When crafting sentences, writers often face the dilemma of choosing between these two words to create clear and concise expressions. This article explores the distinctions between “which” and “that,” unraveling their unique roles in sentence structure and providing practical examples to enhance your writing skills.

In Modern English Usage (1926), Fowler argues the case for limiting that to what he calls “defining clauses” and reserving which to introduce “non-defining clauses.”

Note: Fowler’s terms defining and non-defining correspond to restrictive and nonrestrictive.

Yet, here we are, more than 80 years later, and questions about when to use which and when to use that to introduce a clause are among those most commonly asked at this and other grammar sites.

The usual explanation begins like this:

THAT should be used to introduce a restrictive clause.

WHICH should be used to introduce a non-restrictive clause.

For starters, let’s look at the terms restrictive and nonrestrictive. In my own experience of learning grammar, I had a hard time trying to keep these terms straight. Perhaps I have too much imagination, but I kept thinking that the “restrictive clause” was the one that ought to have the commas, because, well, commas enclose things, don’t they? And enclosing something restricts it, no?

The editors of the Associated Press Stylebook must be aware of mindsets like mine because they reject the terms restrictive and nonrestrictive in favor of essential and nonessential:

These terms [essential and nonessential] are used in this book instead of restrictive…and nonrestrictive… to convey the distinction between the two in a more easily remembered manner. –AP Stylebook

These alternative terms certainly make it easier for me remember the distinction. The word essential means “absolutely necessary.” An “essential clause” is critical to the reader’s understanding of what the author has in mind; a “nonessential clause” is perhaps helpful or interesting, but can be omitted without altering the principal meaning of the sentence. Ergo, the nonessential clause is the one that gets the commas.

The nonessential clause is also the one that gets the which.

Mind you, using which to introduce an essential clause is not the unpardonable sin some readers–chiefly American–insist that it is. Writers of British English often use which to introduce an essential clause. Here are just two examples from sources committed to the dissemination of impeccable English:

We may link to external sites which give particular views of a person or organisation significant to a current news story… –BBC style manual.

The Royal Charter which governs our work sets out the objects for which we exist. –British Council website.

In the first example, particular sites are meant; in the second, a particular royal charter is being referred to. Both of these which clauses are restrictive/essential.

Banning the use of which to introduce essential clauses is a stylistic decision, not a grammatical necessity. Even the premier American style guide admits as much:

Although which can be substituted for that in a restrictive clause (a common practice in British English), many writers preserve the distinction between restrictive that (with no commas) and nonrestrictive which (with commas). –Chicago Manual of Style, 6.22.

That Chicago does not approve of using which to introduce an essential (restrictive) clause is made clear in the section titled “Good usage versus common usage”:

In polished American prose, that is used restrictively to narrow a category or identify a particular item being talked about: “any building that is taller must be outside the state”; which is used nonrestrictively—not to narrow a class or identify a particular item but to add something about an item already identified: “alongside the officer trotted a toy poodle, which is hardly a typical police dog.”–CMOS

That for essential clauses and which for nonessential clauses is without question the preferred American usage. And although which is still being used in British English to introduce some essential clauses, according to at least one British style guide, that is edging it out:

Restrictive [i.e., essential] clauses relating to things may begin with either that or which, although there is an increasing tendency for that to be preferred. – Penguin Writer’s Manual, p. 32.

Here are some sentences that reflect the preferred that/which usage:

The car that I want is out of my price range. (essential clause)
The car, which is only two years old, sold for $2,000. (nonessential clause)

The kitten that has white paws is the one I want. (essential clause)
The kitten, which was Jack’s favorite, never came back. (nonessential clause)

When crafting sentences, writers often face the dilemma of choosing between these two words to create clear and concise expressions. This article explores the distinctions between “which” and “that,” unraveling their unique roles in sentence structure and providing practical examples to enhance your writing skills.

In Modern English Usage (1926), Fowler argues the case for limiting that to what he calls “defining clauses” and reserving which to introduce “non-defining clauses.”

Note: Fowler’s terms defining and non-defining correspond to restrictive and nonrestrictive.

Yet, here we are, more than 80 years later, and questions about when to use which and when to use that to introduce a clause are among those most commonly asked at this and other grammar sites.

The usual explanation begins like this:

THAT should be used to introduce a restrictive clause.

WHICH should be used to introduce a non-restrictive clause.

