Oh, and since you picked up on a single vowel error I took the liberty of underlining some of your grammatical errors. And your sentence construction (particularly the first) leaves much to be desired.
I think we might have to move to the pedants' corner.
I fully accept the punctuation error, and the sentence construct criticism.
I amended the sentence before posting and I could not be bothered to improve the sentence construction. Laziness? Yes, but we are only on DIYnot.
The punctuation error probably arose because I amended the sentence.
Now about "that which".
First of all, I do not remember editing the post, and the original is provided below.
Perhaps it is not just wealth per se, but that the wealthier are also better educated or have the cultural responsibility for their children's education., and it is that that influences the parents interest in their child's education, that cultural responsibility then flows down the generations.
I may be wrong. I may have edited, but I do not remember doing so.
But even if I had edited it, "that which" is perfectly acceptable. When a demonstrative
that and the relative
that come together it is acceptable to replace the demonstrative "that" with "which".
To demonstrate, if I wrote out the sentence in full without the relative "that", it becomes:
"Perhaps it is not just wealth
per se, but that the wealthier are also better educated or have the cultural responsibility for their children's education., and it is
the cultural responsibility which influences the parents interest in their child's education, that cultural responsibility then flows down the generations."
But would it then need a comma before the "which" because it is not a restrictive clause?
