Grammar moment: who vs. that.

[cville]

I see this alllll the time.  On here a ton.  But everywhere.  THAT is for nonhumans.  WHO is for humans.

So, for example:

A)  Omigah, the goose that tormented 05heel is such an asshat!

B)  You know 05heel?  The woman who was tormented by the asshat goose?


So, when you're talking about your MIL's hosebeast friend, it's not "some lady that my MIL knows totally posted about my baby's birth on FB before I could!!!!!" it's "some lady who my MIL knows."

Got it?  Okay. Thanks.

[papie]

Actually this is helpful, thanks. I'll try to remember the rule.

[Deleted]

Hosebeasts are not human. LOL.

[justjen]

This is not a hard-and-fast rule. "That" can also be used to apply to a person, though in most cases "who" is preferred.

[cville]

Sept 30, 2014 9:18:03 GMT -5 justjen said:

This is not a hard-and-fast rule. "That" can also be used to apply to a person, though in most cases "who" is preferred.

It's a hard and fast rule for ME.  And for life.  And you are wrong.

You will forever be known as "the poster who was wrong in that post of Cville's that one time."

[Deleted]

Sept 30, 2014 9:18:03 GMT -5 justjen said:

This is not a hard-and-fast rule. "That" can also be used to apply to a person, though in most cases "who" is preferred.

Explain.

[MWOS]

this is why I communicate using gifs

[justjen]

From Merriam Webster:

Usage Discussion of THAT

That, which, who: In current usage that refers to persons or things, which chiefly to things and rarely to subhuman entities, who chiefly to persons and sometimes to animals. The notion that that should not be used to refer to persons is without foundation; such use is entirely standard. Because that has no genitive form or construction, of which or whose must be substituted for it in contexts that call for the genitive.That, which: Although some handbooks say otherwise, that and which are both regularly used to introduce restrictive clauses in edited prose. Which is also used to introduce nonrestrictive clauses. That was formerly used to introduce nonrestrictive clauses; such use is virtually nonexistent in present-day edited prose, though it may occasionally be found in poetry.

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/that

[justjen]

Sept 30, 2014 9:27:31 GMT -5 @evelynrichards said:

Sept 30, 2014 9:23:44 GMT -5 justjen said:

From Merriam Webster:

Usage Discussion of THAT

That, which, who: In current usage that refers to persons or things, which chiefly to things and rarely to subhuman entities, who chiefly to persons and sometimes to animals. The notion that that should not be used to refer to persons is without foundation; such use is entirely standard. Because that has no genitive form or construction, of which or whose must be substituted for it in contexts that call for the genitive.That, which: Although some handbooks say otherwise, that and which are both regularly used to introduce restrictive clauses in edited prose. Which is also used to introduce nonrestrictive clauses. That was formerly used to introduce nonrestrictive clauses; such use is virtually nonexistent in present-day edited prose, though it may occasionally be found in poetry.

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/that

Interesting! I go by AP style, which says who should be used for "human beings and animals with a name."

That's what I mean--it's a style thing. It's not incorrect grammar.

[cville]

Sept 30, 2014 9:23:44 GMT -5 justjen said:

From Merriam Webster:

Usage Discussion of THAT

That, which, who: In current usage that refers to persons or things, which chiefly to things and rarely to subhuman entities, who chiefly to persons and sometimes to animals. The notion that that should not be used to refer to persons is without foundation; such use is entirely standard. Because that has no genitive form or construction, of which or whose must be substituted for it in contexts that call for the genitive.That, which: Although some handbooks say otherwise, that and which are both regularly used to introduce restrictive clauses in edited prose. Which is also used to introduce nonrestrictive clauses. That was formerly used to introduce nonrestrictive clauses; such use is virtually nonexistent in present-day edited prose, though it may occasionally be found in poetry.

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/that

Merriam-webster also allowed "ain't" and "jealy" into the dictionary.  Whether such use is "standard" does not mean it best.  Or correct.

Much like the Oxford comma (RIDE OR DIE), reasonable minds may differ but the best minds know the proper way to go.

[justjen]

Sept 30, 2014 9:29:18 GMT -5 cville said:

Sept 30, 2014 9:23:44 GMT -5 justjen said:

From Merriam Webster:

Usage Discussion of THAT

That, which, who: In current usage that refers to persons or things, which chiefly to things and rarely to subhuman entities, who chiefly to persons and sometimes to animals. The notion that that should not be used to refer to persons is without foundation; such use is entirely standard. Because that has no genitive form or construction, of which or whose must be substituted for it in contexts that call for the genitive.That, which: Although some handbooks say otherwise, that and which are both regularly used to introduce restrictive clauses in edited prose. Which is also used to introduce nonrestrictive clauses. That was formerly used to introduce nonrestrictive clauses; such use is virtually nonexistent in present-day edited prose, though it may occasionally be found in poetry.

