-1

Does the use of WHICH and THAT sometimes overlap or is it that only WHICH fits in certain cases, and only THAT in others?

To clarify my question, consider this sentence:

Osho organized an order of his followers, which admitted Christians as well as Hindus.

And its other version:

Osho organized an order of his followers that admitted Christians as well as Hindus.

In the first sentence I am merely adding extra information about the 'order', whereas in the second I am identifying the order, i.e., the order (which/that?) admitted both Christians as well as Hindus.

So strictly speaking, it appears to be more of a choice here between THAT and WHICH.

Improve this question
5
  • 2
    The phrase "both Christians as well as Hindus" is wrong. It should be either "both Christians and Hindus" or just "Christians as well as Hindus". ("Both Christians as well as Hindus" could be correct, but only if you were talking about two specific Christian individuals, and the order admitted those two people as well as Hindus.)
    – rjpond
    Commented Aug 23, 2020 at 16:37
  • @rjpond Why is that?
    – user120390
    Commented Aug 23, 2020 at 16:46
  • 2
    There are two ways that the word "both" can be used. (1) It can be used on its own, or preceding a noun, or after a pronoun, or before "of". E.g. "I like both"; "I like them both"; "I like both of them". It implies that two people or two things or two sets of people/things are being referred to. (2) You can use "both ... and ..." to combine two people or two things or two sets, e.g. "both Christians and Hindus". In your example, there is no "and", so the first meaning of "both" comes into play and forces the term "Christians" to refer to only two people.
    – rjpond
    Commented Aug 23, 2020 at 16:52
  • Now that I have edited the question, would you please answer my main question as well? :)
    – user120390
    Commented Aug 23, 2020 at 17:22
  • Very well - I have attempted an answer.
    – rjpond
    Commented Aug 23, 2020 at 17:51

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2

(1) Osho organized an order of his followers, which admitted both Christians and Hindus.

(2) Osho organized an order of his followers that admitted both Christians and Hindus.

These sentences are both correct. My intuition is that (1) is more likely to be applicable, but there are circumstances where (2) could work better. As you surmised, there is a difference of emphasis. "Which" usually[*] gives you more information about the thing that's been mentioned, while "that" introduces a restrictive relative clause that defines or restricts the scope of the item referred to.

([*]Some people use "which" for both types of relative clause, leaving the distinction between the two down to whether a comma is present, and whether the author has punctuated correctly. On the other hand, it is definitely non-standard to use "that" for both. "That" should always be used restrictively.)

The use of "that" in (2) might suggest that he organised more than one (and this one admitted both Christians and Hindus) or that he had previously organised one that didn't admit both. ("Osho had initially organised a Hindu-only order. But later he was to organise an order of his followers that admitted both Christians and Hindus.") Alternatively, it might just highlight the surprising nature of the new information. ("Osho was believed by some people to be anti-Hindu. But he organised an order of his followers that admitted both Christians and Hindus.")

Improve this answer
0

You must log in to answer this question.