For starters, let’s look at the terms restrictive and nonrestrictive. In my own experience of learning grammar, I had a hard time trying to keep these terms straight. Perhaps I have too much imagination, but I kept thinking that the “restrictive clause” was the one that ought to have the commas, because, well, commas enclose things, don’t they? And enclosing something restricts it, no?

The editors of the Associated Press Stylebook must be aware of mindsets like mine because they reject the terms restrictive and nonrestrictive in favor of essential and nonessential:

These terms [essential and nonessential] are used in this book instead of restrictive…and nonrestrictive… to convey the distinction between the two in a more easily remembered manner. –AP Stylebook

These alternative terms certainly make it easier for me remember the distinction. The word essential means “absolutely necessary.” An “essential clause” is critical to the reader’s understanding of what the author has in mind; a “nonessential clause” is perhaps helpful or interesting, but can be omitted without altering the principal meaning of the sentence. Ergo, the nonessential clause is the one that gets the commas.

The nonessential clause is also the one that gets the which.

Mind you, using which to introduce an essential clause is not the unpardonable sin some readers–chiefly American–insist that it is. Writers of British English often use which to introduce an essential clause. Here are just two examples from sources committed to the dissemination of impeccable English:

We may link to external sites which give particular views of a person or organisation significant to a current news story… –BBC style manual.

The Royal Charter which governs our work sets out the objects for which we exist. –British Council website.

In the first example, particular sites are meant; in the second, a particular royal charter is being referred to. Both of these which clauses are restrictive/essential.

Banning the use of which to introduce essential clauses is a stylistic decision, not a grammatical necessity. Even the premier American style guide admits as much:

Although which can be substituted for that in a restrictive clause (a common practice in British English), many writers preserve the distinction between restrictive that (with no commas) and nonrestrictive which (with commas). –Chicago Manual of Style, 6.22.

That Chicago does not approve of using which to introduce an essential (restrictive) clause is made clear in the section titled “Good usage versus common usage”:

In polished American prose, that is used restrictively to narrow a category or identify a particular item being talked about: “any building that is taller must be outside the state”; which is used nonrestrictively—not to narrow a class or identify a particular item but to add something about an item already identified: “alongside the officer trotted a toy poodle, which is hardly a typical police dog.”–CMOS

That for essential clauses and which for nonessential clauses is without question the preferred American usage. And although which is still being used in British English to introduce some essential clauses, according to at least one British style guide, that is edging it out:

Restrictive [i.e., essential] clauses relating to things may begin with either that or which, although there is an increasing tendency for that to be preferred. – Penguin Writer’s Manual, p. 32.

Here are some sentences that reflect the preferred that/which usage:

The car that I want is out of my price range. (essential clause)
The car, which is only two years old, sold for $2,000. (nonessential clause)

The kitten that has white paws is the one I want. (essential clause)
The kitten, which was Jack’s favorite, never came back. (nonessential clause)

Have you ever wondered about the origins of this intriguing saying or how to use it effectively in your daily conversations? This article explores the historical context of “putting the kibosh” and its various interpretations across different scenarios.

Have you ever heard someone say they were going to “put the kibosh” on something? Did you ever wonder what they meant, or what a “kibosh” is?

Believe it or not, this has been a long-standing mystery of the English language. Multiple theories have been proposed, but none could be proven. Recently, however, three scholars seem to have gotten to the bottom of it. (2)

Here’s the story.

‘To put the kibosh’ on means to shut something down

First of all, to “put the kibosh” on something means you’re shutting it down. You’re putting the lid on a plan before it can take off. Or you’re stopping an activity that’s already underway.

For example, parents might “put the kibosh” on their teenager’s plan to throw a wild party. Or a librarian might “put the kibosh” on patrons who are munching on burgers and fries while they’re handling books.

This word first showed up in print in 1826, in a London newspaper. And not too long after, etymologists started speculating about where it came from.

5 (probably debunked) theories on the origin of ‘kibosh’

Theory number one was that “kibosh” was of Yiddish origin; that it was related to the Hebrew word “kāḇaš,” meaning to subject, subdue, or tread down. (9)

Theory two was that it was related to the Turkish word “bosh,” meaning “empty or worthless.” That word came into fashion around the same time that “kibosh” did, in the 1830s. It appeared in a popular romance titled “opens in a new windowAyesha, Maid of Kars,” that told of the intrigues of female life in Turkey. (7,8,9)

To see this connection, you can image a stodgy English gentleman saying “Bosh! Stuff and nonsense!” about the butler’s plan to serve bread and butter with tea, instead of cake. And the gentleman saying he would “put the kibosh” on that plan straightaway.

