Printable View
2) относ. which (об одушевленных и неодушевленных предметах); who (о людях); that (с ограничительным значением) человек, который только что ушел — the man who just left книга, которую вы мне одолжили — the book that/which you lent me
the book that/which (??) you lent me
Такое ощущение, что "that" встречается намного чаще, чем "which".
which (об одушевленных и неодушевленных предметах)
"which" о людях вообще нельзя ? Только "who"?
You know, I think you'd be safe saying only "that" when you would say который. But the problem is that I don't know when you're supposed to say "the man that" and "the man which." Waxwing, scotcher, old pals, what's the rule here?
AFAIK
Most simply, 'who' is used for people, 'that' and 'which' are used for everything else, the former in restricted clauses, the latter in unrestricted clauses (an unrestricted clause is that one that can be removed without affecting the sentence structure or meaning, so obviously a restricted clause is the opposite)
например:
'The car that I drove today was really fast.'
"... that I drove today...' is a restrictive clause, because it is essential to the meaning of the sentence. Without it, there would be an ambiguity (you wouldn't know which car I was talking about).
"John's red Ferrari, which I drove yesterday, is really fast"
"... which I drove yesterday..." is an unrestrictive clause, because it only provides supplementary information, and you could delete it without altering the core meaning of the sentence.
However, these rules aren't hard-and-fast. "That' can generally be used in place of 'who' when refering to people in restricted clauses:
"The people who/ that were here yesterday were Russian." (restrictive)
but
"John's children, who were here yeasterday, are Russian." (unrestrictive).
Similarly, "which" can be used with restrictive clauses, because the presence of the comma preceding the clause is enough to avoid ambiguity anyway.
So, as far as I can see, the only hard-and-fast rules left are...
You can't use "which" to refer to people;
"Who" can only refer to people;
You can only use "that" in restrictive clauses.
Anything else is potentially legitimate.
There might be more to it than that, but that's all I can remember.
You learn something every day about your own language! Thanks, scotcher.
Assuming that it's at all accurate, you're welcome :)
(I already noticed one mistake, hence the edit)
Thank you very much for your explanation.
Похоже, в русском языке есть похожее правило: “тот, который”, “тот, что”.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Эту посылку принес человек, который приходил сегодня утром.
В предложении сообщается о факте прихода и о том, что приходивший человек принес посылку.
Слушающий собеседник может знать о факте прихода, а может и не знать.
A restricted clause
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Эту посылку принес человек, что приходил сегодня утром.
Собеседникам до этого разговора уже известно, кто именно приходил. В этом предложении указывается, что именно этот (уже известный собеседникам) человек принес посылку.
An unrestrictive clause
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A restricted clause – that (A restricted clause (rus) - “тот, который”).
An unrestrictive clause - which (An unrestrictive clause (rus) - “тот, что”).
FL, your conclusion is incorrect
These things would seem to both translate the same in Russian, but they have totally different meanings:
Women who are bad drivers cause accidents.
Women, who are bad drivers, cause accidents.
Fortunately, AFAIK, there are no women here, so I won't be flamed for the second,
Please, can a native speaker tell me how you would really render these two sentences in Russian?
ничего нетпонятно.. я ламер в англиском ... :cry:
They do can be translated the same way, for example, like this: "Женщины, которые плохо водят, становятся причиной аварий." but there's an unambiguous way too:Quote:
Originally Posted by chaika
"Те женщины, которые плохо водят, становятся причиной аварий." (the first meaning)
"Женщины, будучи плохими водителями, становятся причиной аварий." (the second meaning)
:o :lol:Quote:
Fortunately, AFAIK, there are no women here...
Women who are bad drivers cause accidents.
Все женщины это плохие водители и являются причиной аварий.
An unrestrictive clause
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Women, who are bad drivers, cause accidents.
Те женщины, которые плохие водители, являются причиной аварий.
A restrictive clause
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Так?
Или, судя по посту Friendy, нужно наоборот?
Где с запятыми и где без запятых?
No, I believe it's naoborot.Quote:
Originally Posted by FL
What scotcher called "restricted/unrestricted" clauses, I was taught as "defining/non-defining relative clauses". I prefer this name, because it seems more descriptive.
To repeat his explanation, a non-defining relative clause is one which can be removed without affecting the meaning of the main clause. It's just additional information.
So, as I understand it:
--------------------------
1.
Те женщины, которые плохие водители, являются причиной аварий.
= Those women who are bad drivers cause accidents.
= Women who are bad drivers cause accidents.
=Defining relative clause (без запятых)
If we remove the clause "who are bad drivers" the meaning is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT - it becomes the same as the example below:
2.
Все женщины это плохие водители и являются причиной аварий.
= All women are bad drivers and cause accidents.
=Women, who are bad drivers, cause accidents.
=Non-defining relative clause (с запятых).
The phrase "who are bad drivers" just provides ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, the meaning of the main clause is added to, but not changed.
Hope it helps.
Hmm, come to think of it "restricted" is a pretty good word for it. :D
Friendy, the next time I'm in Moscow I'll have to take you out to dinner to make up for that slip!
Scotcher, you missed on this
>"Who" can only refer to people;
as in: The company whose treasurer absconded with the payroll has fallen into bankruptcy.
Опля! Maybe you really only meant "who" and not "whose." Don't tell me it's so.
No, no, wait! I can't say it on this side of the Atlantic, but can't y'all say "IBM, who are offering special pricing on new laptops...."
IBM are people too .. ? Reportedly.
It's quite interesting to think which of these you'd prefer:
The British government, who are currently considering entry to the Eurozone ..
The British government, which is currently considering entry to the Eurozone...
I think the second sounds a bit better, right? Maybe a lot better.
But "IBM, which is..." vs "IBM, who are .." is not so clear.
Thanks for your responding. It is very informative.
I think the following sounds better:
The British government, which is currently considering entry to the Eurozone...
IBM, which is offering special pricing on new laptops...."
On the other hand:
The people of the British government, who are currently considering..."
The sales forces of IBM, which are offering special pricing..."
My reasoning is based on singular vs. plural:
"The British government" and "IBM" are single entities and therefore should use "which is".
"people" is the plural of "person" and therefore should use "who are".
"sales forces" is the plural of "sales force" and therefore should use "which are".
He, who is ...
She, who is ...
It, which is ...
They, who are ...
Those things, which are ...
http://www.grammarbook.com/grammar/whoVwhVt.asp
I think this is a helpful link for some concise grammar explanations.