who vs that

jaus tail

Banned
Joined
Aug 10, 2013
Messages
7,091
Reaction score
430
Hi everyone,

Google says to use who when talking about a person and that when talking about an object. But I'm talking about a dog, so should I use who or that?

The sentence is, Toohey released his dog, who got the ball to him.

Word processor wants me to change who to that. But I think it should be who, since a dog is not an object.

And the answer is that. If the animal has a name and you're referring to it by name in the sentence, use who else use that. Sorry read the other article after posting it and can't delete the thread now.
 
Last edited:

DeleyanLee

Writing Anarchist
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 6, 2007
Messages
31,660
Reaction score
11,407
Location
lost among the words
Word processors are programmed to give grammar suggestions per business English, not normal English. This is one of those cases where it's right for one application, but could be wrong for what you're doing.

If your POV character sees a dog as a person, then use the "who". If not then use the "that".
 

thothguard51

A Gentleman of a refined age...
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
9,316
Reaction score
1,064
Age
72
Location
Out side the beltway...
Toohey released his dog, who got the ball to him.

The sentence reads awkward to me. I would rewrite it, maybe something like...

Once Toohey had the ball, he released his dog to continue to play fetch.
 

King Neptune

Banned
Joined
Oct 24, 2012
Messages
4,253
Reaction score
372
Location
The Oceans
I would change it to "which", which is the form of the pronoun "who" for things other than people. Some people and grammar checker think that "that" is preferable, but that's a matter of personal taste. And some people think that their dogs should be treated as people; I don't argue about that.
 
Last edited:

arcan

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 25, 2014
Messages
383
Reaction score
25
Location
Mâcon, France
It can be who, which or that, as you like.
What bothers me more is the use of the coma.
 

blacbird

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
36,987
Reaction score
6,158
Location
The right earlobe of North America
What bothers me more is the use of the coma.

Yes. The use of a coma always bothers me.

In the context of punctuation, however, the recommended modern practice is to use forms of who for persons, that for other things (including dogs).

But it's not a stone-tablet-from-Sinai grammatical rule. You'll have no trouble finding older texts in which "that" is used in reference to persons, as in the title of Mark Twain's famous story "The Man That Corrupted Hadleyburg," or Poe's "The Man That Was Used Up."
caw
 
Last edited:

Devil Ledbetter

Come on you stranger, you legend,
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 8, 2007
Messages
9,767
Reaction score
3,936
Location
you martyr and shine.
I see people/person that all the time in blog posts, news items, etc. It drives me bonkers. It's as bad as using less where you should use fewer. There were less people that... gah!

I agree with the poster upthread who said for a dog, let POV be your guide.

And like blacbird, I stay away from comas.;)
 

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 was in a coma once, who that which lasted lasting a couple of days.
 
Last edited:

Jamesaritchie

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
27,863
Reaction score
2,311
People get who, animals, all of them, including dogs, get that.
 

Ellis Clover

watching The Office again
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 8, 2013
Messages
560
Reaction score
124
Location
Darug and Gundungurra Country
Except that animals, to me (and to my characters, unless I'm making a particular point), aren't 'it's. I always assign gendered personal pronouns to my non-human characters, eg 'I threw the ball to the dog, and off he ran' rather than 'I threw the ball to the dog, and off it ran'. Sounds much nicer.

I hate the idea of animals as property/objects. If he/she is good enough for cyclones and ships, it's good enough for animals.
 

kenpochick

I should be writing, not on AW.:-)
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
602
Reaction score
128
Location
in my head mostly
I would re-write the sentence completely since it doesn't read naturally.

Why not, "Toohey released his dog and he (she?) lunged, racing to fetch the ball."
 

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
23,083
Reaction score
10,777
Location
Where faults collide
Website
doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
Hi everyone,

Google says to use who when talking about a person and that when talking about an object. But I'm talking about a dog, so should I use who or that?

The sentence is, Toohey released his dog, who got the ball to him.

Word processor wants me to change who to that. But I think it should be who, since a dog is not an object.

And the answer is that. If the animal has a name and you're referring to it by name in the sentence, use who else use that. Sorry read the other article after posting it and can't delete the thread now.

I think technically, animals are "supposed" to be it or that/which in formal English, but I assume you're writing fiction. And of course modern attitudes about them have shifted, and animals are often characters in their own right in books, or at least regarded as beings of importance by many people.

I think it's down to the narrative or character voice you're shooting for in your novel.

One of my characters in my novel has a dog, and she thinks of her dog as a who, not a that. And most of my pov characters tend to think of their own mounts as "whos."

I'd go with calling an animal a who or a he/she if its individuality and personality is relevant to and acknowledged by the pov character (or the narrative in omniscient). I certainly don't think of the dogs and cats I know as "its" or "thats," and if I, or someone with my inclinations, were a pov character in a novel, the narrative should reflect this.

But if I saw a horse being ridden down the street by a stranger, or if I were working in a slaughterhouse killing chickens, or if I were a hunter shooting rabbits, I might think of those animals as its or thats.

And a character who thinks of all animals as its or thats, well, that might say something about him or her, or the culture/society he or she is a product of.

As for omniscient narration? Well, again, it's fiction. I'd probably refer to animals that are presented as characters, or at least as gendered individuals with a personality, as "who" and "he/she" also, but maybe ones that blend into the background as "thats."


The horse that the soldier was riding was a roan.

vs

The old mare, who had always loved apples, opened the gate to the orchard with her lips.

You could use "which" in sentence #2, but it would make it feel a lot less personal.


A lot of this is down to the narrative voice you're shooting for.


And on an aside, this is an example of why grammar checker should be turned off, or at least regarded with suspicion, when writing fiction. Aside from the fact that it's often just blatantly wrong, it has no sense of context or voice.
 
Last edited:

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
:fistpump Really good post, Roxxmom.
 

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
23,083
Reaction score
10,777
Location
Where faults collide
Website
doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
I think I made the mistake of assuming that the op wanted to know about whether it was okay to call animals "who" ever in fiction, but from looking at the other posts, it appears he needed help with the actual sentence structure and there was a way to write around the question in that specific instance.

I don't think the who or that question could or should necessarily be written around in every possible instance, however.