This is probably way, way down the list of things most people think about as they write in English (if they think of it at all), but I have been noticing it lately, and it’s been bugging me like a mosquito whining in your bedroom at night. People are “whos”, not “thats” - example used in a sentence:
“She’s a girl who gets worked up about minor stuff sometimes.”
Things, objects, and stuff are “thats” - “This is the door that squeaks.”
Not, “She’s a girl that gets worked up about minor stuff sometimes.”
I thought people were “whos,” things were “whiches,” and either one could be a “that”; and IIRC there’s some sort of distinction between the situations where you’re supposed to use “who/which” and where you’re supposed to use “that.” Maybe one of our resident grammar experts can provide the straight dope.
I didn’t realize you were my husband, featherlou. Could you pick up a gallon of milk on the way home?
(In other words, this his grammar pet peeve, too. Drives him nuts in World of Warcraft, because the mistake is made all the time in the quest and NPC text.)
In other words, “that” can refer to any antecedent, and it is perfectly acceptable when referring to a person. In fact, the definition indicates that “who” is more restrictive – it can only apply to persons. “That” correctly applies to anything.
Hey, isn’t featherlou that poster what gets worked up about grammar, diction and such?
My style guide (Simon & Schuster) says to use who when talking about a particular, named person, and* that * when referring to anonymous persons (as in your example) or groups of people. No need to fight, though: you’re entitled to your preference.
By the way, not to accuse the OP of being oversensitive, but if a mosquito in my bedroom bugs him (at a distance of 2300 miles), what hope is there of pleasing him?
I continue to be confused. Large Marge’s cite contradicts RealityChuck’s cite, and they both seem to be pretty authoritative. I guess it’s not a settled question after all. Maybe it depends what country you’re from?
Dictionaries (OED, et al) are records of common usage; they reflect they way people write and speak. They are not the definitive or authoritative source on how to write (or speak) correctly.
We can do “that” and “which” later; right now, we’re doing “who” and “that.” I did my research before posting this, and I stand by my OP; people are not “thats”. From this site:
I will agree that it might be a preference more than a hard and fast rule whether ALL references to humans are “who.” Doing a little more research, it looks like “that” is an acceptable use, but “who” is more correct. Call me anal, but I prefer more correct when I am aware of a choice.
I’m not a guy. Jeeze, you hang around a board for five years, you post over 7700 times, you think people might pick up on things like this eventually. And would you kill that damned mosquito already? How’s a gal supposed to get any sleep?
The fact that these rules seem so variable (I have to say, even I’ve never heard this one about not using “that” for people) is one of the consequences of randomly inventing new “grammatical” rules and claiming that it’s wrong not to use them.
Yeah, it’s not new, and it’s definitely not variable.
It is an Associated Press Style rule and also is found in many (if not all) credible manuals/books on writing well.
If we all used Shakespearean verbage in our daily communications, imagine how confused our readers would be. (I’m tempted to send such an email to my boss, just to see how it flies. What fun!) That’s why there are style rules, the consistency helps ease communication.
