A relative clause provides additional information about the noun it describes, but it may be considered relevant or irrelevant to the overall point of the sentence. In other words, a restrictive relative clause, which often begins with that, is usually considered essential or restrictive. Relative clauses beginning with which may contain non-essential information and would be considered non-restrictive. That inauspicious occurrence puts “nutty as a fruitcake” very close to the earliest days of “nuts” as slang term for “crazy.” I haven’t found any examples of “So-and-so is a fruitcake” (meaning a crazy person) of comparable age.

  • In other words, a restrictive relative clause, which often begins with that, is usually considered essential or restrictive.
  • I believe the usage depends on what the word sounds like it starts with.
  • The lack of a comma before “that” helps indicate that the relative clause is necessary to fully specify the noun phrase, and is therefore a dependent clause tied to the preceding clause.
  • Due to the non-restrictive nature of a relative clause introduced by “which,” the clause is considered a parenthetical, and therefore must be enclosed by commas, parentheses, or dashes.
  • But the two have had a somewhat complicated relationship in the vocabulary of a hostile outside world.

You must log in to answer this question.

  • Since there are only two tenses in English and neither is marked on modals, they’re considered to be tenseless.
  • I think there is no difference except that the first sounds more emphasized.
  • Fruitcake is not a description I would use for anybody as its meaning might not be clear.
  • There is a subtle but important difference between the use of that and which in a sentence, and it has to do primarily with relevance.

If you are asking many similar questions of this type in a row, you may repeat the same construction (anaphora). But usually you’re not wielding a rhetorical jackhammer, so variation is the way to go to keep your prose from getting dull. We’ve just gotten used to always seeing it at the start of a question, but it’s really there to draw attention.

Why is a strange person called a fruitcake?

Due to the non-restrictive nature of a relative clause introduced by “which,” the clause is considered a parenthetical, and therefore must be enclosed by commas, parentheses, or dashes. The lack of a comma before “that” helps indicate that the relative clause is necessary to fully specify the noun phrase, and is therefore a dependent clause tied to the preceding clause. So in most cases, “which” requires a comma, but “that” cannot have a comma before it. There is a subtle but important difference between the use of that and which in a sentence, and it has to do primarily with relevance. Grammarians often use the terms “restrictive” and “non-restrictive” when it comes to relative clauses.

Eliminating ‘that’ before ‘Bob’ would seem to be more in context with the criticism of the way Bob sounds. Can you please explain to me the difference in meaning between these two questions? It’s because the ‹l› was never really there in any historical pronunciation of English.

Hot Network Questions

The two expressions that are idiomatic in this context are “why” or “for what reason”, with the former being the preferred option. I have flunked the exam, that is why I am attending coaching classes. I have flunked the exam, which is why I am attending coaching classes. Usual (pronounced /ˈjuː.ʒu.əl/ as in you) begins with a consonant sound and, as such, it should be preceded by a not an. Not quite as limited as how, however.How can’t be used at all as a relative pronoun;one may use that, or nothing at all, buthow (which refers to way) is ungrammatical as a relative marker.

English does not have these. It has, instead a modal version of the auxiliary, would, or sometimes could. “For why” (also hyphenated or written as one word) meaning “why” as a direct interrogative was used in Old and Middle English (see the MED’s entry), but it became obsolete sometime around the year 1500. Other senses of the expression (for example, it was used as a conjunction meaning “because”) gradually over time all dropped out of use, so the word is completely obsolete and is marked as such by the OED.

Contextual difference between “That is why” vs “Which is why”? duplicate

A person easily influenced. An instructor whose course is not exacting. A good fellow; a trump.

It’s not a matter of redundancy; all pronouns are redundant, after all.It’s just that why is very limited in its distribution. This means why — or that — can be freely deleted after reason. I.e, deleting why in the sentences above also produces exactly the same pattern of grammaticality and ungrammaticality.

You must log in to answer this question.

But there is no difference in meaning. At this point “for why” isn’t even used in contexts where people are trying to sound archaic. Is there any change in the meaning of sentence if I replace That is why with Which is why?

I believe the usage depends on what the word sounds like it starts with. For example, “an homage,” since the “h” is not pronounced. One complication is when words are pronounced differently in British and American English. For example, the word for a certain kind of plant is pronounced “erb” in American English and “herb” in British English.

Just remember it is the sound that governs whether you use a or an, not the actual first letter of the word. Since fruitcake itself doesn’t emerge as an insult term for a homosexual until much later, it seems clear that the original emphasis in “nutty as a fruitcake” is on the nuts, not the fruit. But why work in operations investment banking the two have had a somewhat complicated relationship in the vocabulary of a hostile outside world. The answer depends on what exactly you are trying to express. The key thing to have in mind it the difference between expressing something as ‘actual’ and expressing something as potential, doubtful or at least not certain. Latin and ancient Greek verbs had special modes, subjunctive and optative (known for these two languages as ‘moods’ along with the – to us – more common ‘indicative’ mood), to express things as not actual in some way.