I invoke the collective grammar power of DU...

[Hosnon]

Could someone explain, with examples, the proper usage of "which" and "that" as restrictive/unrestrictive pronouns?

Example: That book, which/that I read last night, was wonderful.

Thanks!

[yewberry]

1. Sure.

Use "which" with clauses that are set apart with commas and can be dropped without losing the meaning of the sentence. Otherwise, use "that."

Example: The book that won the prize was written by a teacher.

Or: The book, which was written by a teacher, won the prize.

See the difference in meaning and emphasis?


edit: misplaced period

[Hosnon]

3. Thanks! nt

[yewberry]

7. Happy to help. nt

[Radio_Lady]

5. Wow. Tofunut, that's the clearest explanation I've ever seen.

Thanks a bunch from a writer who must have been sleeping the day that was discussed in class.

[yewberry]

8. Who in her right mind

wouldn't sleep through a discussion of restrictive and non-restrictive clauses?

Me...I'm a grammar geek.

[Radio_Lady]

10. Tofunut. Maybe you can help. I've been wrestling with this for about six years.

As a movie reviewer, I have to use the titles of movies all the time.

What position does the all the punctuation (quotes, commas, and periods) take when the movie title is used in a sentence? I use regular quotes around the movie titles, such as "Apocalypto" -- I think that's standard. Then there are the position of commas and periods relative to the clauses and end of sentences.

I never know where to put them!

To illustrate:

I have see "Apocalypto", and I must say, I don't like it. In "Apocalypto," there are extreme cases of brutality, far beyond what you might have seen in "The Passion of the Christ." Or "Braveheart".

What rules govern the use of punctuation in those positions? Should they be INSIDE or OUTSIDE of the quotation marks? If so, under what conditions? My aunt, who is an English instructor, tried to explain this to me, but it went in one ear and out the other.

If this isn't clear, just tell me. Thanks for your help -- in advance!

Radio_Lady in Oregon

[Lex]

11. I was taught that the punctuation goes inside the quotation marks

in all instances. That's the general rule anyway.

Edited to add: Strunk & White's Elements of Style is a great little paperback to have. I highly recommend it.

[Radio_Lady]

14. I have my father's copy right here, from 1969.

Someone paid $.95 cents for it!

I'll read it in the morning!

Thanks for your response.

[Lex]

19. Very cool that you have your father's copy!

:thumbsup:

I think you will find it very interesting and useful.

[Connonym]

38. Love your peacy-heart icon thingie! n/t

[Kajsa]

40. Thanks, Lex.

Thanks for the recommendation.

I checking it out on Amazon.com and ended up
buying it. It will be put to good use.

:hi:

[alcibiades_mystery]

12. It has nothing to do with grammar: that's decided by style guides

I know people who say punctuation ALWAYS goes inside the quotation marks (unless you are using some form of parenthetical citation, a la MLA). But I also know real industries where this simply doesn't apply, like contract law.

At the end of the day, it's not a matter of grammar at all. It is a matter of the discourse conventions of whatever community you happen to be writing for. If you're writing for an academic community, you'll usually put them inside the quotation marks. If you're writing a contract in a corporate law firm, outside.

There is no grammatical rule either way.

[Radio_Lady]

15. Oh, dear... I guess I'll have to punt the ball!

[yewberry]

17. Sure--these can be confusing.

Short and sweet:

In: periods and commas

Example: "Punctuation is confusing."
Example: "You should learn to do this correctly," Mr. Parker said.


Out: colons and semicolons

Example: There are two reasons I hate to be called "grammar geek": I'm not that good at grammar and I'm not cute enough to be a geek.
Example: My favorite book is "Eats Shoots and Leaves"; it's a good read.


Other:

Question marks--In most cases, the question mark stays inside the quotation marks. However, it must be outside he quotation marks if it's not part of the quotation.

Example: "Where is my book?"
Example: Where is my copy of "Poets and Writers"?

Exclamation point--Same as the question mark. It stays in as part of a quote; it stays out otherwise.

Parentheses--If the entire quotation is in parentheses, then the closing parenthesis goes outside the quotation marks. If only part of the quotation is in parentheses, the closing parenthesis goes inside.

Sorry. I wish there was a simple rule that I could cite here--there are just so may variations!

I hope these are somewhat clear!


edit: I believe these rules rules apply to APA, MLA, and Chicago. (I'd have to look it up to be sure, though.)

[Lex]

18. The British rule is that the punctuation goes on the outside of the quotation marks

and the American rule is the opposite.

These are the general rules for punctuation and quotation marks.

As I stated upthread Strunk & White's Elements of Style is a great reference for this.

[Radio_Lady]

20. Really? Is that true? That could start another revolution!

[Lex]

22. That's what my SO just told me

and she teaches writing and grades papers from law students all year long. I didn't know about the British rule being the opposite of our rule until she just said so!

[yewberry]

25. Yup, conventions vary.

For R_L's purposes, though, American style conventions are probably most useful.

