Editur.

[epaul]

Bill or field,

Who and That usage.

Is it "I know there are people 'who' see things differently than me" or "I know there are people 'that' see things differently than me"

"That" works better for "see". But "Who" works better for "people".

What's the deal on this who/that thing?

(and not just the classical usage, what is the current practice that seems to be in accepted use)


Paul

[Dub]

From the English Plus+ Web site...

Using That, Which, and Who as Relative Pronouns

That, which, and who when used as relative pronouns each has a distinct function.

In modern speech, which refers only to things. Who (or its forms whom and whose) refers only to people. That normally refers to things but it may refer to a class or type of person.

Examples: That is a book which I need for the class.

These are the books that I need for the class.

He is the man who will be teaching the class.

They are the type of people who would lie to their mothers.

They are the type of people that would lie to their mothers.
(That is OK here because it is a class or type.)

Some teachers also tell you that that should be used with restrictive modifiers and that which should be used with nonrestrictive modifiers. Historically, there is little evidence that this "rule" ever had a significant effect on English expression, but writers should be aware that some correspondents have been taught this practice.

Sometimes using which for a restrictive modifier can make a sentence sound better, especially if the sentence already uses the word that (as in the first example above).

This "rule" can cause confusion with multiple clauses, questions, or certain constructions and compounds which use that. It is better to communicate more clearly than to worry about a questionable "rule."

- Dub

[billhammond]

Aug 26, 2008 10:27:54 GMT -5 epaul said:

Bill or field,

Who and That usage.

Is it "I know there are people 'who' see things differently than me" or "I know there are people 'that' see things differently than me"

"That" works better for "see". But "Who" works better for "people".

What's the deal on this who/that thing?

(and not just the classical usage, what is the current practice that seems to be in accepted use)


Paul

People (and some pet animals) are "who" recipients. That is an ironclad rule for me, and I consider anyone using "that" in such a situation to be employing sub-standard English.

[millring]

Aug 26, 2008 11:00:20 GMT -5 billhammond said:

People (and some pet animals) are "who" recipients. That is an ironclad rule for me, and I consider anyone using "that" in such a situation to be employing sub-standard English.

So when, for instance, Olivia Newton-John sings, "You're the one that I love", she's expressing either of two things:

Bad grammar, or (and more likely)...

Love for something less than a pet animal?

[billhammond]

Yup, you got it, John.

[Russell Letson]

I just remember that people are who and things are that, at least in writing. Speech is much less fussy. And if we're talking about written form, it would be "who see things differently than I do [see things]." Actually, I'd recast the sentence to avoid the "differently from" construction: "I know that there are people who do not see things the way I do."

"Current practice" is probably all over the place, partly because written English seems to be heading toward speech (and informal speech at that) for its models, even in journalism. Certainly young people don't read enough, or widely enough, to have the have the models needed for stylistic and rhetorical flexibility. By contrast, notice what the Pythons draw on for much of their humor--the range of historical and social styles. You don't get that without a lot of reading and a good ear for the variety of spoken English. Of course, they also grew up in a culture that used language as a strong marker of social position and power, where linguistic flexibility is a survival skill.

[dradtke]

Or people who wake up in the middle of the night and yell, "Who that?"

[Marshall]

The ironclads rule.

[Cornflake]

What if you're referring to a person that/whom you view as a sex object?

[Russell Letson]

Sentient personal-use items rate who/whom. Automated or inflatable items get which/that. Virtualities are up for, uh, grabs.

[paulschlimm]

My boss and I were just discussing this in an oblique manner today. I said, "There are only two objects that I love. One is my guitar, and the other is my bike." I was gramatically correct.

[Russell Letson]

The object of my affection
Can change my complexion
From white to rosy red.