Taka  +  147228 Wed, 12 Oct 05 05:56 PM There must be something about the nature of light which makes it inevitable that it tries all paths, and then eliminates all but the briefest. I know it's hard to pin down, but, if anything, which does the relative pronoun 'which' refer to? (a) light (b) the nature (c) something Taka Joined on Tue, Sep 7 2004 Japan Senior Member 2,625 Nouns, Pronouns, Relative Pronouns

	davkett  +  147232 Wed, 12 Oct 05 06:22 PM First of all, 'which' should be 'that'.  From those three choices, I'd say (c).  'There's something that makes it inevitable that light tries all paths, etc.' davkett Joined on Tue, Jun 7 2005 Pennsylvania, USA Senior Member 2,788 "The rose stays fresh in its name..." -Bernard of Morlay

	Waïti  +  147234 Wed, 12 Oct 05 06:29 PM I would say (c) : something. And substantiating proof of this is that you could make it : 'About the nature of light : there must be something which makes it inevitable that it tries all paths, and then eliminates all but the briefest'. Have I convinced you with my tentative explanation ? Waïti Joined on Thu, Aug 25 2005 Regular Member 568

	Waïti  +  147235 Wed, 12 Oct 05 06:32 PM Thxs mister DavKett. Could you maybe remind us why it should be 'that' instead of 'which' ? I have a hunch but I'm still troubled 'coz to my ear both sounded fine... Thxs in advance ! Waïti

	davkett  +  147236 Wed, 12 Oct 05 06:43 PM Use 'that' for introducing a restrictive clause, and 'whic'h for a non-restrictive clause.  A 'which' clause is separated by commas. davkett Clauses, Commas

	Waïti  +  147240 Wed, 12 Oct 05 06:52 PM DavKett, allow me one last question for today... Restrictive vs non-restrictive clause : the subject of the subordinate clause would be the same (as that of the main clause) in the case of a restrictive clause, would be another one with a non-restrictive clause ? Is this a correct definition of restrictive/non-restrictive ? Pls pardon my ignorance, must be one of those grammar classes that I skipped Waïti Grammar, Clauses

	Jussive  +  147280 Wed, 12 Oct 05 10:27 PM  Waïti wrote: DavKett, allow me one last question for today... Restrictive vs non-restrictive clause : the subject of the subordinate clause would be the same (as that of the main clause) in the case of a restrictive clause, would be another one with a non-restrictive clause ? Is this a correct definition of restrictive/non-restrictive ? Pls pardon my ignorance, must be one of those grammar classes that I skipped The antecedent of a relative pronoun doesn't have to be the subject of the main clause: A) Methonal is a form of alcohol which is highly toxic. ( = methanol is highly toxic) B) Methanol is a form of alcohol, which is highly toxic. (= alcohol is highly toxic) Edited to add: I believe the distinction between that and which in defining and non-defining relative clauses is not strictly adhered to.   Jussive Joined on Sun, Sep 25 2005 Full Member 144 Grammar, Clauses, Nouns, Pronouns, Relative Pronouns

	MrPedantic  +  147301 Thu, 13 Oct 05 12:39 AM  Taka wrote: There must be something about the nature of light which makes it inevitable that it tries all paths, and then eliminates all but the briefest. I know it's hard to pin down, but, if anything, which does the relative pronoun 'which' refer to? (a) light (b) the nature (c) something It seems to me that the antecedent here is not any one word in particular, but an idea we must extract from the first clause: "an as yet unidentified characteristic of light".  "There must be a factor X which..." MrP MrPedantic Joined on Tue, Oct 12 2004 Veteran Member 12,592 ...opella forensis / adducit febris... Clauses, Nouns, Pronouns, Relative Pronouns