Comments on: Who or That – That Is The Question

By: Chris

Chris — Sun, 07 Aug 2011 21:27:46 +0000

I would like to clear out a grammar issue at the office once and for all. In their reports it is a common practice to write: ”We have met with (name of company) WHO suggested that…….” In my book, who refers to persons, that or which refers to an organization (company) or groups.

I correct them by writing instead: ”We have met with (COMPANY NAME)’s representatives who…….”

But we would never say: ”It is Microsoft WHO created …….”

Your input will be greatly appreciated.

CB
Aug-07-11

By: Tom

Tom — Sun, 03 Oct 2010 02:44:50 +0000

“Ah, so you are the person who is being singled out or understood.” sounds much better to me.

But from what I know, it is actually more traditional to use “that” when referring to a subject which is neither a proper noun or a pronoun.

So there is no doubt that with Jessy or Charles we would use “who”, and if we say he or she we would use “who” as well, but if Jessy was a banker or a student or if we referred to her as by any other noun without introducing her personally, we would use “that” — at least traditionally.

So basically the “rule” of using “who” to refer to anything which can be logically conjectured to be a human, was a development of the modern age and its changed values on “human worth” and “respect for other beings” etc.

Personally I prefer to use the modern rule of putting using “who” with the judge, just because I also use “who” when referring to animals for the same reason that people these days think it is disrespectful to refer to humans as “that”.

By: steve

steve — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 23:21:37 +0000

so exactly how do you get a dictionary?and do not e-mail me.

By: Susan Leigh Babcock

Susan Leigh Babcock — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:35:05 +0000

The examples given by Tony make me wonder if “who” doesn’t connote more familiarity with the person referred to; and “that” indicates a more generic, or less personally know, person. Then it becomes a matter less of what is correct grammatically, but a distinction made by the writer. What do you think?

By: Tony Hearn

Tony Hearn — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:10:24 +0000

Fowler A (Dictionary of Modern English) is, as ever, worth reading on this subject under ‘that, rel.’ (By the way readers, we are dealing with ‘that’ as a relative pronoun, not as an adjective.) To quote in extract: “What grammarians say should be has perhaps less influence on what shall be than even the modest of them realize; usage evolves itself little disturbed by their likes and dislikes.’ And then, “The relations between ‘that’, ‘who’, & ‘which’, have come to us from our forefathers as an odd jumble.”

While being immensely enlightening, the rest if the article deals with ‘which and ‘that’ and we must turn to his entry on ‘which(that)(who)’ for more particular guidance. Here we find under General: “(C) of ‘who’ and ‘that’. ‘who’ suits particular persons, & ‘that’ generic persons.”

Under (9) ‘who’ and ‘that’ he goes further. ” … At present (and he was writing in 1911) there is much more reluctance to apply ‘that’ to persons”. And that is still evident from this correspondence 98 years later! “Politeness plays a great part in idiom… At any rate the necessarily defining ‘that’ is displaced by the not necessarily defining ‘who’ especially where the personal pronoun to be defined denotes a particular person or persons,and holds its own better where the person is a type or generic. In ‘It was you that did it’ the ‘it’ defined is the doer – a type, not an individual.”

He goes on to cite “The only man that I know of’ or ‘Anyone that knows anything knows this”. Then note the following examples:’…an enemy that has nowhere been successful’ ['who' is allowable, 'that' is preferred].
‘They are harassing an enemy who is moving in the open’ ['that' is allowable, but less suitable].
‘Among other distinguished visitors that the Crawfords had…’

He concludes: “To increase by degrees the range of ‘that’ referring to persons is a worthy object for the reformer of idiom, but violent attempts are doomed to failure”!