Pet Peeve... who v. that

CatMuse33 · Sep 26, 2007

I interviewed several people today, all well-educated and experts in their field. Without fail, each one used "that" when they meant "who."

"Even people that are educated and well-spoken make grammatical errors..."

Should be: "Even people who are educated..."

Are people scared of misusing who when it should be "whom" so they rely on "that" instead??? A copyeditor/proofreader with a magazine I used to edit drummed the rule into my head, and now it drives me crazy!!

Just had to vent. Or maybe I am incorrect???

Dawn

Sunkissed27f · Sep 26, 2007

Well, I use 'that' too much. Earlier today I was all anal over using who and whom and after looking the 2 words up, I felt like who could pretty much be used in the place of whom. Many great writers do it that way. As for using that, I think it's what we have been taught to use. It seems every uses it.

melaniehoo · Sep 26, 2007

I think it's not wanting to screw up the who/whom thing. You can get so used to avoiding it that it becomes part of your normal dialect. I know I catch myself doing it.

Jamesaritchie · Sep 26, 2007

Who

Who/that is also my biggest pet peeve. It's not like the rule is complicated. People are "who." Animals and objects are "that."

The dog that bit me. The man who bit me.

When writers get one this simple wrong, it makes me want to stop reading anything else,

Priene · Sep 27, 2007

This is an example of language evolution.

The man who bit me
The man that bit me
The dog that bit me
*The dog who bit me

The only one of these which is not in everyday use is the fourth. In my dialect, the second is much more commonly used than the first, and sounds absolutely normal to me.

If you've decided that is incorrect, you've stepped over the mark into prescriptive grammar. You're not describing the language which is actually used, but deciding what's acceptable to you.

You'll also hear

*The dog what bit me

But even I can't stand that one.

Dawnstorm · Sep 27, 2007

Priene said:
This is an example of language evolution.

My Oxford Dictionary of English says that "that" for persons goes back to the 11th Century:

"It is sometimes argued that, in relative clauses, that should be used for human references: a house that overlooks the park but the woman who lives next door. 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."

I don't think I use "that" for people much, certainly not as a default, but it doesn't bother me in any way. And it's nice to have the option when it fits the rhythm or structure of the sentence.

ErylRavenwell · Sep 27, 2007

There was a scuffle over the correct use of "that" not so long ago. "That" is a legitimate substitutes for "who". But when you use "that" instead of "who" in a dependent modifying clause, you don't set the clause with commas.

ErylRavenwell · Sep 27, 2007

Priene said:
This is an example of language evolution.

The man who bit me
The man that bit me
The dog that bit me
*The dog who bit me

The only one of these which is not in everyday use is the fourth. In my dialect, the second is much more commonly used than the first, and sounds absolutely normal to me.

If you've decided that is incorrect, you've stepped over the mark into prescriptive grammar. You're not describing the language which is actually used, but deciding what's acceptable to you.

You'll also hear

*The dog what bit me

But even I can't stand that one.

The dog what bit me? That can't be right.

What is your profession? I'm a teacher. Who is a teacher? John is a teacher.

Priene · Sep 27, 2007

ErylRavenwell said:
The dog what bit me? That can't be right.

I suspect this particular use of what is nearing extinction now. About thirty years ago, it used to crop up in slangy forms of southern English. I haven't heard it used seriously for years. It was used semi-ironicallly (ie boasting but attempting not to look like braggarts) in 1992 when a newspaper claimed its opinion had swayed a general election: It was the Sun wot won it.

Recently, the only times I've spotted it has been by non-UK writers making miserable attempts at an English accent.

Judg · Oct 2, 2007

It's hard to add to what Dawnstorm posted. Some of us were even taught this in elementary school, that the usage of "that" was flexible. CatMuse, may I respectfully submit that it is time you took this one off your pet peeve list? Looks like somebody taught you wrong.

Jamesaritchie · Oct 2, 2007

Dawnstorm said:
My Oxford Dictionary of English says that "that" for persons goes back to the 11th Century:

"It is sometimes argued that, in relative clauses, that should be used for human references: a house that overlooks the park but the woman who lives next door. 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."

I don't think I use "that" for people much, certainly not as a default, but it doesn't bother me in any way. And it's nice to have the option when it fits the rhythm or structure of the sentence.

The use of all sorts of completely unacceptable things goes back to teh 11th century, and before. Honestly, what was used in teh 11th century, or the 19th century, has zero bearing on what's correct today. "Who" and "that" are NOT interchange able in today's grammar world, no matter who does so in writing.

Today, "that" is for animals and objects, and "who" is for people.

Believe me, not following this rule can cause rejections. It always throws me off when a writer thinks the two words are interchangeable. So much so that I often discard a manuscript because of it.

Nymtoc · Oct 2, 2007

"The man that hath no music in himself,
Nor is not mov'd with concord of sweet sounds,
Is fit for treasons, stratagems, and spoils."

--The Merchant of Venice (V, i)

Judg · Oct 2, 2007

Jamesaritchie said:
The use of all sorts of completely unacceptable things goes back to teh 11th century, and before. Honestly, what was used in teh 11th century, or the 19th century, has zero bearing on what's correct today. "Who" and "that" are NOT interchange able in today's grammar world, no matter who does so in writing.

Today, "that" is for animals and objects, and "who" is for people.

Believe me, not following this rule can cause rejections. It always throws me off when a writer thinks the two words are interchangeable. So much so that I often discard a manuscript because of it.

