1

Consider the sentence:

Do you have any product which is similar to Xyz?

Now, this can also be written more concisely as

Do you have any product similar to Xyz?

Do both of these sentences have precisely the same meaning? The second sentence is more concise and removes the which is. Is that a better way to write?

Improve this question
1
  • 2
    Yes,, they have the same meaning.
    – BillJ
    Commented May 1, 2022 at 7:40

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
1

They have the exact same meaning, I wouldn't say the second one is more "concise", they have the exact same meaning, I might repeat that again. Adding "which is" doesn't really do anything here. (Both sentences are grammatically correct as well)

Improve this answer
0

[1] Do you have any product [which is similar to Xyz?]

[2] Do you have any product [similar to Xyz?]

This pair have the same meaning. The difference is grammatical:

In both examples the bracketed element modifies "product", but in [1] it's a relative clause, while in [2] it's an adjective phrase.

There's little to choose between the two, though [2] is probably more likely.

Note that in [1] most speakers would probably prefer "that" to "which".

Improve this answer
3
  • Thanks. Could you put some more light on using that or which in this sentence and why one should choose one over the other, and what difference it makes? Are both using that, or which is grammatically correct?
    – nick shetty
    Commented May 1, 2022 at 12:57
  • @nickshetty There is a preference, especially in AmE, for "that" in defining relative clauses. In fact, some teachers say that only "that" is possible -- they claim that "which" is wrong. (which it isn't). There's no difference in meaning, of course, and they are both grammatical, despite what those teachers say. Note, though, that in non-defining relatives (the kind with commas) "that" is normally not permitted.
    – BillJ
    Commented May 1, 2022 at 13:24
  • @BillJ I venture to say that for 95% of Americans there is no distinction made between the use of “that” and “which” as headers for restrictive clauses. I have seen no evidence that it was a recommended distinction before Fowler. As I remember, Fowler even implies that he himself is originating this as a conscious recommendation. I do not say this in disparagement of Fowler. The standard of English prose would improve greatly if more writers studied Fowler; he sits there on my desk right beside the Concise OED and Ambrose Bierce’s idiosyncratic “Write It Right.”
    – Jeff Morrow
    Commented Jun 5, 2022 at 1:42
0

You are asking a question about style rather than grammar.

Your two sentences mean the same thing.

The sentence including “which is” is typical of spoken English. When people speak, words are produced as the mind builds thoughts, typically in sequential fashion. (I have known, however, at least three brilliant people whose thoughts outraced their ability to string words together. They frequently strove for conciseness in speech and ended up sounding like idiots.) Most people thinking carefully do not originally produce succinct or even elegant prose. Moreover, people listening to speech need time to parse it for maximum understanding. The “which is” construction is natural and perfectly acceptable in speech and casual writing.

The modern style in writing prose places a high value on conciseness. The only higher value is clarity. If you want to be considered a modern writer of professional caliber, the adjectival phrase should be used more often than non-restrictive relative clauses. Of course, sprinkling in a few non-restrictive clauses avoids tedium in your prose. But style is partly a matter of subjective feeling and partly a matter of fashion. It is not a matter of right and wrong.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .