Language desk
< January 27	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 28[edit]

Defining clause - use "which" or "that"?[edit]

Fundamentalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The term "fundamentalism" has roots in the Niagara Bible Conference (1878–1897), which defined those tenets which it considered fundamental to Christian belief.
Is the use of "[tenets] which" incorrect here? Should it be changed to "that"? Elizium23 (talk) 04:45, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would definitely change it. Or omit the word entirely. Anything but "which". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you consider it incorrect? Is this bad advice? Elizium23 (talk) 05:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a standard usage of "which", but some people consider it an error and some consider it inferior style. --142.112.149.107 (talk) 05:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My main problem with it is that it is very clunky since there is another "which" earlier in the sentence. --Khajidha (talk) 15:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Elizium23: Like Jack of Oz, the second "which" should be "that" or removed, particularly if you're not using a comma to give another level of subordination. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tenryuu, [citation needed] Elizium23 (talk) 05:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elizium23, provided. The question is are you talking about a certain set of tenets in particular, or tenets that happen to also be considered fundamental? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And ... why in the name of sweet Jesus would you consider "prowritingaid.com" a suitable source? Henry ^Flower 08:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Especially when we have a Wikipedia article on this.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The point I'm trying to make is that using "which" does not define any particular object; it provides extra information. The use of it without a comma is to the best of my knowledge, not formal. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I avoid using "which" in such cases, not because I think it is incorrect, but because others (in particular referees of papers submitted for publication) may protest and tell me to go which-hunting. --Lambiam 13:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of those things that American grammar peevers get terribly upset about, isn't it. I find the sentence completely unexceptionable. --ColinFine (talk) 15:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Much ado, which or that? A lot of effort involved in picking a word for a sentence, a sentence that really needs to be rewritten. Which or that? Look at the big picture, some sentences cry out to be revised. This is one which demands it. (Or is it "This is one that demands it?) Osomite ^hablemos 20:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most definitely that. Maybe it's just my own way of doing things, but it works. For relative clauses involving non-humans I use "that" for restricted and ", which ...," (note the parenthetical commas) for unrestricted. "The table that stood in the corner had one leg short", vs. "The table, which stood in the corner, had one leg short". For humans it's "who" in both cases, or "whom" if it's a passive clause. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's my impression that restrictive use of which is more common in British English than in American English today and certainly was common in British English of the past (in Dickens, for example). As I wrote back in 2013 in a ref desk thread on this topic, "Though, as an American who has worked as a copyeditor, I unthinkingly observe the restrictive/nonrestrictive usage of that and which in my own writing, I'm familiar enough with literature from across the pond that the restrictive use of which doesn't bother me at all. It certainly has extensive historical precedent, and there are plenty of examples of it in Wikipedia, which I tend to barely notice." Deor (talk)

Yes, Americans seem to use "that" far more than necessary. The sentence OP asked about would sound wrong to my British eyes if which were replaced by that. DuncanHill (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't jack[edit]

In Huey's "Tell Me This (G-5)" what does "jack" mean in "Nah nigga, don't jack, that's for your safety"? As expected, dictionary shows a gazillion meanings for that verb. Thanks. Brandmeister^talk 20:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a larger context to that statement? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possibilities include: – to stab or punch, – to steal, or – to lift someone up, and, sometimes, to press that person against a supporting structure. Can occur in altercations. [1] 2603:6081:1C00:1187:DC5F:A057:A4EC:E7E4 (talk) 21:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For my sins I watched it as far as that line. Immediately before it he's singing approvingly about cars, so I would think he is warning listeners not to [car-] jack a car to get one. I.e. it means to steal, in particular to steal a car, in this context.2A00:23C8:4588:B01:A480:2BB1:6116:54B0 (talk) 02:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are forgiven, my son/daughter. Unless you support Trump; then it's the eternal flames for you. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:04, 29 January 2021 (UTC) [reply]

And we have an article about carjacking. --Jayron 32 12:08, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary lists a noun jacking, meaning a street robbery. --Lambiam 21:42, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary:jack also has "Verb: 4. (transitive, colloquial) To steal something, typically an automobile. Shortened form of carjacking. Someone jacked my car last night!".

It also lists for "jack" (by my count) 38 definitions for a noun, 8 as a verb and one as an adjective, as well as numerous derivations. Is this a record? Alansplodge (talk) 15:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your doubtless rhetorical question, far from it: wikt:set gives 64 definitions as a verb, 20 as a noun, and 7 as an adjective. --Antiquary (talk) 16:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As our article on the OED says, "The longest entry in the OED2 was for the verb set, which required 60,000 words to describe some 430 senses. As entries began to be revised for the OED3 in sequence starting from M, the longest entry became make in 2000, then put in 2007, then run in 2011." I recently read an article saying that run is still on track to become the longest entry in the 3rd ed. Deor (talk) 17:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both, I thought somebody would know. Alansplodge (talk) 19:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sad. I was once led to believe that 'jack' held the record, meaning that I was all things to all men. Now it seems I am merely most things to most men, which doesn't have quite the same cachet. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC) [reply]

A jack of most trades... :-) Alansplodge (talk) 11:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Belated links: Polysemy and Homonymy. Pansemy has no article because, well, what use would a pansemous word be? You're well out of it, Jack. --Antiquary (talk) 12:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It smurfs the smurf of any smurf, so it has a lot of smurf. --Lambiam 18:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wise words, Lambiam, wise words. --Antiquary (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]