If I could give you the world
On a silver platter
Would it even matter
You'd still be mad at me
If I could find in all this
A dozen roses
Which I would give to you
You'd still be miserable
I know the question weighing on all your minds is, "wait, did she really use which?" Yes, she DID. Is that a problem? Well, let's see...
Which and that have been confusing English speakers, including myself, for ages. They are not interchangeable and, in fact, they serve as very different cues.
Which is used to begin a nonrestrictive clause. That means you can take out whatever comes after which. The nonrestrictive clause should also be sandwiched by commas.
I stopped by More Cupcakes, which is one of my favorite cupcake shops, today after work.Notice that the nonrestrictive clause is in boldface and that it is also set off by commas (commas = frenemy). Does this sentence still make sense without the bold text? Is it extra information?
I stopped by More CupcakesYes, the sentence still makes sense. So remember, use which before a nonrestrictive clause and set it off by commas., which is one of my favorite cupcake shops,today after work.
On the other hand, that leads into a restrictive clause and you do not need to use commas. Here comes another example about cupcakes...and grammar.
Red velvet cupcakes that are topped with cream cheese frosting are the tastiest!See, there are no commas around that and the subsequent restrictive clause. If you took out the bold text above, the sentence still makes sense, but it now has a different meaning.
Red velvet cupcakesI want to emphasize that the cream cheese frosting is what makes these red velvet cupcakes the tastiest. Without the restrictive clause "Red velvet cupcakes are the tastiest!" is still true (at least to me), but it doesn't hold the same weight anymore.that are topped with cream cheese frostingare the tastiest!
Just remember:
..., which (nonrestrictive clause---the sentence still makes sense without this), ...
... that (restrictive clause---the sentence's meaning changes without this) ...
So Jill Scott's lyrics are grammatically incorrect. The lyrics should read, "If I could find in all this/ A dozen roses/ That I would give to you/ You'd still be miserable."
Still confused? Try to take out "which I would give to you" and see if the lyrics still make sense.
If I could find in all this a dozen rosesDoesn't make sense, does it? What does finding roses have to do with your misery? Nothing. And that's why the lyric is actually a restrictive clause and should be lead off by that., which I would give to you,you'd still be miserable.
If I could find in all this a dozen roses that I would give to you, you'd still be miserableMuch better. By the way, you may be confused that there is a comma after our restrictive clause, which does not need to be set off by commas. It wasn't invited by that. It was invited by If, which makes this a conditional statement. We'll save that for another time.
Woop woop! Another grammar mystery solved.
Labels: clauses, song lyrics, vs.
