“A sentiment that couldn’t have been expressed more succinctly.” “A sentiment which couldn’t have been expressed more succinctly.” Which is correct and why? In layman’s terms, please.
They both are. The that/which rule is ignored fairly often. The Brits ignore it so much that for them it isn't a rule at all. Now, if you ask your grammar teacher, she will tell you that only the first line is correct. The grammar book rule is that which is used with commas around it. It contains ideas that are extra and don't alter the obvious meaning of the sentence. They're paused and offset almost like an appositive an added thought. Maybe even the Brit grammar teacher says this, but no one listens to her. What has been found in the publishing world is that no pro uses commas around that, and they usually use commas around which, but not always. This usually happens: The jellicle cat, which had been chosen as the blood sacrifice, ascended to the heavens. This never happens: The jellicle cat, that had been chosen as the blood sacrifice, ascended to the heavens. This could happen: The jellicle cat which had been chosen as the blood sacrifice ascended to the heavens. (no commas) And this one is the safe baseline: The jellicle cat that had been chosen as the blood sacrifice ascended to the heavens. (no commas) I like using which as if it were that (the third example). To me it's a bit more elegant. I feel it has a softer sound than that, but I only do that trick sometimes. If the added phrase is more of an afterthought you use which and tuck it inside of commas. You should just think of that as a means to tack on important info that needs to be said without a pause. Your follow-up info is so important that it needs to be connected seamlessly, and the phrase is as important as the noun. Tucking the info inside of commas with which changes the meaning of the sentence. It makes the phrase secondary and puts more focus on the noun. (I tried to avoid jargon.)
I’ll have to read this 9 or 10 times before it sinks in. It’s not your explanation but for whatever reason my brain has this weird kind of blindness to written explanations. I read the words but my brain can’t decipher what’s being said.
Haha, I understand. You're probably not the only one. How about just simple examples? If it's all one idea, one connected unit, use that. No commas. There are many dogs in my neighborhood, but the one that won't stop barking really needs to go. See how the idea has to go with the noun? It's critical info. I can't just say "The one needs to go." It doesn't make sense on its own, so use that, no commas. If the idea is secondary, use which and commas. That new cat of yours, which you shouldn't have bought, is shedding everywhere. The info is extra. The line makes sense without it. Use which and commas. But be aware that the distinction is often ignored. "Yesterday, December 7, 1941—a date which will live in infamy—the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked . . ." The rule says use that because the extra info is critical to the meaning. It's not just "a date." The extra info must be there. But FDR ignored the rule and used which, no commas.
Thanks. That’s a lot easier to follow but let me give it a try because my original example isn’t supporting a clause in the way yours are. If, instead, my example was: “The sentiment, which couldn’t have been expressed more succinctly, came from a very unexpected source.” then it’s ‘which’ ?
Yes. You've got it right. That whole phrase can be dropped without losing meaning, so you hide inside of commas with which.
Seven Crowns' explanation is on the mark. That said, I ignore the rule. I tend to mix "which" and "that" just to avoid having too many "that" sentences in close succession.
Comma = which No comma = that I like the "which" at the end of a longer sentence, particularly when I've stacked some non-comma clauses and it feels like the last one would be one too many. Sometimes that "that" clause at the end can push the sentence into run-on territory.
I learned that the first example is correct, the second example is not. I couldn’t explain why—probably for the reasons Seven Crowns set forth.
Now you see I’m the opposite. The first, using ‘that’, sounds very amateurish to my ears. Like it’s being said by a poorly educated person.
DOH! How’s that for irony? I’d originally written ‘an uneducated person’ then decided ‘poorly educated’ was more accurate, and forgot to omit the ‘un’.
When I see that kind of usage (example two) I can’t help but think the writer doesn’t know how to use the two words. Not that it matters much from a practical perspective but it always stops me mid-sentence for half a second.
Thinking back on how I learned it, I came across this site and the restrictive v non-restrictive analysis is what I was taught. Though I had completely forgotten the rationale I think it is still what I follow when reading/writing: https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/grammar/that_vs_which.html I believe this comports with Seven Crowns’ explanation.
And you’d be right! But what’s (still) confusing me, is that the explanations given here, and on other grammar websites I’ve found, use the ‘supporting a clause’ example. Well the sentence I provided isn’t doing that. No part of it needs to be contained between commas. It’s a complete sentence in its own right. If I give a little more context, it might read: After listened intently I nodded and said “I agree wholeheartedly, and it’s a sentiment that couldn’t have been expressed more succinctly.”
I don’t think the commas are determinative. People may or may not use them in various examples. In your example, it’s a restrictive clause with respect to “sentiment” so it’s “that.” Assuming I understand this correctly. I’m not an expert in grammar.
Use which, preceded by a comma, for non-defining clauses. A non-defining clause gives parenthetical information. A. I live in the third house, which has a chimney. Use that, no comma, for defining clauses. A defining clause adds essential (not parenthetical) information. B. I live in the third house that has a chimney.
