Comments on: Should THAT Be Allowed to Stand In for WHO?

By: Ishmael

Ishmael — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 10:51:54 +0000

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/bl.....-who.html). I, too, find the whole tendency a little sinister and dehumanising.

By: Leisureguy

Leisureguy — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 18:59:36 +0000

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

Filip Masic — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 17:01:08 +0000

Never mind “who”, “that” is always used instead of “which”… now that drives me mad!

By: John Campin

John Campin — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 08:58:34 +0000

When I was a lad (groan . . .) it was generally recognised that both ‘that’ and ‘who’ were relative personal pronouns with different functions. The distinction that follows was also taught in foreign universities where English was taught.

The realative clause can be considered ‘limiting’ or ‘descriptive’. An example will make this clearer.

The girls, who are wearing long dresses, are going to the ball. This is the descriptive usage, indicating that the girls are going to the ball and, by the way, they are all wearing long dresses. In contrast:

The girls that are wearing long dresses are going to the ball. This is the limiting usage, indicating that only the girls clad in long dresses are going; others in unsuitable attire are not. Grammarians even prescribed the use of commas with the descriptive case and proscribed their use with the limiting case.

I don’t think there are many of us left that still make the discinction. (Yes – that still make . . .) because it’s a limiting clause.)

By: Person whom

Person whom — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 02:08:00 +0000

I use “that” for people, things, and animals, for restrictive and non-restrictive clauses. The sentence in question jars my senses when I reach the word “one”. I might say:

“A fervent person is someone who feels very intensely about a subject.”

“A fervent person is somebody that feels very intensely about a subject.”

For some reason, I prefer “who” with “someone” and “that” with “somebody”.