That and/or Which

[Gonk the Insane]

I was re-reading a passage I wrote recently, and the old noggin seems to keep changing its mind about using which or that: they appear twice in a long sentence, and I keep changing them round. Not sure whether there's a right way in this case or whether it's one of those style things, but I thought I'd post it and see what everyone thought so...

The eventual union hadn't resulted in a new era of progressive attitudes, only a commingled culture and ideology that propped up an authoritarian regime which, unless financially rewarding, always preferred the status quo.

And now I've typed it out again, I'm thinking of changing it all over again!

Thoughts?

 

[DannMcGrew]

"Avoid the defining which" and "which is disposable" are the guidelines for that versus which-- meaning can the sentence stand without the non-defining clauses.
In your example both clauses could be deleted without changing the meaning. However you, of course, want them. I think you may be reacting to the use of two whiches in close proximity. It doesn't "sound right."

I'd suggest inserting an "and."
... only a commingled culture and ideology that propped up and authoritarian regime and that, unless financially rewarding always preferred the status quo.
OR skip the second "that". .... only a commingled culture and ideology that propped up an authoritarian regime and, unless financially rewarding, always preferred the status quo.

 

[tinkerdan]

The way that you have it works fine.
It also avoids having a double which; however in this instance I don't think the sentence calls for it.
Although you could technically do without both and have a sentence.

The eventual union hadn't resulted in a new era of progressive attitudes, only a commingled culture and ideology.

However if I am reading this correctly.

The eventual union hadn't resulted in a new era of progressive attitudes, only a commingled culture and ideology that propped up an authoritarian regime.

In this case you are qualify specifically authoritarian regime and that makes the that necessary(although these days it's all up in the air with some style guides),I still think most will agree with that.

which, unless financially rewarding, always preferred the status quo.

This portion is just more explanation that might not be necessary--however if you thought it was totally necessary a that here would reinforce the thought. However, then you have two thats.

One more thing I think that you should do something before the which grammatically

The eventual union hadn't resulted in a new era of progressive attitudes, only a commingled culture and ideology that propped up an authoritarian regime, which, unless financially rewarding, always preferred the status quo.

You might be able to put a semi-colon there also; but the comma should work fine.

 

[Ursa major]

The eventual union hadn't resulted in a new era of progressive attitudes, only a commingled culture and ideology that propped up an authoritarian regime which, unless financially rewarding, always preferred the status quo.

Personally, I use "that" where there is no preceding comma, and "which" where there is or where a preposition is also in play. (Okay, the underlying reason is more complicated than that, but I'm not sure I have sufficient grasp of the use and categorisation of clauses to stop making the explanation confusing and/or plain wrong.)

In your example, this would result in:

The eventual union hadn't resulted in a new era of progressive attitudes, only a commingled culture and ideology that propped up an authoritarian regime that, unless financially rewarding, always preferred the status quo.

As you seem unhappy about both alternatives, perhaps your internal grammar demon is bothered by something else in the sentence. One candidate that has caught my eye

that, unless financially rewarding, always preferred the status quo

It is seems to be missing just what it is that might be sufficiently financially rewarding to break the regimes habit of sticking to the status quo.

Perhaps the following might be more to the liking of your grammar demon:

The eventual union hadn't resulted in a new era of progressive attitudes, only a commingled culture and ideology that propped up an authoritarian regime, one that always preferred the status quo, unless the alternative was more financially rewarding.

I'll leave it to you to decide just who might be financially rewarded enough to break the regime's preference for the status quo... a decision that might lead to a complete rearrangment of the sentence (perhaps spawning one or more other sentences).

 

[Bagpuss]

It occurs to me that you could swap "that" and "which" around and, with the inclusion of a comma before the "which", the whole sentence would work a lot better. So your original sentence could be slightly altered to read:

The eventual union hadn't resulted in a new era of progressive attitudes, only a commingled culture and ideology, which propped up an authoritarian regime that, unless financially rewarding, always preferred the status quo.

That should give you everything you want in the sentence and you may find that, when you read it out loud, it makes a little more sense, which would be great.

That still leaves a problem in that the sub-clause "unless financially rewarding" doesn't make sense. It didn't make sense in your original sentence and it doesn't make sense in my altered version. The problem is the word "rewarding". It could be changed to "rewarded", which would make more sense. So:

The eventual union hadn't resulted in a new era of progressive attitudes, only a commingled culture and ideology, which propped up an authoritarian regime that, unless financially rewarded, always preferred the status quo.

Not sure whether that's what you're trying to say. Something you could consider, though?

 

[Ursa major]

The following doesn't sound** right to me

The eventual union hadn't resulted in a new era of progressive attitudes, only a commingled culture and ideology, which propped...

as the comma seems shoe-horned in unnecesarily.

At first, I thought that adding "one" -- i.e. "... ideology, one which..." -- would solve the issue I have, but I still want to chenge the "which" to a "that", i.e. "... ideology, one that...", but that's probably me being ultra picky, and others may not be so sensitive to "one which".


** - I think the comma tells my brain to expect a slight pause -- for me, commas are not only there to make the writer's intented meaning clear to the reader, but also to inform the reader of how the text would sound if spoken out loud -- and my brain then interprets that comma as creating a division between "a commingled culture and ideology" and the "which", which is bridged by adding the "one".

 

[Bagpuss]

as the comma seems shoe-horned in unnecesarily.

Yeah, I can see your point. I think you could remove the comma before "which" and the sentence would still be grammatically fine, although I'm not sure what that would do to the meaning of the sentence. Equally, you could do "ideologically, one which" or "ideologically, one that" and both of those would be grammatically fine as well.

The thing is, as I sit back and look at it, it seems to me that neither the sentence in Gonk's original post nor any of the suggested amendments to it are grammatically wrong. I think, therefore, that it really comes down to a question of what you want the sentence to mean and personal style. Style ultimately contributes to your "voice" as a writer and so it's probably a good thing that we don't agree since novels would be fairly boring if every author wrote in the same style.

 

[.matthew.]

I assume this is long since done with, but I'll throw my two pence in anyway.

Firstly, when I get situations like this, I tend to quell the part of myself that argues about which is right, and instead try to rephrase the sentiment instead. That said, I think the issue here is less this and that and which and fart and more that there's a LOT going on in one sentence.

The eventual union hadn't resulted in a new era of progressive attitudes, only a commingled culture and ideology that propped up an authoritarian regime which, unless financially rewarding, always preferred the status quo.

This eventual union didn't result in a new era of progressive attitudes, only an authoritarian regime propped up by a commingling of culture and ideology. Like all such governments, the status quo held dominion, only to be moved to action by financial imperatives.

Still clunkily worded, but at least it gives the brain time to digest at the fullstop.