The difference is between restrictive and nonrestrictive intention. "That" restricts or makes the antecedent more specific. "Which" does not.
Examples:
I drank the milk that was in the refrigerator. (In other words, I didn't drink the milk that was on the counter.)
The milk from CostCo, which had been in the refrigerator for two weeks, began to spoil. (You are not trying to further identify or "restrict" the milk. The identity of the the milk is not in question.)
Does this make sense?
Your intuition was right about that train to San Francisco, but you could imagine a nonrestrictive usage as well. Imagine this scenario:
"I was so distraught I didn't care where I my next stop would be. I asked the ticket agent to choose the destination for me. He gave me a ticket and directed me to Track 10, where a train was waiting. At 10 PM I boarded the train, which was headed for San Francisco."
Here the dependent clause in the last sentence is not restricting or clarifying the identity of the train.
Additionally, as you can see from MoHoHawaii's post, nonrestrictive clauses are separated by commas. (The milk from CostCo, which had been in the refrigerator for two weeks, began to spoil.)
Restrictive clauses do not use commas. (I drank the milk that was in the refrigerator.)
So, if you wanted to say the latter sentence in your post, you'd have to phrase it: "I got on the train, which was going to San Francisco." The fact that the train is going to San Francisco in this case is just an aside...extra information...because the identity of the train is not in question.
However, with the former sentence, "the train that was going to San Francisco" is not divided by commas because the fact that the train is going to San Francisco is necessary to identify the particular train.
The difference is between restrictive and nonrestrictive intention. "That" restricts or makes the antecedent more specific. "Which" does not.
ReplyDeleteExamples:
I drank the milk that was in the refrigerator. (In other words, I didn't drink the milk that was on the counter.)
The milk from CostCo, which had been in the refrigerator for two weeks, began to spoil. (You are not trying to further identify or "restrict" the milk. The identity of the the milk is not in question.)
Does this make sense?
Your intuition was right about that train to San Francisco, but you could imagine a nonrestrictive usage as well. Imagine this scenario:
"I was so distraught I didn't care where I my next stop would be. I asked the ticket agent to choose the destination for me. He gave me a ticket and directed me to Track 10, where a train was waiting. At 10 PM I boarded the train, which was headed for San Francisco."
Here the dependent clause in the last sentence is not restricting or clarifying the identity of the train.
Additionally, as you can see from MoHoHawaii's post, nonrestrictive clauses are separated by commas. (The milk from CostCo, which had been in the refrigerator for two weeks, began to spoil.)
ReplyDeleteRestrictive clauses do not use commas. (I drank the milk that was in the refrigerator.)
So, if you wanted to say the latter sentence in your post, you'd have to phrase it: "I got on the train, which was going to San Francisco." The fact that the train is going to San Francisco in this case is just an aside...extra information...because the identity of the train is not in question.
However, with the former sentence, "the train that was going to San Francisco" is not divided by commas because the fact that the train is going to San Francisco is necessary to identify the particular train.