Who that?

DeaK

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 4, 2010
Messages
1,085
Reaction score
176
Or you could leave it out (take that, brain): Only he could uncover the truth.
 

Fallen

Stood at the coalface
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 9, 2009
Messages
5,500
Reaction score
1,957
Website
www.jacklpyke.com
Good morning, Rene. :D

Who is for people, that is for things, or non-human beings.

Your first example is correct.

*runs off and checks WIP* crap... Why am I too trigger-happy with 'that'...? I friggin' know this...
 

Chase

It Takes All of Us to End Racism
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 13, 2008
Messages
9,239
Reaction score
2,316
Location
Oregon, USA
Another "great thinker" here.


Who is for people, that is for things, or non-human beings.

Your first example is correct.


Susan is right, although she would confuse a great thinker for a great thinger. (Another thread; you had to be there.)

*runs off and checks WIP* crap... Why am I too trigger-happy with 'that'...? I friggin' know this...

The line under Fallen's cute avatar suggests postpartum need-a-nanny.

I get taken to task for my sense of humor, so I hope my two friends know surely I jest.
 

Dawnstorm

punny user title, here
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,752
Reaction score
449
Location
Austria
Who is for people, that is for things, or non-human beings.

You hear that a lot, but it's not true.

Who - for people
Which - for things

that - replacement for either "who" or "which"

A usage note from my Oxford Dictionary of English:

Oxford Dictionary of English said:
It is sometimes argued that, in relative clauses, that should be used for non-human references, while who should be used for human references: ... In practice, while it is true to say that who is restricted to human references, the function of that is flexible. It has been used for human and non-human references since at least the 11th century. In standard English it is interchangeable with who in this context.

So when PortableHal says both sound correct, he's right.

That said, I'd still prefer "who" in that context.
 

Fallen

Stood at the coalface
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 9, 2009
Messages
5,500
Reaction score
1,957
Website
www.jacklpyke.com
Another "great thinker" here.





Susan is right, although she would confuse a great thinker for a great thinger. (Another thread; you had to be there.)



The line under Fallen's cute avatar suggests postpartum need-a-nanny.

I get taken to task for my sense of humor, so I hope my two friends know surely I jest.

:tongue you can jest with me anytime, hun. I'll just make you babysit all four of my kids -- including the 18 yr old. :evil ;)
 

Susan Coffin

Tell it like it Is
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
8,049
Reaction score
770
Location
Clearlake Park, CA
Website
www.strokingthepen.com
Here is an article from Grammar Girl on the same issue. Personally, I think using "that" in the place of "who" makes a person sounds less than human...well, like a thing or something.

Despite what some dictionaries say, I would say who for human and that for non-human is a more acceptable practice.
 

Chase

It Takes All of Us to End Racism
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 13, 2008
Messages
9,239
Reaction score
2,316
Location
Oregon, USA
I side with Susan and Grammar Girl. Dictionaries are notorious for offering the widest scope of blended denotative meanings while sidestepping common connotations.

I understand many writers want a one-size-fits-all word to cover who, whom, which, that, etc.. so they don't need to think about the best choices to help their readers understand.

As a writer, when I choose who or whom for people and that for objects and similar choices for clarity, I'm offering better "customer service" to readers.

As a reader and customer, I find such imprecise meanings and vague references are often accompanied by other easy outs for the writer, all of which make me want to return the book or magazine to the place of purchase for a refund.
 

pdr

Banned
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
4,259
Reaction score
832
Location
Home - but for how long?
Ah!

I love this thread. How times have changed!

Some years ago, here on AW, I was blasted all over because I stated that who was for people and which or that for things.

Hurray for the support. :)

Now - can we get all the members to do it? :)
 

Dawnstorm

punny user title, here
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,752
Reaction score
449
Location
Austria
Here is an article from Grammar Girl on the same issue.

Grammar Girl:

I was shocked to find that my American Heritage Dictionary says...

People who believe the rule are always shocked to find reputable sources (or sources they usually trust) disagree with them.

...and if you have strong feelings about it, you could make an argument about using that when talking about people.

That's not the point. I'm defending the usage, even though I don't have strong feelings about it. Pet peeves like this survive because the rule results in good grammar. Her introductory paragraph is entirely true: "Stick with this rule and you'll be safe."

If you want to be safe, sure, go that way. Train yourself out of "that" for people.

But don't just make assumptions about people who do use "that" for people. And Fogerty makes them here:

People who use "that" for people do it:

- out of ignorance

or

- to express animosity.

