Relative pronouns: который vs. кто/что

Hi everyone, is there a rule about when you should use the relative pronoun который, vs the relative pronoun кто or что? For example, it seems that in a phrase like "Женшина, с которой я познокомилась" you could easily replace it with "Женшина, с кем я познокомилась". or "Книга, которю я читала" could be replaced with "Книга, которю я читала". Would any of the above forms be correct? Or is there a rule dictating when one should use который vs. кто/что?

Спасибо заранее!

It looks the same for me. Both are right, both have the same meaning. These words looks like synonyms in that meaning.
Книга, что я читала. Книга, которую я читала.
Человек, с кем я познакомился. Человек, с которым я познакомился.
Но. Человек, что мне знаком, умен.

basically что, какой and so on subjugate a dependent clause to a principal clause. But these words may have other meanings (i think you can find it in dictionaries).

Also.
Ах, что за погода! и Ах, какая погода!
May have the same meanings, depending on intonation (this example requires happy one =).

Quote:

---

Женщина, с кем я познакомилась

---

sounds a bit awkward

Quote:

---

"Книга, которую я читала" could be replaced with "Книга, которую я читала"

---

sound a bit the same.

It's safer to use который in these cases.

BTW if you are native English speaker, can you explain the situation with:
A woman, which I met.
A woman that I met.
A woman, whom I met.

For me the situation seems perfectly symmetric in Rus and Eng. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by it-ogo

BTW if you are native English speaker, can you explain the situation with:
A woman, which I met.
A woman that I met.
A woman, whom I met.

---

The first sentence sounds odd to me. Generally we don't use "which" when the noun-antecedent is a human person -- only for animals or inanimate objects. And we don't use "who" for non-humans*. But "that" can be used with any antecedent -- human, animal, or inanimate. Thus, all of the following are okay:

A woman whom I saw. (but not "which")
A dog/table which I saw. (but not "whom")
A woman/dog/table that I saw.

When the antecedent is "woman," you can use either "whom" or "that", as far as the rules of grammar are concerned. Sometimes, there may be stylistic reasons to choose "who" instead of "that," but then it's a question of aesthetics, not grammar.

But it can get confusing if the antecedent is "dog" or "table" -- because in formal grammar, "that" is nearly always permissible, but "which" is sometimes incorrect. Mind you, even well-educated English speakers often ignore these traditional grammar rules, and use "which" and "that" interchangeably, because we can't remember when "which" is allowed and when "which" is not allowed. (If you want a more detailed explanation of when to use "which" and when to use "that," feel free to ask. But the short and simple answer is: When in doubt, use "that".)

* However, NB that the possessive whose can be used for humans and non-humans alike: "The planetoid Charon, whose surface is probably frozen methane..." is completely correct even in formal literary language.

P.S. Oops, I just thought of one example where my "when in doubt, use that" rule-of-thumb doesn't work -- when the antecedent is a proper noun, such as "John" or "Mrs. Smith" or "the HMS Titanic" or "Ukraine" or "my dog Spot," etc. In such constructions, "John" and "Mrs. Smith" and "Spot" would take who, while "Ukraine" and "Titanic" would take which:

"I have a dog named Spot, who loves to eat his own poop"
"I have a dog that loves to eat his own poop"

Quote:

---

"I have a dog that loves to eat his own poop"

---

Interesting. I heard another explanation of "which vs that", like "which" adds unnecessary information to an object, while "that" selects the object from the range of all possible similar objects.

Here's a couple of examples:
A dog that eats poop is at greatest risk of infection with worms. (Only that kind of a dog is in danger, othere dogs are safe)
A dog, which eats poop, is at greatest risk of infection with worms. (Any dog is at the risk, because all dogs eat poop)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Throbert McGee

P.S. Oops, I just thought of one example where my "when in doubt, use that" rule-of-thumb doesn't work -- when the antecedent is a proper noun, such as "John" or "Mrs. Smith" or "the HMS Titanic" or "Ukraine" or "my dog Spot," etc. In such constructions, "John" and "Mrs. Smith" and "Spot" would take who, while "Ukraine" and "Titanic" would take which:

"I have a dog named Spot, who loves to eat his own poop"
"I have a dog that loves to eat his own poop"

---

Looks like medved's rule works well here.

Quote:

---

"which" adds unnecessary information to an object, while "that" selects the object from the range of all possible similar objects

---

Rephrasing: "I have one of the dogs that love to eat their own poop"

Will the phrase "I have one of the dogs who love to eat their own poop" be also acceptable?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Throbert McGee

But it can get confusing if the antecedent is "dog" or "table" -- because in formal grammar, "that" is nearly always permissible, but "which" is sometimes incorrect. Mind you, even well-educated English speakers often ignore these traditional grammar rules, and use "which" and "that" interchangeably, because we can't remember when "which" is allowed and when "which" is not allowed. (If you want a more detailed explanation of when to use "which" and when to use "that," feel free to ask. But the short and simple answer is: When in doubt, use "that".)

---

It's the other way round in Russian. When in doubt, use "который". "Кто"/"что" can be permissible but stylistically incorrect.