The OED is a pretty formidable authority. You can't just dismiss it with a back-handed wave. Where do you get that idea that "today's grammar world" doesn't accept it? The OED is a mighty big player in that world. Do you have a dissenting authority to cite?

Nymtoc · Oct 2, 2007

This will prove nothing, but it's an interesting sidelight on the issue:

The 1954 film "A Star Is Born" included a song called "The Man That Got Away," with music by Harold Arlen and lyrics by Ira Gershwin. Later, the songwriters expressed dismay when certain singers performed the song as "The Man Who Got Away." Their title, they explained, was an obvious take on the fisherman's lament about "the one that got away." Therefore, changing "that" to "who" ruined the conceit.

C.bronco · Oct 2, 2007

The evil, self-proclaimed "grammar checker" on my microsoft word program has an irrational vendetta against the word "who," and attempts to change each who to a "that."
But I say "NO!" And then I poke it with a fork. You know who else bothers me? Clippy. Have you seen him? He pops up on my computer and says "It looks like you're writing a letter. Do you need help?"
And I say "NO! Quit looking at me!" Then I click on him to make him go away, but he comes back every time. I'm trying to write a query, man! Can't you take a hint, Clippy? I have a degree in English, and you're just an animated paper clip. Maybe you should be asking me for help with your own stinking letters!!!
:Soapbox:

Duncan J Macdonald · Oct 2, 2007

C.bronco said:
The evil, self-proclaimed "grammar checker" on my microsoft word program has an irrational vendetta against the word "who," and attempts to change each who to a "that."
But I say "NO!" And then I poke it with a fork. You know who else bothers me? Clippy. Have you seen him? He pops up on my computer and says "It looks like you're writing a letter. Do you need help?"
And I say "NO! Quit looking at me!" Then I click on him to make him go away, but he comes back every time. I'm trying to write a query, man! Can't you take a hint, Clippy? I have a degree in English, and you're just an animated paper clip. Maybe you should be asking me for help with your own stinking letters!!!

Snerk.

Try this site. (Note: Safe for Work, but slightly irreverent)

notpc · Oct 2, 2007

How does the usage of "who" or "whom" vs. "that" affect the readability of your writing? Is the reader not going to understand, with ease, the meaning of a sentence because you used who or that instead of whom?

Should strict grammar rules be followed in non-fiction and be more lenient for fiction?

Shadow_Ferret · Oct 2, 2007

Here are the first 4 definitions at dictionary.com (italics mine):
that pronoun and adjective, plural those; adverb; conjunction

–pronoun
1. (used to indicate a person, thing, idea, state, event, time, remark, etc., as pointed out or present, mentioned before, supposed to be understood, or by way of emphasis): That is her mother. After that we saw each other.

2. (used to indicate one of two or more persons, things, etc., already mentioned, referring to the one more remote in place, time, or thought; opposed to this): This is my sister and that's my cousin.

3. (used to indicate one of two or more persons, things, etc., already mentioned, implying a contrast or contradistinction; opposed to this): This suit fits better than that.

4. (used as the subject or object of a relative clause, esp. one defining or restricting the antecedent, sometimes replaceable by who, whom, or which): the horse that he bought.

girlyswot · Oct 3, 2007

Priene said:
I suspect this particular use of what is nearing extinction now. About thirty years ago, it used to crop up in slangy forms of southern English. I haven't heard it used seriously for years. It was used semi-ironicallly (ie boasting but attempting not to look like braggarts) in 1992 when a newspaper claimed its opinion had swayed a general election: It was the Sun wot won it.

Recently, the only times I've spotted it has been by non-UK writers making miserable attempts at an English accent.

Or in 'The Play What I Wrote' - a very successful comedy following the format made famous by Morecambe and Wise. It's clearly 'wrong' grammar, but it does sometimes have the necessary cheek for a particular situation.

Bartholomew · Oct 3, 2007

Priene said:
*The dog what bit me

I'm guilty.

Lance_in_Shanghai · Oct 12, 2007

Either that or who can be used for persons just as sentences may end in prepositions ("Where are you from?"). I typically resort to who for persons. Who should be restricted to persons although those who consider a pet to be human may disagree.

Which or that are the choices when we refer to non-persons. It is this restriction of who to persons that causes us to mistakenly believe that is conversely restricted to non-persons.

The possessive whose can be used in non-defining relative clauses for non-persons, as in "The novel, whose title struck me odd, was 'For Who the Bell Tolls'." That's an intentional error to emphasize that we might want to retain whom.

benbradley · Oct 12, 2007

Just tossing an extra item out here with who vs. that:
The dog which bit me. Sounds reasonable enough...
The man which bit me. Definitely not...

Pet Peeve... who v. that

CatMuse33

Just hitting send

Sunkissed27f

melaniehoo

And thus we begin the edits

Jamesaritchie

Priene

Out to lunch

Dawnstorm

punny user title, here

ErylRavenwell

ErylRavenwell

Priene

Out to lunch

Judg

DISENCHANTED coming soon

Jamesaritchie

Nymtoc

Benefactor Member

Judg

DISENCHANTED coming soon

Nymtoc

Benefactor Member

C.bronco

I have plans...

Duncan J Macdonald

Plotting! Not Plodding!

notpc

Shadow_Ferret

Court Jester

girlyswot

Bartholomew

Comic guy

Lance_in_Shanghai

benbradley

It's a doggy dog world