two English grammatical questions! Thanks!

[languist]

Swinging back round to the tangent about that/which -

I'm a native English speaker from the UK, and definitely use which/that interchangeably, basically reducing it to a stylistic choice. I thought about it a lot and thought "maybe 'that' does imply more important information than 'which'..." but then I realised if I substituted 'which' into those sentences, it had very much the same effect for me.

Looking at the example about the office

Our office, which has two lunchrooms, is located in Cincinnati.
Our office that has two lunchrooms is located in Cincinnati.

Without context, I agree that the implications of the sentences are slightly different. However, if you remove the commas (and many people do leave them out!), they seem to have exactly the same meaning to me.

Our office which has two lunchrooms is located in Cincinnati.
Our office that has two lunchrooms is located in Cincinnati.

[Cainntear]

You're making the same mistake that is very common among native Dutch-speakers who think they have a good grasp of English. While they are fluent for the most part, they still mistake how grammar works in Dutch for how it also works in English. It doesn't. Your 57 years don't amount to much in this case when you've been perceiving it wrong for 57 years. In [Removed text redacted by admin from quoted post]

You might want to wind your neck in a bit, because every grammar source I've seen describes the past perfect as past-before-past or similar. Like the British Council, for instance.

"Had" indicates completion here, yes. But it indicates it was complete before another action in the past. So what Iversen said was in no way wrong.

The only thing to note here is that the past perfect is dying out in English, and increasing numbers of people would now just use the past simple instead.

[Cainntear]

Without context, I agree that the implications of the sentences are slightly different. However, if you remove the commas (and many people do leave them out!), they seem to have exactly the same meaning to me.

Our office which has two lunchrooms is located in Cincinnati.
Our office that has two lunchrooms is located in Cincinnati.

...and this is why "that" is so useful -- it makes it absolutely clear that you're using a defining/restrictive clause and that you haven't just written a non-defining/non-restrictive clause with the commas missing.

[Cainntear]

The only thing to note here is that the past perfect is dying out in English, and increasing numbers of people would now just use the past simple instead.

Sorry... just to clarify...

The past perfect is dying out in English in the usage noted above.

The past perfect is still common in situations like
"I had lived/had been living there for ...".

Maybe this is the usage romeo.alpha was thinking of, but here the idea of completion is incorrect. The typical distinction here is one of long-term vs temporary state.

[rdearman]

I would like to remind everyone to read the rules regarding profanity and respect for other members.

[languist]

Without context, I agree that the implications of the sentences are slightly different. However, if you remove the commas (and many people do leave them out!), they seem to have exactly the same meaning to me.

Our office which has two lunchrooms is located in Cincinnati.
Our office that has two lunchrooms is located in Cincinnati.

...and this is why "that" is so useful -- it makes it absolutely clear that you're using a defining/restrictive clause and that you haven't just written a non-defining/non-restrictive clause with the commas missing.

Okay, but what I mean is that I would use which/that interchangeably in this context, countering the idea that they have fundamentally different uses. I think it’s the commas which (or that!) make the difference, not the which.

[aaleks]

About 'Had'.
In one of the books I've read recently I saw this sentense:
"...When they were kids, his [older] brother had been a bully he avoided as much as he could, ..."

So, why did the author use 'had been'? Why not 'was'? The character's older brother was a bully at the same time as they were kids. Technically the older brother could become a bully before his younger brother was born but the context here is the complicated relationship between two brothers.
If I'm reading the sentence without thinking of the rule it sounds okay to me, and it sounds better like this than with 'was'. But I am not a native speaker -- how would/could I know?

[Cainntear]

Without context, I agree that the implications of the sentences are slightly different. However, if you remove the commas (and many people do leave them out!), they seem to have exactly the same meaning to me.

Our office which has two lunchrooms is located in Cincinnati.
Our office that has two lunchrooms is located in Cincinnati.

...and this is why "that" is so useful -- it makes it absolutely clear that you're using a defining/restrictive clause and that you haven't just written a non-defining/non-restrictive clause with the commas missing.

Okay, but what I mean is that I would use which/that interchangeably in this context, countering the idea that they have fundamentally different uses. I think it’s the commas which (or that!) make the difference, not the which.

Yes, but that’s you personally. For many people they are not interchangeable. Also, as you yourself pointed out, many people miss out the commas on their non-restricting clauses. This means that in practice, “which” with a restrictive clause is potentially ambiguous in a way that “that” isn’t; which means that using “that” for restrictive relative clauses is easier for the reader to process.

[languist]

Yes, but that’s you personally. For many people they are not interchangeable. Also, as you yourself pointed out, many people miss out the commas on their non-restricting clauses. This means that in practice, “which” with a restrictive clause is potentially ambiguous in a way that “that” isn’t; which means that using “that” for restrictive relative clauses is easier for the reader to process.

However, it’s not just me personally - as rdearman pointed out, it’s the case for him too, and apparently common across speakers of British English. My point wasn’t that people miss out commas in their non-restrictive clauses, it’s that they add commas in order to create a non-restrictive clause, although maybe I didn’t explain that clearly. And regardless of whether one has the potential to be less ambiguous than the other, that still doesn’t mean they aren’t interchangeable in practice.

[StringerBell]

"...When they were kids, his [older] brother had been a bully he avoided as much as he could, ..."

So, why did the author use 'had been'? Why not 'was'?

If I'm reading the sentence without thinking of the rule it sounds okay to me, and it sounds better like this than with 'was'. But I am not a native speaker -- how would/could I know?

I keep saying this sentence in my head both ways - with had been and with was and to be honest, I don't think there is much difference in meaning. "Had been a bully" implies that he was a bully but stopped being a bully at some point. "Was a bully" implies that he was a bully and may or may not still be a bully. (For example: "He was a bully then, and he's a bully now.") I think the author used "had been" to highlight the fact that the brother changed at some point and was no longer a bully.

In all honesty, the difference in meaning is so slight that I don't think it would have made much of a difference if the author had chosen "was" instead of "had been". Let's see if other English speakers agree with me.

I am a native English speaker, and I'm using the same strategy you are - what sounds better.