Who/That

clockwork · Oct 6, 2006

Hi everyone. Quick question for you;

She's the one who knows.

or

She's the one that knows.

In the context of, She's the one who knows what's going on/the score etc. Not a specific thing that she knows, just a general statement of how savvy and world-wise she is.

Example; "Ask Marge. She's the one who/that knows."

Any help would be appreciated.

arrowqueen · Oct 6, 2006

'Who' for people. 'That' for animals/things.

clockwork · Oct 6, 2006

Thanks, arrowqueen.

arrowqueen · Oct 6, 2006

Jamesaritchie · Oct 6, 2006

Who that?

"Who/that" is a strong pet peeve of mine. I hate it when a writer screws these two up. I've rejected stories based on this.

We had a sentence in English class that read something like, "Officer, there's the man who attacked me, there's the dog that bit me, and there's the car that ran over me when I tried to get away."

JustinThorne · Oct 27, 2006

"Officer, there is the man who attacked me," is just as likely to be, "Officer, there is the man that attacked me," if it appears in dialogue, because there is so much confusion over the use of the two words.

If your character is not adept with grammar, he may use 'that' instead of the correct use of 'who'. Plus, we rarely use correct grammar when we talk. Especially if you are writing dialogue for a character who is say, under thirteen years of age.

In prose, get it right.

veronie · Oct 27, 2006

It's a given that in dailogue rules of grammar can be broken. This forum does not concern that.

JustinThorne · Oct 27, 2006

Except the example given above me is dialogue and is taught to highlight the rule!

veronie · Oct 27, 2006

Oh, ok. I gotcha.

JustinThorne · Oct 27, 2006

It's also useful not to assume what is a 'given' on a board used by people coming here to learn.

veronie · Oct 28, 2006

Edit: I had a response here that was testy and a bit immature.

Basically, my point was that I believe it ought to be "given" that on the grammar board, we aren't too concerned with the exceptions to the rules when it comes to dialogue.

If a writer doesn't already know their characters won't speak perfect English, then they will generally learn that on the fiction board or somewhere else. Here, though, it's grammar, only grammar, and nothing but grammar. Maybe we need a sticky note in the forum that says, "some grammar rules might not apply in the dialogue of characters," so that we don't have to constantly remind people of this in individual threads.

JustinThorne · Oct 30, 2006

Hold on - grammar applies to dialogue, it (dialogue) has its own rules, sure, but there are rules. Also, I think it is down to the members here to decide what should and should not be discussed... not you or I - Is this your forum?

To assume that writers (especially new writers) understand all the rules of dialogue within fiction, is unrealistic... I certainly don't.

I'm not falling out with you, veronie, please don't think that I am, but you can't assume that everyone is at the same level as you when it comes to understanding grammar... this forum is after all, for grasshoppers!

Bufty · Oct 30, 2006

True, but my understanding is this thread is focused on points concerning the understanding and application of what is considered to be correct grammar.

That's not the same as the application to fictional dialogue of whatever level of grammar is presumed to be posessed by individual characters and obviously impacts on their dialogue.

The Writing Novels Forum seems a better place to raise queries on that topic. And there are very few, if any, rules of dialogue in fiction, as far as I am aware.

JustinThorne said:
....To assume that writers (especially new writers) understand all the rules of dialogue within fiction, is unrealistic... I certainly don't.

Lance_in_Shanghai · Oct 30, 2006

If you search Yahoo or Google for ["who or that" people english], using the "" to keep who or that together, you will see that dozens of experts now accept that for people. Although we know who/whom/whose are for people we cannot firmly dismiss that for people. "Those folks are the group that come to mind when I think about..."

We cannot be rigid about English grammar lest we change the U.S. Declaration of Independence ("a more perfect union" --oops, take out more) and Lincoln's Gettysburg Address ("were created equal" -- oops, adverb form is equally).

ErylRavenwell · Oct 31, 2006

arrowqueen said:
'Who' for people. 'That' for animals/things.

I was under the impression "That" could be used as a substitute for "Who/which", but "That" is only used in restrictive clauses.

My two cents.

ErylRavenwell · Oct 31, 2006

Lance_in_Shanghai said:
If you search Yahoo or Google for ["who or that" people english], using the "" to keep who or that together, you will see that dozens of experts now accept that for people. Although we know who/whom/whose are for people we cannot firmly dismiss that for people. "Those folks are the group that come to mind when I think about..."

We cannot be rigid about English grammar lest we change the U.S. Declaration of Independence ("a more perfect union" --oops, take out more) and Lincoln's Gettysburg Address ("were created equal" -- oops, adverb form is equally).

This is what I believe too. Grammar is an evolving, dynamic entity. "That" is nowadays readily accepted as a substitute for who/which, but it is used restrictively.

Kudra · Oct 31, 2006

I've noticed this trend, too. I'm very particular about making sure that I use both correctly, but I've read published authors who use that instead of who on their websites. I've noticed the same thing in popular magazines and even in dialogue on television. I always wonder whether it's an error on the writer's part, or just an accepted form now. Or is it an error that's been made so often that it's now become an accepted part of the language?

pdr · Oct 31, 2006

No...

you stick with who and which for people, Mridu. Talking about people and using 'That' just sounds rude.

