Sure, it’s a small issue in the scheme of things, but it’s something that’s been bugging us lately. Shouldn’t a Rhodes Scholar know the difference between which and that? Isn’t the Prime Minister setting a bad example for schoolkids when he utters grammatically incorrect sentences, every day, on national television?
You might have noticed, too, that Tony Abbott has a “which” problem: he regularly uses which when he should use that.
The pedants among you will know that “which” takes a comma, and you use it in a non-restrictive clause, i.e. a clause where you are adding extra information, but you could understand the meaning of the sentence without it. “That” does not take a comma, and you use it when you are adding information that is crucial to the understanding of the sentence.
Here’s an example of correct usage:
“Tony Abbott chose to be photographed in front of a sexist sign about Australia’s first female prime minister. The stunt, which was deeply offensive, should have cost him his job.”
“Tony Abbott chose to be photographed in front of a sexist sign about Australia’s first female prime minister. Shouldn’t a stunt that was deeply offensive to 50% of voters have cost him his job?”
It’s time for Tony to ditch the which.
It would please me greatly if Tony Abbott also stopped saying ‘somethink’ and ‘everythink’. It is highly irritating that our Prime Minister mangles the english language so badly. Still, Bill Shorten is equally irritating with his use of ‘wiv’ for ‘with’.
John Howard once said “an historic” on TV and sounded like an ignorant twit, which he certainly was not. But a speechwriter had written “an historic” for him as though he was a Pom, ignorant of Australian usage.
Oz usage is vastly better outside Oz too, precisely because we have one accent and not the hundreds that infest the backwoods of you-know-where.
In case there are any Poms reading this, pronouncing the “h” in “history” is compulsory round here, so the “n” is simply wrong. Some journalists as well as speechwriters often use the corrupted form as an affectation, but in doing so earn my hearty contempt.
The problem’s easily fixed; stitch, which is not spelled “stich” as that would be wrong, Abbott’s mouth closed.
In the examples given both ‘which was’ and ‘that was’ are superfluous in conveying meaning.
Abbott should refrain from talking altogether. When he does it is usually a lie or a malevolent utterance that reveals that not only his Oxford education was wasted (mind you he did not do all that well) but also he lacks imagination and a creative vision. He is no leader.