Theory three is that “kibosh” comes from the Gaelic “caidhp bháis,” meaning “coif of death.” This referred to various things: the hood an executioner wore when he mounted the scaffold; the head covering a judge wore when pronouncing the death sentence; or the cap put on a body before it was buried.

It was also connected to a gruesome form of torture known as a “pitch-cap,” in which a hat filled with boiling tar was placed on someone’s head. This cruel technique was used by the English military during the Irish rebellion of 1798. Game of Thrones fans will see an analogy between the pitch-cap and the “golden crown” that Khal Drogo placed on Viserys’ head. (5,6,9)

Theory four is that “kibosh” comes from the French word “caboche,” an informal word for head, and the English word “caboshe” that came from it. To “caboshe” means to cut off the head of a deer right behind the horns—not keeping any neck at all! You could see how this violent verb could be extended to mean beheading any sort of idea at all.  (5,6,9)

Theory five is that this word came from a tool that shoemakers used when making clogs. Their “kibosh” was an “iron bar about a foot long that, when hot, [was] used to soften and smooth leather.” A long, heated, metal bar would indeed be effective at kiboshing just about anything. Nonetheless, the scholar who first proposed this theory has pretty much admitted he no longer thinks it is correct. (1,5,6,9)

The current theory on the origin of ‘kibosh’: it’s related to an Arabic word for ‘whip’

Theory six—and the one that now seems to be most reliable— is that “kibosh” can be traced to the Arabic word “qurbāsh,” a whip made of hide. (2) It was sometimes made of hippopotamus or rhinoceros hide, and in all cases, it was used as an instrument of punishment. This Arabic word could have been brought to England by immigrants. That would make sense, because the first uses of the word seem to have been in the lower classes of London.

As to why “kibosh” rose from being just another slang term, to a phrase we still use today, is suggested by three scholars who recently published an entire book on the word “kibosh.”

The authors relate how in 1834, a Cockney chap was brought into court for violating the 1834 Chimney Sweeps Act, a law intended to stop young children from being put into service as chimney sweeps. According to the book, the fellow had an outburst after the trial in which he complained about the British Whig party and used the expression “to put the kibosh on,” speaking the whole time in an “unmistakable Cockney accent.”

His words were reprinted in newspapers all over England, and soon all types of politicians were talking about “putting the kibosh on the Whigs.” (2,3)

The word has continued to be popular up through today. In fact, opens in a new windowa search of Google Ngrams, which shows how frequently words are used in books, shows “kibosh” being used regularly since the mid-1800s—and spiking in use since 1980.

In short, recent scholars have “put the kibosh” on older theories of where this word came from. Our best guess today is that it’s related to “qurbāsh,” an Arabic word for “whip.”

Have you ever wondered about the origins of this intriguing saying or how to use it effectively in your daily conversations? This article explores the historical context of “putting the kibosh” and its various interpretations across different scenarios.

Have you ever heard someone say they were going to “put the kibosh” on something? Did you ever wonder what they meant, or what a “kibosh” is?

Believe it or not, this has been a long-standing mystery of the English language. Multiple theories have been proposed, but none could be proven. Recently, however, three scholars seem to have gotten to the bottom of it. (2)

Here’s the story.

‘To put the kibosh’ on means to shut something down

First of all, to “put the kibosh” on something means you’re shutting it down. You’re putting the lid on a plan before it can take off. Or you’re stopping an activity that’s already underway.

For example, parents might “put the kibosh” on their teenager’s plan to throw a wild party. Or a librarian might “put the kibosh” on patrons who are munching on burgers and fries while they’re handling books.

This word first showed up in print in 1826, in a London newspaper. And not too long after, etymologists started speculating about where it came from.

5 (probably debunked) theories on the origin of ‘kibosh’

Theory number one was that “kibosh” was of Yiddish origin; that it was related to the Hebrew word “kāḇaš,” meaning to subject, subdue, or tread down. (9)

Theory two was that it was related to the Turkish word “bosh,” meaning “empty or worthless.” That word came into fashion around the same time that “kibosh” did, in the 1830s. It appeared in a popular romance titled “opens in a new windowAyesha, Maid of Kars,” that told of the intrigues of female life in Turkey. (7,8,9)

To see this connection, you can image a stodgy English gentleman saying “Bosh! Stuff and nonsense!” about the butler’s plan to serve bread and butter with tea, instead of cake. And the gentleman saying he would “put the kibosh” on that plan straightaway.

