[Sweetcherrie]

I would definitely use the words in the first row.

Does that make me British Dutch or American Dutch?

[Venefyxatu]

Sweetcherrie, on Jan 24 2005, 10:52 PM, said:

I would definitely use the words in the first row.

Does that make me British Dutch or American Dutch?

That would make you British Dutch

I, too, try to use British English, whenever I realize that there is a difference of course
I do try to use American English when chatting to someone from the USA, and British English when chatting to someone from the UK, but there are so many words I don't even realize have a counterpart

Appy, that makes three of us - whoohoo!
Can I start saying that I'm the only Belgian around here now?

*wanders off, singing to himself, * Pass, the Dutchie on the left hand side ...

[Sweetcherrie]

I was hoping Mr Belgium that you were still ther but guess I was too late I have PMed you my question but I will post it here as well. (It is burning a whole in my tongue you see)

What exactly is the difference between that and which?
And when do I use these?

The fire that burned happily

or

The fire, which burned happily

It is actually word that gets me confused here because this program keeps suggesting me to use the opposite of what I have used.

*looks at her question for the last time with an utterly bewildered stare, mumbles "Yes that is about right," and runs back to the story she is writing*

This post has been edited by Sweetcherrie: 24 January 2005 - 11:15 PM

[Zadown]

If you are a British Dutch, remember to add the proper amount of 'u's into words:

Colour
Arumour

And most importantly:

Houuunouuuuuuuur

[Knight]

Huh? we spell Curb like that..

And Connexion?

I'm confused.

[Lady Celes Crusader]

When I do write in English, I mix both American and British spelling. So it'll be color, connection or grey. As long as I made myself understood, it's all that matters for me.

[Yui-chan]

Sweetcherrie, on Jan 24 2005, 06:14 PM, said:

What exactly is the difference between that and which?
And when do I use these?

The fire that burned happily

or

The fire, which burned happily

It is actually word that gets me confused here because this program keeps suggesting me to use the opposite of what I have used.

Dear Sweetcherrie,

While I'm not Mr. Belgium, I hope you won't mind if I take a moment to answer your question to the best of my knowledge. It's really not hard to answer because, functionally, there is no significant difference. When you are using 'that' and 'which' in your spoken English, they are considered interchangeable when it comes to meaning.

As for written English, you've already captured the difference between the two. The comma must be used to separate 'which' from the rest of the sentence, while there is no comma required for 'that'.**

As a rule, when writing, I use whichever of the two flows better with the sentence. After all, a comma indicates a pause in the sentence, so your examples are not read with the same cadence and flow to the words. I ask myself if the phrase I'm trying to add to the sentence needs to be called out (ie - highlighted to the reader with a pause before and after it) or should blend in to the sentence (ie - read smoothly as one thought instead of having any breaks between the words. In the former case, I use 'which'. In the latter, I use 'that'.

For example:

Quote

The fire that burned happily in the hearth lent an air of comfort and serenity to the tiny cottage, its warmth billowing out in translucent waves to banish the winter chill.

or

The fire, which burned happily in the hearth, seemed to reach out and draw me in, capturing my attention with the graceful dance of its flames and lulling my racing thoughts with the rhythmic pop-hiss of the fuel that fed its sheltered rage.

In the first, the fact that it burnt happily in the hearth was a natural part of the sentence, necessary because it helped draw a picture of the scene for the reader. The fact that it burned happily in the hearth was an integral part of the sentence because it clarifies whether this fire is in a stone circle at the center of the room or hungrily eating away at the kitchen draperies.

In the second example, though, the fact that the fire is actually in a hearth is really not critical to the sentence. You could get the same impression of what the sentence is trying to portray without actually knowing that the fire is in a hearth. Who cares if it's eating the draperies, as long as I know that it's mesmerizing the character?

Anyway, perhaps that's more of an answer than you wanted, but I hope it's a little helpful (and not too confusing). The very short version of all this, though, is "there's no difference".

Sincerely,
~Yui

** The reason for this is really quite technical and partly just grounded in convention, but suffice to say that 'that' is a different class of preposition in this case. The phrase it creates is intended to blend in with the rest of the sentence while a phrase beginning with 'which' is designed to stand out from the sentence.

[Sweetcherrie]

Thank you for your explanation, which was very clear and understandable.

*Hugs*

This post has been edited by Sweetcherrie: 25 January 2005 - 01:47 PM

[Venefyxatu]

I was indeed no longer around, and when I saw your PM this morning I didn't have the time to respond. That did give me the opportunity to visit the library in school to look it up, though, although I see I'm too late

After some searching I did find that there's a grammatical difference between them, but by adding anything to Yui's explanation I would only make things complicated

Mr. Belgium, eh? Hmmm ... looks like I finally found a title to put under my name

[Lady Celes Crusader]

Yui: That is a very interesting explanation. Let's see if anyone can come up with another subtlety of the English language, or any other tongue.

[Katzaniel]

Ack! No time to read all the responses here, but the words in the first row correspond to Canadian spelling, which is a mix of both. I might be wrong about the Canadian spelling of "connection/connexion" but I'm certain about the others.

If you were 100% British English you'd use kerb, colour, grey, connexion. If you were 100% American English you'd use curb, color, gray, connection. But like Celes said, use either because people will know what you mean. I was just curious.

Also, the British call the second floor the first floor (That is, they have Main, First, Second where us North Americans use First, Second, Third). Actually I think there's proper names that apply to both (Mezzanine?) but I can't remember those.

I love the differences!

[Lady Celes Crusader]

In French-Canadian, we called the the floors like the following: Rez-de-chaussée (Main), Premier étage (as in Brits' first floor), etc. In fact, it's like the Brits.

[Mardrax]

I'll be a latecomer here as well then, in reporting my dutchness, to which I'll then add my status as being the only native dutch speaker on here (that I know of anyway) currently residing IN the Netherlands

As for using English language, I go along with whatever my automations tell me to. Wether it's British, US, Canadian or even South African English... I frankly couldn't care much less. As far as I'm concerned, every person speaks the language he has learned to speak, with his own quirks in using it compared to the way it's "supposed" to be used. Who is anyone to tell someone the language he uses isn't correct?

And to top it off, as far as floors are concerned, dutchies stick to the British way (begane grond, 1e verdieping, etc)

This post has been edited by Mardrax: 25 September 2006 - 06:48 PM

[AshtonBlades]

I'm stationed in Britain right now, and I must say that both dialects of English are similar, but very different at the same. I agree with Mardrax, although the floor systen can be confusing at times...