Comments on: Should THAT Be Allowed to Stand In for WHO? http://www.dailywritingtips.com/should-that-be-allowed-to-stand-in-for-who/ Thu, 09 Feb 2012 22:29:22 +0000 hourly 1 By: Maeve http://www.dailywritingtips.com/should-that-be-allowed-to-stand-in-for-who/comment-page-1/#comment-390249 Maeve Fri, 19 Aug 2011 18:30:06 +0000 http://www.dailywritingtips.com/?p=1163#comment-390249 Brandon, I'm in the process of reading Trollope's Barchester novels. He thats for who all over the place. I think your point that English has so few concrete examples of definitive rules explains why discussions of such matters sometimes become so very acerbic. People with tidy minds want English grammar to be tidy. In my experience, the angriest comments come from readers who cannot bear it when other speakers insist on saying things that are "not logical," like the "couldn't care less" faction. When it comes to English usage, logic does not always triumph. Language is messy, like life. Brandon,
I’m in the process of reading Trollope’s Barchester novels. He thats for who all over the place.

I think your point that English has so few concrete examples of definitive rules explains why discussions of such matters sometimes become so very acerbic.

People with tidy minds want English grammar to be tidy.

In my experience, the angriest comments come from readers who cannot bear it when other speakers insist on saying things that are “not logical,” like the “couldn’t care less” faction.

When it comes to English usage, logic does not always triumph. Language is messy, like life.

]]> By: Brandon http://www.dailywritingtips.com/should-that-be-allowed-to-stand-in-for-who/comment-page-1/#comment-390231 Brandon Fri, 19 Aug 2011 05:23:24 +0000 http://www.dailywritingtips.com/?p=1163#comment-390231 I wonder if people who are overtly annoyed by the use of "that" instead of "who" have talked themselves into being overtly annoyed by the use of "that" in place of "who". On the face of it, the rule makes sense: Who -- people That -- abstractions, animals, things And it's nice to have the separation. I think it's easier to hold on to such separations, since English has so few concrete examples of definitive rules. I'm sure if we did a survey of the classics that were studied, you'd see a ton of <i>That</i>s for <i>Who</i>s . . . and no one's head exploded. Or . . . had it? I wonder if people who are overtly annoyed by the use of “that” instead of “who” have talked themselves into being overtly annoyed by the use of “that” in place of “who”.

On the face of it, the rule makes sense:

Who — people
That — abstractions, animals, things

And it’s nice to have the separation. I think it’s easier to hold on to such separations, since English has so few concrete examples of definitive rules.

I’m sure if we did a survey of the classics that were studied, you’d see a ton of Thats for Whos . . . and no one’s head exploded.

Or . . . had it?

]]> By: Ishmael http://www.dailywritingtips.com/should-that-be-allowed-to-stand-in-for-who/comment-page-1/#comment-147641 Ishmael Mon, 13 Jul 2009 10:51:54 +0000 http://www.dailywritingtips.com/?p=1163#comment-147641 I've definitely noticed a tendency for my English Literature undergraduates using that rather than who to refer to people or characters (see http://www.thepequod.org.uk/blog/2008/03/literature-that-speaks-characters-who.html). I, too, find the whole tendency a little sinister and dehumanising. I’ve definitely noticed a tendency for my English Literature undergraduates using that rather than who to refer to people or characters (see http://www.thepequod.org.uk/blog/2008/03/literature-that-speaks-characters-who.html). I, too, find the whole tendency a little sinister and dehumanising.

]]> By: Leisureguy http://www.dailywritingtips.com/should-that-be-allowed-to-stand-in-for-who/comment-page-1/#comment-84254 Leisureguy Mon, 16 Feb 2009 18:59:36 +0000 http://www.dailywritingtips.com/?p=1163#comment-84254 In my own school days, we were taught to use "who" to refer to persons, "that" to things and ideas, with restrictive use of "who" indicated by whether the clause thus introduced was set off by commas: presence of commas indicate clause is nonrestrictive, absence that it's restrictive. The that/which distinction is where different words are used: "that" introduces a restrictive clause (and no commas), "which" a nonrestrictive clause (set off by commas). I find that people tend to use "which" for all clauses, restrictive or not. Strunk & White argue against this usage. In my own school days, we were taught to use “who” to refer to persons, “that” to things and ideas, with restrictive use of “who” indicated by whether the clause thus introduced was set off by commas: presence of commas indicate clause is nonrestrictive, absence that it’s restrictive.

The that/which distinction is where different words are used: “that” introduces a restrictive clause (and no commas), “which” a nonrestrictive clause (set off by commas).

I find that people tend to use “which” for all clauses, restrictive or not. Strunk & White argue against this usage.

]]> By: Filip Masic http://www.dailywritingtips.com/should-that-be-allowed-to-stand-in-for-who/comment-page-1/#comment-83261 Filip Masic Sat, 14 Feb 2009 17:01:08 +0000 http://www.dailywritingtips.com/?p=1163#comment-83261 Never mind "who", "that" is always used instead of "which"... now that drives me mad! Never mind “who”, “that” is always used instead of “which”… now that drives me mad!

]]>