※ 引述《tucson (tucson)》之銘言：
: 補述用法的that前面出現逗號(在經濟學人)
: http://www.economist.com/node/21689514/print
: These suck the propellant up by capillary action, obviating
: the need for pumps. The propellant itself is
: a substance known as an ionic liquid, that consists of positive
: and negative ions which can be separated by passing a current
: through the liquid and then, because they are electrically
: charged, accelerated by an electric field. (Both current and field
: are supplied by a battery on board the satellite.)
: 看來 補述用法/限定用法 中that 加上逗號 越來越被接受了
: 說that不可以用在補述用法/非限定用法的人
: 是不是覺得比經濟學人的編輯更懂英文呢?
Huddleston and Pullum (The Cambridge Grammar of Modern English, 2002. p1052)
say that "who" and "which" are normally used in non-restrictive clause, but
add that some speakers do accept "that."
I use "who" and "which," but accept "that."

我看到會覺得很怪 怪到不確定對不對 所以都叫學生改掉XD

事實上這裡(句)用that不奇怪, 而且是最佳解(比起用which)作為關代的that在使用上確有一些限制, 並有其原理, 但很可惜大多流於教條式背誦這句用that比用which好的其中一個原因是下文出現which,前用that可避免連用兩次which並且以這句情況, 採, that的限縮範圍能較, which 小/精準

我沒看完全文 但是我的話可能會調換 看來我就是無法接受的那一派XD

像原句這種情況採that的頻率, 通常比which高 (原因是另個故事了)其實只要回答此句,that 是指代 substance 或 ionic liqid大概就知道對此句的理解差異了這裡如果用which, 就像我上文說的, 又多開了一個代指前文整句的可能性(而這種可能性在為求精準寫作時宜避免)因此此句先出現that 才出現which 是最合理且精確的寫法

我怎麼看都一樣阿... 兩個都指substance(know as...) 確實有可能指liquid但是我覺得這不是文法可以判斷的 一般來說這種是語義文意去判斷 如果要講清楚我可能會放兩個逗號或者整句改寫避免誤解 因為放逗號就變補述了 我仔細想想這邊文意上來說不會指液體？ 雖然有可能指的是iconic liquid 但這就是那個substance啊 cuz it’s known asiconic liquid?