RE: It's what It's. OH THAT ONE !!

[Mailing List <mlist -at- ca -dot- rainbow -dot- com>]

 Michael West [mailto:mbwest -at- bigpond -dot- com] happened to say:
[...]
> 
> Complicating matters further, there is an issue of
> "register" involved. Many educated British English
> speakers have the notion that "which" in a restrictive
> clause is more "literary" than "than". While they might
> *say* "the house that Jack built", they would "correct"
> it, when writing, to "the house which Jack built."

I don't understand.
Several e-mails have now been exchanged on the topic of 
"which" versus "that", and none has given an example 
of the actual distinction that I've made all my life, 
and have come to expect from people who speak/write 
decent English:

"... the sky that cannot be touched is blue."
[All other skies are yellow.]

"... the sky, which cannot be touched, is blue."
[A significant, perhaps defining in context, attribute of "sky" is
untouchability.]

THEN, Elizabeth O'Shea [mailto:elizabeth -dot- oshea -at- virtualaccess -dot- com] added:
> I'd like to reiterate that, when writing technical documentation for a
> European as well as a US audience, we should always use the very clear
> 'house that jack built' and always clarify the ambiguous 'house which
> Jack built', whether our audience is 'educated' or not.

I would never think to use "the house which Jack built"
However, if it seemed desirable to quickly define "house" as I 
was using it, then I would use "which".

"The house, which is a bricks and mortar edifice that Jack built..."

I'm curious that that distinction wasn't part of the discussion 
before I exhumed it (it has a long history on this list). Do the 
other respondents make only the distinctions (or indistinctions) 
that you've mentioned, and never the one that I find useful?

/kevin