This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential to the operation of the site, while others help to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used. For more information, please see the ProZ.com privacy policy.
Cookie settings
highlight the main features
I swallowed a lobster...
Jun 21, 2014 18:56
9 yrs ago
English term

"...a squirrel feeder which has been sitting around unused for years"

Non-PRO English Social Sciences General / Conversation / Greetings / Letters Test running a theory
The above relative clause is quite grammatical and standard English, I assume .
Responses
4 +2 Yes
Change log

Jun 21, 2014 21:24: Peter Simon changed "Level" from "PRO" to "Non-PRO"

Jun 22, 2014 08:14: writeaway changed "Field (specific)" from "Art, Arts & Crafts, Painting" to "General / Conversation / Greetings / Letters"

Votes to reclassify question as PRO/non-PRO:

PRO (1): acetran

Non-PRO (3): Trudy Peters, Tony M, Peter Simon

When entering new questions, KudoZ askers are given an opportunity* to classify the difficulty of their questions as 'easy' or 'pro'. If you feel a question marked 'easy' should actually be marked 'pro', and if you have earned more than 20 KudoZ points, you can click the "Vote PRO" button to recommend that change.

How to tell the difference between "easy" and "pro" questions:

An easy question is one that any bilingual person would be able to answer correctly. (Or in the case of monolingual questions, an easy question is one that any native speaker of the language would be able to answer correctly.)

A pro question is anything else... in other words, any question that requires knowledge or skills that are specialized (even slightly).

Another way to think of the difficulty levels is this: an easy question is one that deals with everyday conversation. A pro question is anything else.

When deciding between easy and pro, err on the side of pro. Most questions will be pro.

* Note: non-member askers are not given the option of entering 'pro' questions; the only way for their questions to be classified as 'pro' is for a ProZ.com member or members to re-classify it.

Discussion

Jenni Lukac (X) Jun 22, 2014:
Just a few examples of "sitting / lying around:Michelangelo: A Tormented Life
books.google.es/books?isbn=0745640052 -
Antonio Forcellino - 2009 - ‎Art
... however, demanded an amendment to the contract once he had shown what he was capable of doing with that block of marble that had been lying around for ...The Schocken Book of Modern Sephardic Literature
books.google.es/books?isbn=030749053X -
Ilan Stavans - 2010 - ‎Fiction
Yes, even an old newspaper that had been lying around. The Dirty Life - Resultado de la Búsqueda de libros de Google
books.google.es/books?isbn=1846273714 -
Kristin Kimball - 2011 - ‎Biography & Autobiography
He had heard we were interested in draft horses, and he'd brought some equipment that had been sitting around his place too long, some good-looking collars ..The Typewriter Satyr: A Novel
books.google.es/books?isbn=0299229904 -
Dwight Allen - 2009 - ‎Fiction
... why he couldn't have golfed with the desiccated pearl onions that had been sitting around the kitchen since the previous Thanksgiving,
Charles Davis Jun 22, 2014:
@ Morten It's an ingenious idea!
Morten Olesen (asker) Jun 22, 2014:
In total agreement there, Davis. However, using that, perhaps subconsciously, I might point to the fact that if I had mounted a feeder earlier, I would have had same squirrel visiting much more frequently and thus have had the enjoyment of his antics. Too far fetched...? :-))
Charles Davis Jun 22, 2014:
It is often said that the test of whether to use which or that is whether the relative could be omitted without altering the basic meaning of the sentence. If it could, it is non-restrictive. Here, it could. The squirrel is spoilt for choice as we have mounted a nut-filled squirrel feeder. That is the basic meaning. The rest is just giving you some extra information about the particular squirrel feeder they used.

This points to "which".

The age of the feeder has no bearing on the choice available to the squirrel.
Charles Davis Jun 22, 2014:
I would say it is non-restrictive; it is surely referring to a feeder, which (by the way) has been sitting around for years. It is not saying that they used a feeder that fulfilled that condition, choosing it in preference to one that didn't.

That being so, I would say that "which" is definitely correct. I wouldn't say "that" is wrong, or at least I am quite sure that many native speakers would use it, but it certainly isn't preferable, in my opinion.

As for the comma, I think it's optional. I don't subscribe to the view that "which" must always be preceded by a comma.
Jenni Lukac (X) Jun 22, 2014:
Your sentence sounds fine to me. Lucky squirrel!
Morten Olesen (asker) Jun 22, 2014:
"He is spoilt for choice as we have mounted a nut-filled squirrel feeder that has been sitting around unused for years." This is what I wrote as I wish to emphasize the unused aspect. But might as well have added a comma and chosen which to make a non-restrictive clause. I have mounted no squirrel feeders apart from the unused one, which perhaps makes the use of a restrictive "that " ungrammatical, strictly speaking...?
writeaway Jun 22, 2014:
that in US English too I sometimes hear that UK English uses which where US uses that. Imo there's no difference between the two. I would have used 'that' in this case.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/words/that-or-which
http://www.getitwriteonline.com/archive/103103whichthat.htm
http://www.writersdigest.com/online-editor/which-vs-that
Charles Davis Jun 22, 2014:
which or that I see that earlier in the discussion Morten tells us it is a restrictive clause; in other words, this refers to a squirrel feeder that has been sitting around unused for years as opposed to a squirrel feeder that hasn't. So yes, it should be "that". I have to say I find this surprising, since I would say it is unusual for a clause like "has been sitting around for years" to be restrictive, but I'm not in a position to dispute it without seeing the whole sentence.

This is so in both British and American English. According to Oxford dictionaries online, it is more strongly so in American English than British: that is, American English is less tolerant than British of the use of "which" with restrictive relative clauses. I don't know whether this is true.
Jenni Lukac (X) Jun 21, 2014:
Without seeing the entire sentence I can't be 100% sure, but as it stands, by American grammar rules it should be that.
Tony M Jun 21, 2014:
Generally ... in British EN it would be 'that', not 'which'; but apparently 'which' is common in US EN
Morten Olesen (asker) Jun 21, 2014:
We have some in Danish too; a lamp can sit on the wall or stand on the floor...
Jenni Lukac (X) Jun 21, 2014:
I don't know if Danish has such odd conventions, but English is full of them. My Spanish husband thinks it's hilarious that inanimate objects can stand, sit, lie, lean, etc.
Morten Olesen (asker) Jun 21, 2014:
Jenni, you are right, it's a restrictive clause :-) In fact I wrote that in my FB-update for which it was (is) intended...
acetran Jun 21, 2014:
Which gives a personal touch ;-), giving life to inanimate objects - (if it was my pet squirrel).
Jenni Lukac (X) Jun 21, 2014:
I'm not sure what you are looking for based on this fragment, but if I were to revise it, I would substitute the "which" with "that". Where did this fragment come from?

Responses

+2
2 mins
Selected

Yes

Yes, it is grammatically correct.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2 mins (2014-06-21 18:59:50 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Lying around can be used for sitting around. Both are synonymous.
Peer comment(s):
agree Peter Simon
2 hrs
:)
agree Charles Davis
6 hrs
Thanks Charles! :)
Something went wrong...
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer. Comment: "Selected automatically based on peer agreement."
Close search
Term search
  • All of ProZ.com
  • Term search
  • Jobs
  • Forums
  • Multiple search