Her friend may very well have been expressing animosity with the phrase "the woman who married my father". But to convince me that the "that" helps express that she would have to demonstrate the trend in his speech/writing. He shouldn't be using it in neutral or positive contexts, otherwise it's not conclusive.

And while grammar girl usually doesn't use "that" for people, I did find this interesting example:

"Any number of things could be happening when you're talking to someone that you don't mention..." (here)

If this is a slip, why did it happen? Or is "that" okay only with indefinite pronouns?

Even people who are opposed to "that-for-people" sometimes use it. Why? After all Grammar Girl's correct: no native speaker would say "the desk who is made of cherry wood", thus we don't have that discussion.

To summarise:

- It's fine to never use "that" for people.
- It's fine to say that you think using "that" for people dehumanises them.
-- But if you do so, use examples, as things might be more complex (even in your mind) than you notice. Grammar Girl's own example above indicates that.
- It's not fine to make assumptions about others because of your own rules. Plenty of people do not have the rule at all (as you can see in the comments section right there).
 

Kenn

New kid, be gentle!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 4, 2010
Messages
542
Reaction score
62
Location
Gloucestershire, UK
To summarise:

- It's fine to never use "that" for people.
- It's fine to say that you think using "that" for people dehumanises them.
-- But if you do so, use examples, as things might be more complex (even in your mind) than you notice. Grammar Girl's own example above indicates that.
- It's not fine to make assumptions about others because of your own rules. Plenty of people do not have the rule at all (as you can see in the comments section right there).
So what you are saying is you should use it as you like it, because it is not in our power to love or hate. Maybe the non-users think you have a negative attitude. I suppose you could say they think whoever loved 'that', loved 'not' at first sight;)

For the record, I think you are right.
 

Snick

Sockpuppet
Banned
Joined
Jun 13, 2011
Messages
934
Reaction score
86
Location
Havatoo
Dawnstorm is right.

"Who" is for people, and "which" is for non-humans. "That" can replace either.
The people "who" believe that "that" is for non-humans, or the people "that" believe that "that" is for non-humans.
But "the people "which" believe that "that" is for non-humans" is wrong.

Related usage that bothers me is when people replace "which" with "who" or "who" with "which".
 

Chase

It Takes All of Us to End Racism
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 13, 2008
Messages
9,239
Reaction score
2,316
Location
Oregon, USA
So what you are saying is you should use it as you like it, because it is not in our power to love or hate.

Or think of our readers.

I get the disdain for prescriptive application of spelling, punctuation, and grammar. Yet swapping out words on the strength of obscure usage in dictionaries and thesauruses is a slippery slope for lazy writers.
 

Bufty

Where have the last ten years gone?
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
16,768
Reaction score
4,663
Location
Scotland
Who that up there, sayin',

"Who that down there?"

When I'm down here, sayin',

"Who that up there?"

:evil
 

Fallen

Stood at the coalface
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 9, 2009
Messages
5,500
Reaction score
1,957
Website
www.jacklpyke.com
Grammar Girl:
- It's not fine to make assumptions about others because of your own rules. Plenty of people do not have the rule at all (as you can see in the comments section right there).

My favourite quote yet. You talk sense, hun.

I think there's a lot to be said for instinct when it comes to writing. Many may not know they're following/breaking rules, but they know the effect particular words have.
 

Dawnstorm

punny user title, here
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,752
Reaction score
449
Location
Austria
Yet swapping out words on the strength of obscure usage in dictionaries and thesauruses is a slippery slope for lazy writers.

One thing I think we all agree on:

If you always use "who" for people, and never "that" (nor "which", though you're probably not tempted anyway), you will never make a mistake.

I'm lazy, so let's leave it at that.

I think there's a lot to be said for instinct when it comes to writing. Many may not know they're following/breaking rules, but they know the effect particular words have.

Quite. Why is there controversy about "that" for people, but not about "which" for people? Trying to answer that question might get you on your way.

The problem is that native speakers often have different instincts, and if those are in conflict you have no clear way to tell who is write or wrong. That's why written stuff is priviledged: you can track it down and study it. I'm not going to dismiss PortableHal's intuition that both sound okay, especially since he's not alone. But neither am I going to dismiss Grammar Girl's surprise (or that she used "that" for a human herself in another post of hers). This isn't about what's right or wrong. This is about what's going on.

But if you want a simple rule, always use "who" for people. Just don't berate others for being dissatisfied with this simplification.
 
Last edited: