# Bit of a grammar rant - people are "whos", things are "thats" **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [October 6, 2005, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bit-of-a-grammar-rant-people-are-whos-things-are-thats/325082 "2005-10-06T18:55:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2005, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bit-of-a-grammar-rant-people-are-whos-things-are-thats/325082/1 "2005-10-06T18:55:10Z")
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.” That is all. Oh, and **Gaudere** can bite my shiny metal bum. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2005, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bit-of-a-grammar-rant-people-are-whos-things-are-thats/325082/2 "2005-10-06T19:00:54Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![DeadlyAccurate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ac91a4/32.png) [@DeadlyAccurate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DeadlyAccurate)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2005, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bit-of-a-grammar-rant-people-are-whos-things-are-thats/325082/3 "2005-10-06T19:40:20Z")
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.) ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2005, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bit-of-a-grammar-rant-people-are-whos-things-are-thats/325082/4 "2005-10-06T19:55:08Z")
Well, according to the OED: > [@](#): > > The general relative pronoun, **referring to any antecedent** , and used without inflexion irrespective of gender, number, and case. I. 1. a. Introducing a clause defining or restricting the antecedent, and thus completing its sense. (The ordinary use: referring to persons or things.) > **Sometimes** replaceable by who (of persons) or which (of things), but properly only in cases where no ambiguity results: cf. 2, and see WHO, WHICH, rel. (For ellipsis of that, see 10.) Bolding added. 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. ---
**Author:** ![The\_King\_of\_Soup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a87d85/32.png) [@The\_King\_of\_Soup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_King_of_Soup)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2005, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bit-of-a-grammar-rant-people-are-whos-things-are-thats/325082/5 "2005-10-06T20:19:44Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![Terminus\_Est](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/terminus_est/32/3087_2.png) [@Terminus\_Est](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terminus_Est)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2005, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bit-of-a-grammar-rant-people-are-whos-things-are-thats/325082/6 "2005-10-06T21:45:32Z")
Why don’t we ask **Isaac Hayes** about the correct usage: > [@](#): > > Who’s the black private dick > That’s a sex machine to all the chicks? > **SHAFT!** > Ya damn right! Can you dig it? ---
**Author:** ![Manduck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manduck/32/256_2.png) [@Manduck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Manduck)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2005, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bit-of-a-grammar-rant-people-are-whos-things-are-thats/325082/7 "2005-10-06T22:27:44Z")
> [@Terminus Est](#): > > Why don’t we ask **Isaac Hayes** about the correct usage: > > Can you dig it? Funny you should bring that up, because this part has always bugged me: > [@](#): > > he’s a complicated man, but no-one understands him but his woman. > > John Shaft! Wrong conjunction! BTW, the OP has it wrong - the counterpart to “who” is “which”, not “that” (as others have noted). ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2005, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bit-of-a-grammar-rant-people-are-whos-things-are-thats/325082/8 "2005-10-07T02:23:48Z")
> [@Manduck](#): > > BTW, the OP has it wrong - the counterpart to “who” is “which”, not “that” (as others have noted). I see. So the OED – which says “who” is a counterpart of “that” has it wrong. :dubious: :dubious: :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Manduck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manduck/32/256_2.png) [@Manduck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Manduck)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2005, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bit-of-a-grammar-rant-people-are-whos-things-are-thats/325082/9 "2005-10-07T02:45:53Z")
> [@RealityChuck](#): > > I see. So the OED – which says “who” is a counterpart of “that” has it wrong. :dubious: :dubious: :rolleyes: You’re confusing me, Chuck 😕😕 The OED cite you posted is saying the same thing that I did. ---
**Author:** ![Large\_Marge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/50afbb/32.png) [@Large\_Marge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Large_Marge)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2005, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bit-of-a-grammar-rant-people-are-whos-things-are-thats/325082/10 "2005-10-07T02:58:25Z")
> [@featherlou](#): > > 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.” > > That is all. > > Oh, and **Gaudere** can bite my shiny metal bum. 😃 YES! Thank you, **featherlou**. It bugs me too, and I’ve even been hearing news anchors use it. Argh! ---
**Author:** ![Large\_Marge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/50afbb/32.png) [@Large\_Marge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Large_Marge)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2005, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bit-of-a-grammar-rant-people-are-whos-things-are-thats/325082/11 "2005-10-07T03:08:11Z")
> [@Manduck](#): > > You’re confusing me, Chuck 😕😕 The OED cite you posted is saying the same thing that I did. This [link](http://grammar.uoregon.edu/pronouns/relative.html) should clear up the “that/which” issue. ---
