# People who! (short, very minor, tiny in fact) **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [December 10, 2005, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-who-short-very-minor-tiny-in-fact/334983 "2005-12-10T01:48:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Roderick\_Femm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/roderick_femm/32/14875_2.png) [@Roderick\_Femm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roderick_Femm)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2005, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-who-short-very-minor-tiny-in-fact/334983/1 "2005-12-10T01:48:02Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![soulmurk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b782af/32.png) [@soulmurk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/soulmurk)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2005, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-who-short-very-minor-tiny-in-fact/334983/2 "2005-12-10T01:55:30Z")
> [@Roderick Femm](#): > > 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? Gaudere’s Law. And, no, you missed an opening quotation mark. You’re just another person that fell victim to it. ---
**Author:** ![EddyTeddyFreddy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eddyteddyfreddy/32/18796_2.png) [@EddyTeddyFreddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EddyTeddyFreddy)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2005, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-who-short-very-minor-tiny-in-fact/334983/3 "2005-12-10T02:29:33Z")
> [@Roderick Femm](#): > > People are people [YOU NEED A COMMA HERE] not things, and they deserve to be recognized as such grammatically. Not necessarily. Seems to me “thing” is a better descriptor for Fred Phelps, for example. ---
**Author:** ![lonesome\_loser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c68b51/32.png) [@lonesome\_loser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lonesome_loser)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2005, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-who-short-very-minor-tiny-in-fact/334983/4 "2005-12-10T04:36:33Z")
Check with one of the admins for your grammar nazi uniform. I’m sure you will look snazzy in it. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2005, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-who-short-very-minor-tiny-in-fact/334983/5 "2005-12-10T04:39:35Z")
> [@lonesome loser](#): > > Check with one of the admins for your grammar nazi uniform. > > I’m sure you will look snazzy in it. Godwin and Gaudere in just 5 posts. ---
**Author:** ![TVeblen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/4bbf92/32.png) [@TVeblen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVeblen)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2005, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-who-short-very-minor-tiny-in-fact/334983/6 "2005-12-10T04:46:49Z")
And MPSIMS in six. Over it goes. ---
**Author:** ![anyrose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/54ee81/32.png) [@anyrose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/anyrose)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2005, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-who-short-very-minor-tiny-in-fact/334983/7 "2005-12-10T04:50:15Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > Godwin and Gaudere in just 5 posts. please remind me of Godwin’s Law - I’m too lazy to look it up ---
**Author:** ![TellMeI\_mNotCrazy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tellmei_mnotcrazy/32/3419_2.png) [@TellMeI\_mNotCrazy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TellMeI_mNotCrazy)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2005, 7:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-who-short-very-minor-tiny-in-fact/334983/8 "2005-12-10T07:17:37Z")
> [@anyrose](#): > > please remind me of Godwin’s Law - I’m too lazy to look it up I think it goes something like “The longer a thread gets, the chances that Hitler or Nazis will be brought into the argument approaches 1.” ---
**Author:** ![Kolak\_of\_Twilo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kolak_of_twilo/32/73_2.png) [@Kolak\_of\_Twilo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kolak_of_Twilo)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2005, 8:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-who-short-very-minor-tiny-in-fact/334983/9 "2005-12-10T08:38:13Z")
> [@Roderick Femm](#): > > 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. OOOHH! I can’t stand posters that spit up!!! …giggles and runs like a gazelle… ---
**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:** [December 10, 2005, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-who-short-very-minor-tiny-in-fact/334983/10 "2005-12-10T18:10:14Z")
> [@Roderick Femm](#): > > 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. As is typical of grammar nazis, you didn’t bother to actually _look up_ whether this is an error or not. Let’s do the basic. Here’s [Dictionary.com](http://Dictionary.com)’s relevant definition of “that”: > [@](#): > > Used as a relative pronoun to introduce a clause, especially a restrictive clause: the car that has the flat tire. Please point out to me where it says “only applies to people.” [Here’s the link](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=that) to make it easier. Now let’s bring out the big gun: the OED: > [@](#): > > - As simple dem. pron. Gee, that says it’s correct to donate a person. So, as is often the case with people that never actually studied grammar, you are fulminating about enforcing a rule that _does not exist_. It’s almost quaint. ---
