Talk:which
The recently popular "introductory which" isn't covered. What is which here, a conjunction?--2.204.230.210 13:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- This is now pretty common usage in certain dialects in my experience. I often hear what are essentially relative clauses formed with which, but with the pronoun that which should replace still present, e.g. "I saw that movie, which, it was really good" even when no rephrasing would be necessary to make the sentence grammatical without the redundant pronoun. I think it should be added as a conjunction, but should it be two separate additions (an entry as a conjunction covering cases like "..., which, awesome!", as well as a modification to pronoun sense 2, covering relative clauses with redundant pronouns) or as one addition (an entry as a conjunction covering both of those cases)? --Markus031098 (talk) 20:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
the which ⇒ archaic a longer form of which, often used as a sentence connector https://www.wordreference.com/definition/which
--Backinstadiums (talk) 16:24, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Restrictive or not?
">edit]"In modern UK usage, The song which made the charts in 2004 is better than the later ones is generally accepted without question."
I can just about agree (almost, but not really). It's not a good example, however, because it almost certainly probably might have meant to be The song, which made the charts in 2004, is better than the later ones – not restrictive at all. I would be bold and change it but... this is something that isn't even a rule. Maybe the general rule is: if you can use "that" instead of "which", you must punctuate as if you were using "that" (which means you omit the comma before "which" unless you'd have one before "that", which you wouldn't unless you tried very hard). And if you can't use "that" instead of "which", you'd need a good reason not to be using a comma before "which" (which is always true anyway, if you ask me).--GrounderUK (talk) 23:40, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
(relative, archaic)
Fowler's Modern reads WHICH referring to people, now only dialectal except in speaking of people in a body --Backinstadiums (talk) 10:50, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
what for when the clause or sentence it refers to follows
When the clause or sentence it refers to follows, writers must use what:
Still, he has not said he will withdraw, which is more surprising vs Still, what is more surprising, he has not said he will --Backinstadiums (talk) 10:47, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
RFD discussion: January 2022
The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process (permalink).
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
RFD noun sense "An occurrence of the word which". We don't list these, do we? Mihia (talk) 22:17, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- I feel like it's safe to speedy. DAVilla 22:26, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- I remember we had a discussion some time back (in relation to selah) that such senses should not be included. — SGconlaw (talk) 05:31, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- Deleted sense Br00pVain (talk) 22:38, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Should the plural from whiches also be deleted? J3133 (talk) 05:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- IMO yes, since we no longer include a pluralisable sense of which. Mihia (talk) 10:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- Plural form deleted. — SGconlaw (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- IMO yes, since we no longer include a pluralisable sense of which. Mihia (talk) 10:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
"of which" with personal referent
You often hear (I think especially in American English, but maybe also British) "which" used of people in cases where a preposition can't be stranded, as in: "There were ten guys, half of which were fat." I'd imagine this is done to avoid "of whom", which sounds too formal, as well as "of who", which sounds too informal. 88.64.225.53 16:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)