a possessive pronoun.
3. It’s unclear whether the ten employees have one guest each or have a total of exactly one guest.

Explanation:
1. Some say that numbers less than 100 should be written as words, whereas others say that numbers less than ten should be written as words. Ignoring this controversy as well as the liberties taken by advertisers and headline writers, it is widely accepted that a number that begins a sentence should be written as a word.

2. The word “there” is not a possessive pronoun. As homonyms or homophones, “there” and “their” and “they’re” are too frequently misused. The guest belonging to or possessed by the employee(s) (see #3) takes the possessive pronoun “their” — not “there” or (even worse!) “they’re”.

3. Based on the first two explanations, we can rewrite this sentence introduction as “Ten lucky employees and their one guest have …”, but confusion remains! We don’t know whether each employee has a guest or the ten employees as a group have one guest. The remainder of the sentence was “… the opportunity to go on the floor and greet the [basketball] players as they go out on the court during half time.” Assuming that each lucky employee gets to have his or her own guest, we get the solution.

Solution:
“Ten lucky employees and one guest per lucky employee have …”