**Author:** ![Rhiannon8404](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rhiannon8404/32/17929_2.png) [@Rhiannon8404](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhiannon8404)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2005, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-who-short-very-minor-tiny-in-fact/334983/11 "2005-12-10T18:28:33Z")
Since we have an open grammar thread, I am going to hijak it a bit. Lately I hear a lot of people using the phrase, “I should have went…” instead of, “I should have gone…” This is wrong, isn’t it? Or am I remembering my grammar incorrectly? ---
**Author:** ![soulmurk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b782af/32.png) [@soulmurk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/soulmurk)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2005, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-who-short-very-minor-tiny-in-fact/334983/12 "2005-12-10T20:00:19Z")
> [@Rhiannon8404](#): > > Since we have an open grammar thread, I am going to hijak it a bit. > > Lately I hear a lot of people using the phrase, “I should have went…” instead of, “I should have gone…” > > This is wrong, isn’t it? Or am I remembering my grammar incorrectly? [This](http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians/errors/errors.html#errors) site agrees with you: > [@](#): > > This is one of those cases in which a common word has a past participle which is not formed by the simple addition of -ED and which often trip people up. “I should have went to the business meeting, but the game was tied in the ninth” should be “I should have gone. . . .” ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2005, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-who-short-very-minor-tiny-in-fact/334983/13 "2005-12-10T21:53:25Z")
I hate when people say, “I’ve never been.” You’ve never been…a giraffe? That’s interesting. THERE! I’VE NEVER BEEN _THERRREEEEEE_. Thank you. ---
**Author:** ![Harmonious\_Discord](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/74df32/32.png) [@Harmonious\_Discord](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harmonious_Discord)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2005, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-who-short-very-minor-tiny-in-fact/334983/14 "2005-12-10T21:56:18Z")
Sould we get you a bib? ---
**Author:** ![Billy\_Powell](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e8c25b/32.png) [@Billy\_Powell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Billy_Powell)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2005, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-who-short-very-minor-tiny-in-fact/334983/15 "2005-12-11T02:57:27Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Roderick\_Femm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/roderick_femm/32/14875_2.png) [@Roderick\_Femm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roderick_Femm)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2005, 6:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-who-short-very-minor-tiny-in-fact/334983/16 "2005-12-11T06:30:08Z")
> [@RealityChuck](#): > > As is typical of grammar nazis, you didn’t bother to actually _look up_ whether this is an error or not. > > Let’s do the basic. Here’s [Dictionary.com](http://Dictionary.com)’s relevant definition of “that”: > > Please point out to me where it says “only applies to people.” [Here’s the link](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=that) to make it easier. > > Now let’s bring out the big gun: the OED: > Gee, that says it’s correct to donate a person. > > So, as is often the case with people that never actually studied grammar, you are fulminating about enforcing a rule that _does not exist_. > > It’s almost quaint. [Dictionary.com](http://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. ---
**Author:** ![TJdude825](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/dec6dc/32.png) [@TJdude825](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TJdude825)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2005, 8:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-who-short-very-minor-tiny-in-fact/334983/17 "2005-12-11T08:01:04Z")
Regarding the OP, “who” would be better, but “that” is okay. Their are bigger problems to worry about. > [@Sage Rat](#): > > I hate when people say, “I’ve never been.” > > You’ve never been…a giraffe? That’s interesting. THERE! I’VE NEVER BEEN _THERRREEEEEE_. Thank you. Well, if you could figure out what they meant, then obviously it wasn’t a problem that they left of the last word, was it? Maybe they were saving air. ---
**Author:** ![Licentious\_Ectomorph](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/5e9695/32.png) [@Licentious\_Ectomorph](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Licentious_Ectomorph)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2005, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-who-short-very-minor-tiny-in-fact/334983/18 "2005-12-11T15:43:00Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Billy\_Powell](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e8c25b/32.png) [@Billy\_Powell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Billy_Powell)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2005, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-who-short-very-minor-tiny-in-fact/334983/19 "2005-12-11T22:20:37Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![E.Thorp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@E.Thorp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E.Thorp)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2005, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-who-short-very-minor-tiny-in-fact/334983/20 "2005-12-11T23:34:08Z")
> [@Rhiannon8404](#): > > Since we have an open grammar thread, I am going to hijak it a bit. > > Lately I hear a lot of people using the phrase, “I should have went…” instead of, “I should have gone…” > > This is wrong, isn’t it? Or am I remembering my grammar incorrectly? Duh. It’s “I should of went.” C’mon, people. 😉