Theory three is that “kibosh” comes from the Gaelic “caidhp bháis,” meaning “coif of death.” This referred to various things: the hood an executioner wore when he mounted the scaffold; the head covering a judge wore when pronouncing the death sentence; or the cap put on a body before it was buried.

It was also connected to a gruesome form of torture known as a “pitch-cap,” in which a hat filled with boiling tar was placed on someone’s head. This cruel technique was used by the English military during the Irish rebellion of 1798. Game of Thrones fans will see an analogy between the pitch-cap and the “golden crown” that Khal Drogo placed on Viserys’ head. (5,6,9)

Theory four is that “kibosh” comes from the French word “caboche,” an informal word for head, and the English word “caboshe” that came from it. To “caboshe” means to cut off the head of a deer right behind the horns—not keeping any neck at all! You could see how this violent verb could be extended to mean beheading any sort of idea at all.  (5,6,9)

Theory five is that this word came from a tool that shoemakers used when making clogs. Their “kibosh” was an “iron bar about a foot long that, when hot, [was] used to soften and smooth leather.” A long, heated, metal bar would indeed be effective at kiboshing just about anything. Nonetheless, the scholar who first proposed this theory has pretty much admitted he no longer thinks it is correct. (1,5,6,9)

The current theory on the origin of ‘kibosh’: it’s related to an Arabic word for ‘whip’

Theory six—and the one that now seems to be most reliable— is that “kibosh” can be traced to the Arabic word “qurbāsh,” a whip made of hide. (2) It was sometimes made of hippopotamus or rhinoceros hide, and in all cases, it was used as an instrument of punishment. This Arabic word could have been brought to England by immigrants. That would make sense, because the first uses of the word seem to have been in the lower classes of London.

As to why “kibosh” rose from being just another slang term, to a phrase we still use today, is suggested by three scholars who recently published an entire book on the word “kibosh.”

The authors relate how in 1834, a Cockney chap was brought into court for violating the 1834 Chimney Sweeps Act, a law intended to stop young children from being put into service as chimney sweeps. According to the book, the fellow had an outburst after the trial in which he complained about the British Whig party and used the expression “to put the kibosh on,” speaking the whole time in an “unmistakable Cockney accent.”

His words were reprinted in newspapers all over England, and soon all types of politicians were talking about “putting the kibosh on the Whigs.” (2,3)

The word has continued to be popular up through today. In fact, opens in a new windowa search of Google Ngrams, which shows how frequently words are used in books, shows “kibosh” being used regularly since the mid-1800s—and spiking in use since 1980.

In short, recent scholars have “put the kibosh” on older theories of where this word came from. Our best guess today is that it’s related to “qurbāsh,” an Arabic word for “whip.”

This post looks at idioms and phrasal verbs in the area of expressing emotions openly or suppressing them within.

Starting with idioms that convey something about showing feelings, if you make no secret of your feelings on a particular subject, you do not try to hide them: He makes no secret of his contempt for the former Prime Minister.

If you pour your heart out, you talk to someone emotionally, for a long time, telling them all about how you feel: She poured her heart out about how difficult life was at home.

To let off steam is to express strong feelings that you have been controlling for a while: I’d had the most frustrating time in the meeting and needed to let off steam.

Someone who wears their heart on their sleeve habitually makes their feelings obvious, making no attempt to hide them: You know what Tom is like – he wears his heart on his sleeve.

And what about idioms for not showing emotions? When someone is determined not to appear upset or disappointed, even though they feel it, we say they put on a brave face, or put a brave face on it: She seemed fairly cheerful but I suspect she was putting on a brave face. / I had to put a brave face on it for the kids.

If you get a grip (on yourself), you try hard to control your emotions and behave calmly, especially when you are very angry or sad: Come on, get a grip! / I was furious, but I had a meeting to attend so I had to get a grip on myself.

Moving on to phrasal verbs in this area, there are a few that convey the idea of trying not to show feelings of sadness or anger, for example hold in: She’d been unhappy for a long time, but holding it in for the kids’ sake.

If someone fights back or holds back tears, they try hard not to cry: He fought back tears as he walked behind his father’s coffin. 

Someone who bottles up feelings such as anger and sadness, stops themselves from showing them to other people for a long time: He never dealt with the grief – just bottled it up for years.

Meanwhile, if someone’s face or manner gives them away, it shows how they really feel, even though they are trying to hide it: She pretends she’s not interested in him, but her interest when his name is mentioned gives her away. / His eyes gave nothing away.

When was the last time you ‘let off steam’? Perhaps you’d like to say in the comments below.