ErylRavenwell · Oct 31, 2006

KitKat said:
I've noticed this trend, too. I'm very particular about making sure that I use both correctly, but I've read published authors who use that instead of who on their websites. I've noticed the same thing in popular magazines and even in dialogue on television. I always wonder whether it's an error on the writer's part, or just an accepted form now. Or is it an error that's been made so often that it's now become an accepted part of the language?

I have the Oxford Writer's Guide at hand. Quite an old edition at that; you'd expect them to be conservative on the use of "that". It isn't the case.

They consider the following example as correct: The boy that (who) lost his hat is here.

You know how the saying goes: "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em."

English is a dynamic language; I think it's better to adapt to the ongoing trend rather than being conservative. I guess writers of literary fiction tend to be more conservative, while popular fiction novelists are more trendy...or is it trendier.

Kudra · Oct 31, 2006

ErylRavenwell said:
You know how the saying goes: "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em."

English is a dynamic language; I think it's better to adapt to the ongoing trend rather than being conservative. I guess writers of literary fiction tend to be more conservative, while popular fiction novelists are more trendy...or is it trendier.

Yeah, I guess that's what I was asking. Should we join them? Should I be using "that" in place of "who" now and defend my right to do so when an editor objects?

Jamesaritchie · Oct 31, 2006

ErylRavenwell said:
I have the Oxford Writer's Guide at hand. Quite an old edition at that; you'd expect them to be conservative on the use of "that". It isn't the case.

They consider the following example as correct: The boy that (who) lost his hat is here.

You know how the saying goes: "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em."

English is a dynamic language; I think it's better to adapt to the ongoing trend rather than being conservative. I guess writers of literary fiction tend to be more conservative, while popular fiction novelists are more trendy...or is it trendier.

Nonsense. Just because English is dynamic should not mean you go along with those who have no clue, and who harm the language because of illiteracy. That's silliness.

Trendy has nothing to do with this. The problem has always been around, and it's always been cause by the semi-literate members of the population.

Nor does it have anything to do with "If you can beat them, join them." This isn't a club. People use "that" instead of "who" though ignorance, not because of a trend. It makes no more sense to go along with ignorance in language than it does to go along with ignorance in math. Just because a bunch of people may believe two plus two equals five does not mean we should go along with them.

Unfortunately, too many writers guides, grammar books, and other places that should know better have decided the political correctness is more important than knowledge. And this is precisely why this change is coming about.

Dynamic, yes. Changing, yes. But these things should never mean ignorance rules, or that the ability of a langauge to communicate in the best possible way should be changed because most of the general populace is only semi-literate.

kikonie · Oct 31, 2006

Jamesaritchie said:
Nonsense. Just because English is dynamic should not mean you go along with those who have no clue, and who harm the language because of illiteracy. That's silliness.

Trendy has nothing to do with this. The problem has always been around, and it's always been cause by the semi-literate members of the population.

While your argument is flawless, James, the label "semi-literate" is a bit harsh. My own experience with the who/that issue is that it was not covered during my grammar lessons, but that as soon as someone pointed it out to me, I immediately adopted the proper usage. I was in my thirties at the time. I don't believe it would be appropriate to label myself as semi-literate solely because who/that and I didn't cross paths until later in life.

ErylRavenwell · Oct 31, 2006

Jamesaritchie said:
Nonsense. Just because English is dynamic should not mean you go along with those who have no clue, and who harm the language because of illiteracy. That's silliness.

Trendy has nothing to do with this. The problem has always been around, and it's always been cause by the semi-literate members of the population.

Nor does it have anything to do with "If you can beat them, join them." This isn't a club. People use "that" instead of "who" though ignorance, not because of a trend. It makes no more sense to go along with ignorance in language than it does to go along with ignorance in math. Just because a bunch of people may believe two plus two equals five does not mean we should go along with them.

Unfortunately, too many writers guides, grammar books, and other places that should know better have decided the political correctness is more important than knowledge. And this is precisely why this change is coming about.

Dynamic, yes. Changing, yes. But these things should never mean ignorance rules, or that the ability of a langauge to communicate in the best possible way should be changed because most of the general populace is only semi-literate.

While I agree with you on the point, "We shouldn't follow those who butcher the English language", I have trouble following you on your criticism of putative writers guides--especially one published by Oxford...unless, you, yourself, are an authority on the matter. Well, I do think knowledge is adaptable and changeable, otherwise we would all be dead-enders.

With all due respect, just my POV.

ErylRavenwell · Oct 31, 2006

KitKat said:
Yeah, I guess that's what I was asking. Should we join them? Should I be using "that" in place of "who" now and defend my right to do so when an editor objects?

I guess it would be better to be adaptable, lest you'd become the mirror image of the conservatives, while being ideologically opposed to them--the irony. Pragmatism's the word, I'm guessing.

JustinThorne · Nov 1, 2006

There's a vast difference between ignorance and contemporary writing.

Whether purists like it or not, some authors are evolving this language for arts' and entertainments' sake. I agree however, that you have to understand all the rules before you can break them.

Fans of literary fiction would hate someone like Matthew Reilly, who ignores (not through ignorance) certain rules of grammar to increase the reading pace during action scenes, and with interesting results.

Language evolves, get over it.

Who/That

In the zone...

RIP, our sarky besom

In the zone...

RIP, our sarky besom

www.justinthorne.com

practical experience, FTW

www.justinthorne.com

practical experience, FTW

www.justinthorne.com

practical experience, FTW

www.justinthorne.com

Where have the last ten years gone?

Back and on track

Back and on track

Superb member

www.justinthorne.com