who vs. that

[gristy]

At the risk of being flamed this evening, I would like to comment on a grammar mistake that I see on DU all the time. As a group, I think we all write pretty well, but please consider when to use who, which, or that. The basic rule is pretty simple. Use who when referring to one or more persons, and that or which for everything else.

Canadians wondered how an alcoholic who couldn't even speak in complete sentences could be president.

Imagine a government that has an entire TV station to lay out its agenda.

Peace

on edit: spelling!!

[Swede]

1. It are not such a big deal!

[ProudGerman]

2. Is your moniter covered in red ink

with all kinds of notes on the margins?



Sorry, I'm only having a little fun at your expense. I expect you to do the same.

[gristy]

4. I take up the gauntlet!

I shall track you on DU forever and make fun of you at every opportunity! :)

[bratcatinok]

3. Hmmm

Actually I believe your second sentence would be more grammatically correct if it read:

Imagine a government having an entire TV station to lay out its agenda.


One of my college English profs beat it into our heads the use of that should be avoided at all costs. Of course I use that but everytime I do, I am reminded of my prof.

[boxster]

5. Not a grammar mistake, but....

"referring" has three instances of the letter "r".

Oh, and it's "sentences".

Couldn't resist. :P

[gristy]

6. thanks

I just can never remember how to spell sentence.

Wait - it has 3 "e"s. And referring has 3 "r"s. OK! I think I can remember that!

[nuxvomica]

7. I disagree

That is used to introduce restrictive clauses regardless of whether the antecedent is human. Who can introduce restrictive or nonrestrictive clauses with human antecedents but it is actually more appropriate for nonrestrictive clauses. A good example of this usage rule is the Mark Twain story, "The Man That Corrupted Hadleyburg." Remember that the nonrestrictive clause can usually be dropped without significantly changing the meaning of the sentence and is usually set off with commas.

[gristy]

9. So if I follow your rule, I get

Of the four from the stalled car, only the man that jumped in the river survived.

Which is simply an example of my complaint. Can you reference a style guide that gives this rule? I use A Writer's Reference by Hacker. Hacker states the following:

Do not use which to refer to persons. Use who instead. That, though generally used to refer to things, may be used to refer to a group or class of people. (bottom of p. 138, 4th edition)

There is no distinction made whether the clause is restricive or nonrestrictive.

[nuxvomica]

16. Your citation of Hacker doesn't really address this issue

"Of the four from the stalled car, only the man that jumped in the river survived." Sounds OK to me. My hard copy of the American Heritage Dictionary: New College Edition goes into detail about the usage of "that" vs. "who" and I'll type that up later when I have more time if you like. The online reference has this:

Some grammarians have argued that only who and not that should be used to introduce a restrictive relative clause that identifies a person. This restriction has no basis either in logic or in the usage of the best writers; it is entirely acceptable to write either the woman that wanted to talk to you or the woman who wanted to talk to you.
http://www.bartleby.com/61/0/W0140000.html

Also, Wilson Follett, Modern American Usage, A Guide has a nice detailed discussion of the issue under "that".

My problem with your rule is that it is too restrictive, and would require that I write (or sing) "You're the one who I love" instead of "You're the one that I love." All that said, I have a book on my shelf with the title The Cat Who Wasn't There, which is, strictly speaking, incorrect unless you consider cats to be people. ;)

[Nailzberg]

8. Two place I don't do grammar

1. DU Loungue (I don't see the need to check my work here)

2. Free Republic (If they catch me using proper grammar, they're likely to kill me)

[RebelOne]

10. Sorry to differ, but both are correct.

According to one of my grammar books (by the way, I am a copyeditor), if both sound rright, it's because both are right. A person can be either a "that" or a "who." A thing, on the other hand, is always a "that." In the case of animals, unless the animal has a name, it is always a "that."

[gristy]

11. Thanks, Rebel.

I think using "that" to refer to a person never sounds correct. Am I in the minority?

on edit: I believe accepted usage is as Hacker states it. I can't recall ever rearing in horror at a misused that in the NY Times, for example.

[soup]

12. Changes will need to be made if this is retroactive-

'That 70's Show' IS correct, but
'That Girl' should have been 'Who Girl'?

Someone call the Isley Brothers(?)
'Who's That Lady?'
'Who's Who Lady?'

sorry, sometimes I wake up that/who way.

[gristy]

13. hahaha

But we're talking about the use of these words in the context of subordinate clauses.

[Guaranteed]

14. What about "which"? nt

[cosmicdot]

15. for 'whom' the bell tolls

might as well cover who v. whom

is 'whom' used only when a preposition preceeds it, i.e., to whom, for whom?

can 'who' be plural?

```````````````
I can't lie ... my 10th grade English class days haunt me to this day RE the verbs 'lay' and 'lie', and their various tenses ... leave sleeping dogs lay? ... lay the book down? ... laid, lain ...

'sit and 'set' were easier for me :)