Ran into a snag. Here's a portion of the sentence. I had to alter it a bit - substituting men for creatures. The men, that had ripped down the fence, went over and ... Couldn't it also be - the men, who had ripped down the fence, went over...
Well - hmm. Damn. It is that simple isn't it? I'm probably just trying to find a reason to procrastinate from Nanowrite.
I think @erebh is right, and @thirdwind's link answers your question. But you also have two commas I wouldn't use. The men, that had ripped down the fence, went over and ... I do believe "that" takes the place of the first comma which then makes the second one also unneeded.
I need a comma boot camp. Right now I just sort of fling them around. Sprinkles on a cupcake. I'm probably missing commas in the previous sentence - instinct tells me - Right now, I just, sort of fling ...but I'm probably wrong.
Because it really should be "The men who had ripped down the fence..." 'Who' is the proper pronoun to refer to a person or persons in such situations.
If I may, Grammar Girl might have something on it, from what I read in my book you're subordinating a phrase that doesn't need to be subordinate. It should be on the same grammatical level as the rest of the sentence.
Since all of the more useful, relevant, and reasonable information has already been covered, I'd like to go in completely the opposite direction: One thing I'm currently doing is writing a character doesn't talk with relative pronouns at all if I can avoid it.
I have to be honest. It sounds like a cheap stunt. Different for the sake of different very rarely impresses anyone but the writer who comes up with it. Write clearly. Write well. Tell a good story with well-crafted characters. Eschew gimmicks and shiny baubles.
Apparently I misread @erebh. I really need to slow down, too much coffee and too much to do. I thought he suggested, "The men ripped down the fence, went over and..." I agree, it's a person so one uses 'who' and one uses 'that' for a thing.
I realize that syntax is not the MOST important part of developing a character and his/her voice, that the character's perceptions, decisions, and reactions are the MOST important parts, but I have found a lot of people who say that unobtrusive syntax quirks can still be A part of the mix. Would you like me to PM you a more in-depth look at the full character I'm talking about?
This sounds interesting. It's a technique which has been used very successfully by John Le Carré (among others), in at least two of his bestselling books - one of which I'm just re-reading at the moment.
Definitely "who". Why would you use "that"? It's a man, it's a "who". So yeah, simple, but surprised that the first few responses all seemed to agree upon the wrong option!
I checked the Grammar Girl link. Interesting. So basically you could use "that" there. To people who are used to the clear-cut people=who, things=that it would look odd, though. My high school English teacher did say you're not gonna get lynched for using "that" 'cause native speakers use it quite a lot, but at the same time she did draw a red wriggle under it if used in a sentence like "men, that..." I'd say, in dialogue 'that' would be fine, then, but in narration (unless 1st person or heavily "personified" 3rd), better go for the rule of thumb: things and animals and possibly corpses/zombies are thats and humans are whos.
If you put a comma there, you make the relative clause non-defining. You can't use "that" in a non-defining relative clause, so it has to be: The men, who had ripped down the fence, ............... (note the closing comma) However, I'd say this should really be a defining relative clause, which makes the correct sentence: The men who/that ripped down the fence............... (note that there are no commas) You can use either who OR that in a defining relative clause. I had not realised some people perceive this as a "grey issue". The guidelines I give above about defining/non defining relative clauses are absolutely standard in every intermediate grammar book I've ever consulted, or more importantly, taught from! Make life easy for yourselves and follow them.
One of them is The Tailor of Panama. I can't at the moment remember the other, but I remember thinking - on finding "that character" in the Panama Book - "Ah yes, this technique was also used in a later book I liked". It might be Our Game, but no promises. (A "funny book", Our Game: some wonderful writing, but perhaps the most frustrating and disappointing ending I've seen in a Le Carré book).
That's a lot of books. I have only about 19/20 of them, I think. (And I haven't read A Delicate Truth yet. Our Kind of Traitor disappointed me, so I might even wait for the paperback).
i just caught the film version of 'the tailor of panama' on cable the other night... a thoroughly enjoyable romp with stellar performances by geoffery rush [as usual] and pierce brosnan [to my surprise!]... had read it years ago and thought the adaptation was pretty well done... i've also read most, if not all of le carre's work...
