If these or other grammatical quirks are holding you back from progressing in your business writing, a business writing course with one-on-one commentary is a great place to start your journey toward stronger, clearer business writing! Sign up for our online course Business Writing Techniques for Non-Native English Writers for tips and guidance on how to write. Our proofreading and grammar course will also help you ensure that your finished documents are error-free every time. Check out these exercise sets below and see if they need or which ones. Remember which sentences also need commas. Use it if the information in the clause is not necessary to understand the name in the sentence. This type of clause is a non-restrictive clause. Another important difference between restrictive and non-restrictive clauses is that commas are used to separate non-restrictive clauses from the rest of the sentence. A comma is never required in a restrictive sentence. But in this case, you still need the commas. It`s confusing, but I always remember an inverse relationship: words that generate profit limit the divisions you`re talking about. Without this limitation clause of specific subdivisions, the meaning of the sentence would change. Without the clarification, you would say that all departments are admired, not just cost-effective departments.

The third movement is a trick! Depending on what you mean, you can use both words! If there are several gyms within five minutes of your home, you will use it to brag about racquetball courts. However, if there is only one gym five minutes from home, the clause is not restrictive and you would use it. The words that and what can also be used together. This serves to highlight them by introducing the descriptive sentence. For example, before we move on to some practice sets, let`s go back and look at ALL of the above sentences and see how they change, whether you use that or what changes the meaning of the sentence. Similar to an example above, this sentence becomes factually incorrect if we change it from which to that, since all human hearts contain four valves, and there is no need to specify it. In this sentence, you understand that the speaker has at least one other bike. In particular, the motorcycle he is talking about differs from his other motorcycles by its broken saddle. If you were to remove the “who has a broken seat” clause, you would lose the implication that he owns more than one bike, and even if you somehow knew the other bikes, you wouldn`t know which one was in the garage. Their difference is that one is used to present essential information in the sentence and the other is used to present non-essential information in the sentence.

Authorities for the general use of English recommend using it for restrictive covenants and commas for non-restrictive clauses. Your writing, at its best Grammar helps you communicate confidently Writing with grammar Now, let`s look at the sentences that used who and see how they change when we use it. If the sentence is at the end of the sentence, only a comma is used, before which: Being yourself in a world that is constantly trying to do something else to you is the greatest achievement. Ralph Waldo Emerson My recommendation to use this rather than that in restrictive covenants is based on the fact that if you were to use restrictive covenants, all that would distinguish a restrictive covenant from a non-restrictive clause is the presence or absence of a comma. This creates problems. As I always remind my students, there is no need to remember the rules about who and that correctly use – or the rules for grammar, usage, or punctuation issues – because there are excellent legal writing manuals that we can consult as often as necessary. If the question of “what/who/who” often tripss you up, add these words to your legal “results list” (see my November 2020 column) so you can review your usage. Yes, your reader cares; And your attention to detail will give you greater pride in being an author.

We should all pay attention to the idea of David`s new product, which is expected to triple sales next year. Most American publishers don`t like the third version because of its obvious ambiguity. They insist on choosing between a comma without it and a plus-qui comma. A comma-free clause limits (restricts) the meaning; A plus comma that does not shrink (it is called non-restrictive). The choice of relative pronoun reinforces the semantic difference mediated by the presence or absence of a comma. Let me begin by noting that my legal writing manual, The Aspen Handbook for Legal Writers, devotes nearly four full pages to the subject. The author acknowledges that because writers are often confused about the distinction between this and that, “many writing texts have relaxed the rules” on the distinction. [iv] But she repeats the wisdom of using words correctly in legal drafting because of the precision that gender requires. [v] In this sentence, we understand that Brad has several sweaters, so it is important to distinguish the one with the fancy elbow pads from the others. So what should the cautious perpetrator learn from this case? I`m not going to get bogged down trying to figure out who had the best argument.

I am only interested in the fact that, although the court at issue in the present case does not appear restrictive in the view of the authorities, it interprets it as restrictive. This leads me to recommend the following: Do not use non-restrictive clauses and do not use these and not which ones (with or without commas) in your restrictive covenants.