On Friday, 2 February 2018 00:04:07 GMT Neil Bothwick wrote: > On Thu, 01 Feb 2018 23:39:13 +0000, Peter Humphrey wrote: > > > > The Romans were very practical people who didn't waste time or > > > > effort, but got on with the job & built an empire which lasted 500 > > > > years . > > > > > > built an empire THAT lasted 500 years > > > > Nope. Philip was right the first time. They built an empire, and it > > lasted 500 years. Your version implies that they built an empire that > > lasted 500 years, as distinct from one that didn't. > > In that case the which should be preceded by a comma,
The comma has become optional with developing usage. Otherwise, we agree. > ... as that part of the sentence is optional, only adding extra detail. > However, here the fact that the empire lasted 500 years is the point and > should be included in the main statement with that. That's a matter of opinion. If true, it should be handled by recasting the sentence so as not to rely on such a fine distinction, which would most likely be missed. > The rule of thumb I was taught is that if you can dispense with the > second part without significantly changing the meaning, use which, > otherwise use that. I agree. You haven't consulted Fowler though, I see. (Drat! Where's my copy when I need it?) He says the difference is whether we have a defining clause. If what follows actually defines the subject of the sentence, use "that". Otherwise it's "which". I spent many hours editing programmers' documents in the '80s and '90s (in my spare time between assembler and Fortran programs), and this was a major sticking point. As I said to one of those young men, "which" in this context could often be understood as "and it". I stand by that still. > Since the 500 years is crucial, the latter applies. As I said, the construction is poor. -- Regards, Peter.
