Anonymous  +  227757 Mon, 22 May 06 10:18 AM all 'that' you want you can have. why is that sentence not correct when 'that' is substituted for 'which' as far as i know, when we refer to things they are interchangeable. please! incho Anonymous

	Philip  +  227807 Mon, 22 May 06 03:42 PM  Anonymous wrote: all 'that' you want you can have. why is that sentence not correct when 'that' is substituted for 'which' as far as i know, when we refer to things they are interchangeable. please! incho Someone may come up with a source that differs from my point of view, but to me they are interchangeable.  I would use "that" in this case, but I cannot give you a good reason for that preference.  I think that I might use "which" to be more emphatic.  "The book that I read last week was really interesting" ----- "The book which I told you to read was very interesting" (but you didn't read it - and it might even be set off by commas in written form to indicate the possible admonition. Just to add to the confusion, you can write/say the sentence without either. Philip Joined on Thu, Jun 23 2005 Veteran Member 8,604 At reise er at leve! - H. C. Andersen Commas

	Ant_222  +  227874 Mon, 22 May 06 08:59 PM As I am concerned, «that» is used with a descriptive clause, while «which» — with an indicative one. «I have a book _that_ was published 1941» Here a property of the book is emphasized. «Is «The Elements of Thought» that book about _which_ you told me?» Here the book itself is in question. Ant_222 Joined on Sun, May 21 2006 Podolsk, Russia Contributing Member 1,716 Clauses

	Grammar Geek  +  227963 Tue, 23 May 06 05:02 AM This forum has covered the topic of THAT and WHICH in depth. That is restrictive and and tells the reader which one you mean. The book that you recommended, All the items that are on the table, the table that has the scratch on the leg, the house that has the pretty fountain. Which provides additional information and the clause is set off by commas. I've added to the additional information here. The book [which you told me to read, by the way] was very good. All the items [which are still on the table, because the wind didn't blow them off] are for sale. The table [which had a scratch on the leg, but I didn't mind] was only $50. They are not interchangeable. It may be moving in that direction and in another 20 years the distinction will be gone, but it's still there now.   Grammar Geek Joined on Tue, Jan 10 2006 Veteran Member 19,506 Barbara, who answers in American English. My housekeeping skills attest to the truth of the second law of thermodynamics: Left to themselves, things get more and more random! Clauses, Commas

	CalifJim  +  227982 Tue, 23 May 06 06:29 AM That is restrictive and and tells the reader which one you mean. ... Which provides additional information and the clause is set off by commas. So it is your contention that which is always non-restrictive and always requires the commas associated with non-restrictive clauses? CJ CalifJim Joined on Mon, Aug 2 2004 California Veteran Member 22,128 "There are no facts, only interpretations" - Nietzsche Clauses, Commas

	CalifJim  +  227990 Tue, 23 May 06 07:12 AM all 'that' you want you can have. why is that sentence not correct when 'that' is substituted for 'which' All which you want you can have is grammatically correct.  Who says it is not? As a matter of actual practice, which is no more than linguistic habit, we almost always prefer to say all that you want (or all you want) instead of all which you want.  This has nothing to do with the grammar of that and which and everything to do with speaker preferences.  I suspect the same preference exists for that after all indefinite pronouns -- not just all. CJ See also the following posts.  The last one cited contains a reference to the "dictatorial Yanqui machine" which is particularly amusing. Post:39502 Post:56923 Post:147980 Post:96008 Post:58361 Post:20553 CalifJim Grammar, Nouns, Pronouns