Comments on: Who or That – That Is The Question

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”!

By: Andy Knoedler

Andy Knoedler — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:16:05 +0000

I’ve been teaching grammar since 1972 and for most, if not all, of that time I’ve taught that the choice of “who” or “that” to refer to a person is a personal one.

I’ve never seen a book that proscribes against the use of “that” to refer to a person.

If you are not comfortable with that usage, then don’t let the “person that” construction escape from your mouth. However, I think it’s fine with grammar teachers.

By: Cassie Tuttle

Cassie Tuttle — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:08:58 +0000

I’m with Charles. Using “that” instead of the personal pronoun “who” when referring to people is one of my pet peeves. And although it may be acceptable to use “that” in such cases, it doesn’t mean I’m going to do it. For me, there is no debate.

As far as I’m concerned, the only debate on using “that” or “who” arises when referring to animals and pets. And there, I guess it depends on the relationship you have with the animal.

“Of my three cats, Boyzee is the one who weighs the most.”