|
|
Rank: Newbie
Joined: 1/15/2012
Posts: 37
Points: 111
Location: United States, CA
|
"In 1800 Goethe's friend Schelling published his System des transscendentalen Idealismus, a work which accelerated Goethe's shift away from realism toward idealism." Can I use "that" in place of "which", or is the second clause non-restrictive?
A thing of beauty is a joy for ever
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 1,331
Points: 4,002
Location: United States, FL
|
LCouperin wrote:"In 1800 Goethe's friend Schelling published his System des transscendentalen Idealismus, a work which accelerated Goethe's shift away from realism toward idealism." Can I use "that" in place of "which", or is the second clause non-restrictive? Either "which" or "that" could make sense. My preference is for "which". There is also the stylistic consideration of whether to present the title of the work in italics ( System des transscendentalen Idealismus) or within quotation marks ("System des transscendentalen Idealismus" or „System des transscendentalen Idealismus“), as well as the spelling („ System des transzendentalen Idealismus“).
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? - Juvenal
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 3/29/2010
Posts: 117
Points: 218
Location: United States
|
"In 1800 Goethe's friend Schelling published his System des transscendentalen Idealismus, a work which accelerated Goethe's shift away from realism toward idealism." Can I use "that" in place of "which", or is the second clause non-restrictive?
Afgee with LeonAzul. Which is correct.
In this case, (" . . . which accelerated Goethe's shift away from realism,") is nonrestrictive since it assumes we know Goethe once believed in realism. The absence of a comma can make a difference in its meaning.
Using that and which properly is confusing however this is a general rule:
that - no comma (restrictive)
which - takes a comma. (nonrestrictive)
We bought the bread that was cheapest.
The lecture, which is free to the public, begins at 8:00.
|
|
Rank: Newbie
Joined: 1/15/2012
Posts: 37
Points: 111
Location: United States, CA
|
leonAzul wrote:LCouperin wrote:"In 1800 Goethe's friend Schelling published his System des transscendentalen Idealismus, a work which accelerated Goethe's shift away from realism toward idealism." Can I use "that" in place of "which", or is the second clause non-restrictive? Either "which" or "that" could make sense. My preference is for "which". There is also the stylistic consideration of whether to present the title of the work in italics ( System des transscendentalen Idealismus) or within quotation marks ("System des transscendentalen Idealismus" or „System des transscendentalen Idealismus“), as well as the spelling („ System des transzendentalen Idealismus“). According to UofChicago's Robert Richard, my speliing is correct. But maybe Wiki's is a valid alternate?
A thing of beauty is a joy for ever
|
|
Rank: Newbie
Joined: 1/15/2012
Posts: 37
Points: 111
Location: United States, CA
|
songbird6 wrote:"In 1800 Goethe's friend Schelling published his System des transscendentalen Idealismus, a work which accelerated Goethe's shift away from realism toward idealism." Can I use "that" in place of "which", or is the second clause non-restrictive?
Afgee with LeonAzul. Which is correct.
In this case, (" . . . which accelerated Goethe's shift away from realism,") is nonrestrictive since it assumes we know Goethe once believed in realism. The absence of a comma can make a difference in its meaning.
Using that and which properly is confusing however this is a general rule:
that - no comma (restrictive)
which - takes a comma. (nonrestrictive)
We bought the bread that was cheapest.
The lecture, which is free to the public, begins at 8:00.
But consider: "The System is a work that accelerated...." This is correct. In the original sentence the antecedent of "which" is "work", which is in the same clause, NOT the previous one. So we can't be dealing with restrictive/non-restrictive clauses.
A thing of beauty is a joy for ever
|
|
Rank: Member
Joined: 8/31/2011
Posts: 464
Points: 1,382
Location: Canada
|
LCoup,
On your same thread in Vocabulary I posted a link to a previous comprehensive discussion we had here about restrictive etc. clauses that might be of help.
Perhaps if you make a decision and post a topic once, it would not be so confusing. Grammar might be a good choice.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 9/21/2009
Posts: 18,462
Points: 55,386
Location: Helsinki, Finland
|
LCouperin wrote:
According to UofChicago's Robert Richard, my speliing is correct. But maybe Wiki's is a valid alternate?
Wiki is not a valid alternative, and you could do something for the spelling checker, too ;-)
"A fine beer may be judged with only one sip, but it's better to be thoroughly sure." - Czech proverb
|
|
Rank: Newbie
Joined: 1/15/2012
Posts: 37
Points: 111
Location: United States, CA
|
Hope1 wrote:LCoup,
On your same thread in Vocabulary I posted a link to a previous comprehensive discussion we had here about restrictive etc. clauses that might be of help.
Perhaps if you make a decision and post a topic once, it would not be so confusing. Grammar might be a good choice. I initially mistakenly posted in the spelling section and didn't want to take it down because there were responses. Why are people so snarkity?
A thing of beauty is a joy for ever
|
|
Rank: Newbie
Joined: 1/15/2012
Posts: 37
Points: 111
Location: United States, CA
|
Jyrkkä Jätkä wrote:LCouperin wrote:
According to UofChicago's Robert Richard, my speliing is correct. But maybe Wiki's is a valid alternate?
Wiki is not a valid alternative, and you could do something for the spelling checker, too ;-) I was just making sure you're paying attention. You get an "A".
A thing of beauty is a joy for ever
|
|
Rank: Member
Joined: 8/31/2011
Posts: 464
Points: 1,382
Location: Canada
|
Hi LCoup,
Sorry you misunderstood my motive in telling you about posting twice and thought I was just being snarky. I should have realized it could have been a mistake. I thought I might be helping you as others did here, when as a relative Newbie, I too posted in the wrong subforum and did not get it cancelled on time. I had read the rules and was afraid my post would be deleted, so I immediately explained to the forum what had happened.
I think you will find most people here on this forum are caring, helpful people. I hope you found all the help posted in both subforums to be beneficial?
|
|
Rank: Newbie
Joined: 1/15/2012
Posts: 37
Points: 111
Location: United States, CA
|
Hope1 wrote:Hi LCoup,
Sorry you misunderstood my motive in telling you about posting twice and thought I was just being snarky. I should have realized it could have been a mistake. I thought I might be helping you as others did here, when as a relative Newbie, I too posted in the wrong subforum and did not get it cancelled on time. I had read the rules and was afraid my post would be deleted, so I immediately explained to the forum what had happened.
I think you will find most people here on this forum are caring, helpful people. I hope you found all the help posted in both subforums to be beneficial?
Thanks you very big for your kind explanation.
A thing of beauty is a joy for ever
|
|
Rank: Member
Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 295
Points: 853
Location: Republic of Yemen Democratic People
|
Hope1 wrote:Hi LCoup,
Sorry you misunderstood my motive in telling you about posting twice and thought I was just being snarky. I should have realized it could have been a mistake. I thought I might be helping you as others did here, when as a relative Newbie, I too posted in the wrong subforum and did not get it cancelled on time. I had read the rules and was afraid my post would be deleted, so I immediately explained to the forum what had happened.
I think you will find most people here on this forum are caring, helpful people. I hope you found all the help posted in both subforums to be beneficial?
I would say "a restrictive/non restrictived relative clause = identifying/Defining relative clause". Nevertheless, I would like you to conform for me.
Language learning is like falling in love
|
|
|
Guest |