**Author:** ![ouryL](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ouryl/32/6067_2.png) [@ouryL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ouryL)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2005, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bit-of-a-grammar-rant-people-are-whos-things-are-thats/325082/12 "2005-10-07T06:17:43Z")
> [@featherlou](#): > > 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.” > > That is all. > > Oh, and **Gaudere** can bite my shiny metal bum. 😃 _Nonsense_ “Who” is used only for people. “That” is used for both things or people. e.g. “The girl that I’ll marry” from Anni Get Your Gun ---
**Author:** ![Manduck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manduck/32/256_2.png) [@Manduck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Manduck)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2005, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bit-of-a-grammar-rant-people-are-whos-things-are-thats/325082/13 "2005-10-07T18:33:21Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![Large\_Marge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/50afbb/32.png) [@Large\_Marge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Large_Marge)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2005, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bit-of-a-grammar-rant-people-are-whos-things-are-thats/325082/14 "2005-10-07T20:57:24Z")
> [@Manduck](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2005, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bit-of-a-grammar-rant-people-are-whos-things-are-thats/325082/15 "2005-10-07T23:20:54Z")
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](http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Writing/w.html) site: > [@](#): > > You should usually use who (and its related forms, whose and whom) only to refer to people, with that or which only for non-human things: “a woman who lived nearby” (not that or which); “a concert that set attendance records” (not who). 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? ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2005, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bit-of-a-grammar-rant-people-are-whos-things-are-thats/325082/16 "2005-10-08T04:50:46Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Terminus\_Est](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/terminus_est/32/3087_2.png) [@Terminus\_Est](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terminus_Est)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2005, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bit-of-a-grammar-rant-people-are-whos-things-are-thats/325082/17 "2005-10-08T05:24:30Z")
Sonnet 1: > [@](#): > > FROM fairest creatures we desire increase, > That thereby beauty’s rose might never die, > But as the riper should by time decease, > His tender heir might bear his memory: > But thou, contracted to thine own bright eyes, > Feed’st thy light’st flame with self-substantial fuel, > Making a famine where abundance lies, > Thyself thy foe, to thy sweet self too cruel. > **Thou that art now the world’s fresh ornament** > And only herald to the gaudy spring, > Within thine own bud buriest thy content > And, tender churl, makest waste in niggarding. > Pity the world, or else this glutton be, > To eat the world’s due, by the grave and thee. Sonnet 25: > [@](#): > > Let those who are in favour with their stars > Of public honour and proud titles boast, > Whilst I, whom fortune of such triumph bars, > Unlook’d for joy in that I honour most. > Great princes’ favourites their fair leaves spread > But as the marigold at the sun’s eye, > And in themselves their pride lies buried, > For at a frown they in their glory die. > The painful warrior famoused for fight, > After a thousand victories once foil’d, > Is from the book of honour razed quite, > And all the rest forgot for which he toil’d: > **Then happy I, that love and am beloved** > Where I may not remove nor be removed. Sonnet 34: > [@](#): > > Why didst thou promise such a beauteous day, > And make me travel forth without my cloak, > To let base clouds o’ertake me in my way, > Hiding thy bravery in their rotten smoke? > 'Tis not enough that through the cloud thou break, > To dry the rain on my storm-beaten face, > For no man well of such a salve can speak > That heals the wound and cures not the disgrace: > Nor can thy shame give physic to my grief; > Though thou repent, yet I have still the loss: > The offender’s sorrow lends but weak relief > **To him that bears the strong offence’s cross.** > Ah! but those tears are pearl which thy love sheds, > And they are rich and ransom all ill deeds. Sonnet 38: > [@](#): > > How can my Muse want subject to invent, > While thou dost breathe, that pour’st into my verse > Thine own sweet argument, too excellent > For every vulgar paper to rehearse? > O, give thyself the thanks, if aught in me > Worthy perusal stand against thy sight; > For who’s so dumb that cannot write to thee, > When thou thyself dost give invention light? > Be thou the tenth Muse, ten times more in worth > Than those old nine which rhymers invocate; > **And he that calls on thee, let him bring forth** > Eternal numbers to outlive long date. > If my slight Muse do please these curious days, > The pain be mine, but thine shall be the praise. If it’s good enough for Shakespeare, it’s good enough for me. ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2005, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bit-of-a-grammar-rant-people-are-whos-things-are-thats/325082/18 "2005-10-08T05:36:18Z")
> [@Terminus Est](#): > > If it’s good enough for Shakespeare, it’s good enough for me. My new hero! Illustrates the old adage, though - any fool can make a rule, and any fool will follow it. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2005, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bit-of-a-grammar-rant-people-are-whos-things-are-thats/325082/19 "2005-10-08T14:21:20Z")
> [@Excalibre](#): > > 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. Just because you’ve never heard of it doesn’t mean it’s new. ---
**Author:** ![Large\_Marge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/50afbb/32.png) [@Large\_Marge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Large_Marge)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2005, 7:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bit-of-a-grammar-rant-people-are-whos-things-are-thats/325082/20 "2005-10-10T07:42:02Z")
> [@featherlou](#): > > Just because you’ve never heard of it doesn’t mean it’s new. 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. Makes perfect sense to me.