Prof. Carl, I'd like to know "result in" and "result from", thanks a million.

Quoting from [Moolan99]:

Prof. Carl, I'd like to know "result in" and "result from", thanks a million.

Quoting from [Professor Carl]:

Note that "in" and "from" are both prepositions. "In the city" and "from the city" are clearly enough distinct. But "result in" and "result from" are a bit ambiguous. Here's my effort. There's no doubt a lot more could be said about it.

"Result in" seems to be related to being a cause; "result from", related to being an effect.

Dropping a vase results in it's being broken (cause = dropping).
A broken vase results from it's being dropped (effect = being broken)

Ganapathie said:


Guru Carl,


Request you to give your saintly inputs on usage on words like "That" and "Which" in complex sentences when we create a sub clause through them.


(Professor Carl's note: complex sentences are distinguished from compound sentences, and both are distinguished form simple sentences.

I can't give a complete answer now because I'm waiting for that which is being communicated from the lips of the gods and has of yet reached my ear.


The simple book-answer is:

these two words have certain uses to differentiate "restrictive" and "non-restrictive" modification. Here are examples of restrictive/non-restrictive, but not with the words "that/which".

• John Zhou's wife, who is in Shanghai, had an accident.

John has a wife (one wife), she is in Shanghai, and she had an accident.

• Mohammad's wife who is in Shanghai had an accident.

Mohammad has several wives. The one in Shanghai had the accident.

---

The difference between restrictive and non-restrictive seems to be marked in speech most commonly by pauses.

(Regarding "which" and "that", the discussion here is their use with relative clauses.) There are examples of "which/that" which/that show that "which/that" are unmistakably ambiguous, even for native speakers. Although there are ardent defenders of historical usages, in many cases "which" and "that" have evolved to be acceptably interchangeable. I must note, however, that in some quarters of the English speaking world, the historical distinction may have endured.

• When either seems to be OK, some people use "which" because it seems a bit fancier.

• Some teachers are noted for carrying out "witch-hunts" for mistaken use of "which".

Again, in the above, the subject has been "that/which" in regard to introducing "relative clauses". There are other forms that are not ambiguous. Some of them are:

• "That" as a demonstrative adjective: I like that book.

• "That" as a demonstrative pronoun: I like that.

• "Which" used as an interrogative: Which one do you like? You like which one?

As a final point, the pause in speech (regarding that/which) seems to be what conveys the meaning more than the word.


My ear is still waiting for the final input.

Quoting from Ganapathie, comments by Professor Weber:



Can we say 'which' can be used to indicate things or persons when they are more than one. "That' is used when there is only one person or in literary usage.


These explanations would not address the complications, and there
ARE complications of a vast yet subtle nature. This will be clear when you look at the following.

for "which", see
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/which

for "that" see
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/that


Especially note the difference between restrictive and non-restrictive use of these words. Especially note the difference between when these words are used to link to subordinate clauses, and when they have other grammatical uses.


Is my following statment corrent in using "that":

It is battle between the freedom that prosperity gives and the problems prosperity provide.

Yes, the use of "that" is standard.