If I see another posting using terminology like “a person that”, “the fireman that”, “all those bloggers that” and so on, I’ll just spit up.
Of course I won’t because it’s not a question of “if”, it’s a question of how many nano-seconds before another poster perpetuates this unthinking error.
Here’s my point: it should be “a person who”, “the fireman who”, all those bloggers who" and so on.
People are people not things, and they deserve to be recognized as such grammatically.
There, 'nuff said. Just don’t do it again.
Did I escape unscathed from that law, the name of which I can’t remember, which says that every posting complaining of grammatical mistakes will have at least one howler?
Surprisingly, Bryan Garner, in his “Dictionary of Modern American Usage,” says: “That, of course, is permissible when referring to humans” Under “Who (D).” However, I’m fairly sure that at least Fowler and possibly Burchfield’s revision are not so lenient. IIRC, “that” used as a relative pronoun for people has a much longer history than the observation of a distinction between “that” and “who” in this particular context.
I, however, think substituting “that” for “who” is piss-poor English, and in my experience, those who make this mistake are rubes. Even though Bryan Garner is limp on this issue, he does state at the beginning of his discussion, “Who is the relative pronoun for human beings (though that is also acceptable); that and which are the relative pronouns for anything other than humans.” This sentence leaves little doubt as to which usage Garner prefers.
Dictionary.com doesn’t say “only applies to people”, it doesn’t say it applies to people at all. And I don’t think the OED thinks that the word “that” correctly donates anything.
Now, to address the tone of your post: heaven forfend that I should express a grammatical preference that doesn’t agree 100% with the OED. So let me re-phrase to spare your tender sensibilities: ‘Oh, I wish people would use the word “who” to denote people and “that” to denote objects or other things that aren’t people. This usage would not jar on my ear as much as when “that” is mis-used as I perceive it.’
Does that satisfy you, you arrogant, self-important twit?
Hey, I started this thread in the Pit for a reason. Bite me.
Well, I’ll be. I was going to defend the OP with support from one of my favorite grammar books, Woe Is I: The Grammarphobe’s Guide to Better English in Plain English, by Patricia O’Connor. I was sure it made the very same point the OP did.
Instead I found this:
“A person can be either a that or a who. A thing, on the other hand, is always a that.”
Oh well. For what it’s worth, I still think reserving “who” for people and “that” for things is more precise, and therefore better, English. Since it’s not actually wrong to make that distinction, I’m still going to do it.
I’ve already cited Garner; here are two extracts from Fowler’s detailed discussion:
“[T]he necessarily defining that is displaced by the not necessarily defining who especially where the personal noun to be defined denotes a particular person or persons, and holds its own better when the person is a type or generic.”
And, for a taste of Fowler’s inimitable wit:
“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.”
Burchfield’s Third Ed. of Fowler has the most detailed discussion of all three sources – and I don’t believe there are any other comparably definitive guides to the correct usage of either American or British English. His summary:
“Normally use who as the relative pronoun following a human antecedent and that (or which) following an inanimate antecedent. Either who or that may be used when the antecedent is animate but not human, or when the antecedent is human but representative of a class or is an indefinite pronoun.”
This is the same Burchfield who, you know, had something or other to do with the latest editions of the OED. His brief paragraph on the OED’s citation in his Fowler is worth a look, especially if one insists upon turning to a dictionary – even the dictionary – as though it could be the final word on questions of style and usage.
