+Caution+.--The relative _that_ [Footnote: _That_ is almost always
restrictive. However desirable it may seem to confine _who_ and _which_ to
unrestrictive clauses, they are not confined to them in actual practice.
The wide use of _who_ and _which_ in restrictive clauses is not accounted
for by saying that they occur after _this_, _these_, _those_, and _that_,
and hence are used to avoid disagreeable repetitions of sounds. This may
frequently be the reason for employing _who_ and _which_ in restrictive
clauses; but usage authorizes us to affirm (1) that _who_ and _which_ stand
in such clauses oftener without, than with, _this_, _these_, _those_, or
_that_ preceding them, and (2) that they so stand oftener than _that_
itself does. Especially may this be said of _which_.] should be used
instead of _who_ or _which_ (1) when the antecedent names both persons and
things; (2) when _that_ would prevent ambiguity; and (3) when it would
sound better than _who_ or _which_, _e. g._, after _that_, _same_, _very_,
_all_, the interrogative _who_, the indefinite _it_, and adjectives
expressing quality in the highest degree.
+Example+.--He lived near a _pond that_ was a nuisance. (_That_ relates to
_pond_--the pond was a nuisance. _Which_ might have, for its antecedent,
_pond_, or the whole clause _He lived near a pond_; and so its use here
would be ambiguous.
Pages:
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255