I do love my dogeared Strunk & White. I also recommend Woe Is I as a well-indexed, basic grammar primer.

[Lex]

28. The "Eats, Shoots & Leaves" book was by a British author

so it made things confusing on some issues since conventions do vary as you said.

[Hosnon]

21. I use both. Which one depends on the circumstance:

If I'm using the punctuation directly from the quote, it goes inside:

Original: A fundamental principle of grammar is that you always screw shit up.

Me: I learned many things in school. One thing I learned was how hard grammar can be. "A fundamental principle of grammar is that you always screw shit up."

However, if I'm not using the punctuation directly from the quote, it goes outside:

Original: A fundamental principle of grammar is that you always screw shit up.

Me: One of the first things I learned about grammar is that you will always "screw shit up"!

So I guess I only put the punctuation inside when I am quoting the whole sentence and thus need the information that the punctuation provides.

Does that make sense or am I making a distinction when one isn't necessary?

[Lex]

24. I think it still goes inside on this one:

Me: One of the first things I learned about grammar is that you will always "screw shit up"!

[Hosnon]

26. See I don't because what if I want to modify the punctuation? If you put the

exclamation inside, it signifies (to me) that the exclamation was in the original...which isn't true.

[Lex]

27. I know, it's weird that way.

Whatever punctuation you choose for it goes on the inside of the quotation mark, though.

[Hosnon]

29. Well I think the consensus here is that it isn't a grammar rule...more of a convention.

Neither way is right or wrong.

I guess I use it the way I do because it seems to make more sense to me.

It seems that logic would dictate the answer...anyone know anything about the Theory of Grammar?

[Lex]

30. Best reference for style

is Strunk & White's Elements of Style.

That will give what the conventions of style are as they stand right now.

[Hosnon]

31. Ah ok...thanks. As a side note: I can't believe it's Sat. night and I'm discussing grammar:) nt.

[Lex]

33. OMG, I'm a total nerd but have come to accept it!

:hi:

[Hosnon]

34. I like it too:) I don't care if others use correct grammar but I'm

starting to be a little harder on myself.

[alcibiades_mystery]

41. Actually, it is right or wrong depending on the context

Just because something is conventional doesn't mean that you won't be judged for "correctness."

Grammatical rules are also, for the most part, merely conventional. It's just that the convention has more extension, tradition, and power. Sometimes, the "standard English grammar" is even linguistically inferior to "incorrect" Englishes, such as African American Vernacular English. People wedded to Strunk & White may snicker when they hear an African American say "I hope they bring they kids," because every standard Englisg speaker knows that the "correct" usage should be "their kids." But such inflections are really hold-overs from the time when English more directly mimicked Germanic word order, and a distinct form for the possessive was necessary for meaning. Once English word order solidified, such inflections (and this is true of verbs as well) became unnecessary, useless appendages. What is remarkable about African American Vernacular English - a form many take to be "incorrect" - is that it ternds to recognize unnecessary inflections and correct them, thereby making English more linguistically efficient (we have two forms where only ONE is necessary). And for helping English simplify its forms and remove unnecessary appendages, speakers of AAVE get mocked and laughed at. It's rerally6 the standard English people, who don't even understand the problems with their own language, who are the laughable ones in such cases. Grammar is conventional.

[Pithlet]

37. I agree that's the way it should be.

I think it's still technically incorrect, though I've been known to do it anyway.

[yewberry]

32. No, I think that makes sense.

Your first example is a good example of the standard rule.

Your second example looks good--it doesn't alter the original quote and adds the emphasis you want.

Go, MJDuncan!

[Writer]

6. That is one grammar rule I've never understood...

until now.

Thanks! :hi:

[yewberry]

9. Yay!

Check that one off. Who says we don't learn new things every day?

[ComerPerro]

23. And for extra fun

The book that was written by a teacher won the prize.

Or: The book, which won the prize, was written by a teacher.

[yewberry]

35. Heh.

Those are both correct. The punctuation only changes the emphasis.

(And don't confuse people! :spank: )

[alcibiades_mystery]

36. For even more fun

The book, which was written by a teacher, won the prize.

The book that was written by a teacher won the prize.

These are both correct as well.

[rug]

2. More than you need to know:

http://www.worldwidewords.org/articles/which.htm

[Hosnon]

4. Thank you...read and bookmarked. Now I understand...I hope I can apply it now:) nt

[alcibiades_mystery]

13. Someone should devise a test for you

Twenty sentences, and you have to determine whether "which" or "that" apply. I'll start:

1. The truck, which was painted blue, crashed into my gate.
2. The truck that was painted blue crashed into my gate.

Oh...wait....Those are both right. Damn...

[Radio_Lady]

16. Now I'm officially confused.

[July]

39. I'll give it a stab.

In the first sentence, the information within the commas is not essential to the sentence's main thought; therefore, it is set off by commas.

In the second sentence, it is essential to the statement being made (it identifies which truck the writer is talking about).

Obviously, the question of how essential information may be depends on the writer.