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/that

Merriam-webster also allowed "ain't" and "jealy" into the dictionary.  Whether such use is "standard" does not mean it best.  Or correct.

Much like the Oxford comma (RIDE OR DIE), reasonable minds may differ but the best minds know the proper way to go.

These are all style choices. You're free to implement whatever style you prefer in your writing. But that doesn't make people who do it the other way incorrect. It may be non-preferred, but it's not wrong.

[cville]

Sept 30, 2014 9:32:50 GMT -5 justjen said:

Sept 30, 2014 9:29:18 GMT -5 cville said:

Merriam-webster also allowed "ain't" and "jealy" into the dictionary.  Whether such use is "standard" does not mean it best.  Or correct.

Much like the Oxford comma (RIDE OR DIE), reasonable minds may differ but the best minds know the proper way to go.

These are all style choices. You're free to implement whatever style you prefer in your writing. But that doesn't make people who do it the other way incorrect. It may be non-preferred, but it's not wrong.

Okay, now you're going to be known as the poster who annoyed the hell out of me in a post one time.

It is sloppy writing to use "that" for people.  Sloppy, and unclear.  It's "wrong" not to put your best foot forward in written communication.  


ETA:  For the record, I'm not ACTUALLY that annoyed.  But I despise when imprecise language is justified on a technicality.  Especially a technicality that I don't even buy here because I'd not use Merriam-Webster as an authority on grammar.  Ever.

[speckledfrog]

Okay, let's talk about punctuation and quotation marks. Inside? Outside? Depends on the punctuation? Help a sister out.

[MWOS]

[textbookcase]

Yessss! I mix them up sometimes and then I am embarrassed. I was looking at old posts of mine from The Other Place the other day and I did it soooo frequently. I AM A DUMB.

[cville]

Sept 30, 2014 9:37:18 GMT -5 @kizmet said:

How do you feel about dangling participles cville?  They bug me but it's something about which I don't care to fix.  (That's totally wrong grammatically isn't it.....)  

"Oh cville?  That lady is just who I was hoping for!"

ACK!  :-)

I rearrange sentences in writing to avoid them.  In speech, I don't care so much.  Unless it's a presentation, in which case I try to avoid them.

"Oh, kizmet?  I was hoping to speak to her!"

[justjen]

Sept 30, 2014 9:34:42 GMT -5 cville said:

Sept 30, 2014 9:32:50 GMT -5 justjen said:

These are all style choices. You're free to implement whatever style you prefer in your writing. But that doesn't make people who do it the other way incorrect. It may be non-preferred, but it's not wrong.

Okay, now you're going to be known as the poster who annoyed the hell out of me in a post one time.

It is sloppy writing to use "that" for people.  Sloppy, and unclear.  It's "wrong" not to put your best foot forward in written communication.  

Listen, I can totally get on board with sloppy writing being annoying. This is what I do professionally. I get you. But it's a message board where BEC and berbles are accepted vocab. I'm only saying what you presented as a hard-and-fast rule is not.

[cville]

Sept 30, 2014 9:41:05 GMT -5 justjen said:

Sept 30, 2014 9:34:42 GMT -5 cville said:

Okay, now you're going to be known as the poster who annoyed the hell out of me in a post one time.

It is sloppy writing to use "that" for people.  Sloppy, and unclear.  It's "wrong" not to put your best foot forward in written communication.  

Listen, I can totally get on board with sloppy writing being annoying. This is what I do professionally. I get you. But it's a message board where BEC and berbles are accepted vocab. I'm only saying what you presented as a hard-and-fast rule is not.

[MsRedPencil]

Sept 30, 2014 9:18:03 GMT -5 justjen said:

This is not a hard-and-fast rule. "That" can also be used to apply to a person, though in most cases "who" is preferred.

[compassrose]

Sept 30, 2014 9:43:04 GMT -5 littleduck said:

Sept 30, 2014 9:24:19 GMT -5 RexManningDay said:

I do edit a lot of pieces where people have trouble with this when it comes to corporations/organizations. They want to refer to a company as a "who," which I get ... but it's not.

But Citizens United!! Lol

Corporations are people!!

[FloFTW]

I like Grammar Girl.

Which vs. That

www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/which-versus-that-0?page=all

Who vs. That

www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/who-versus-that?page=all

[oliveyou]

This really doesn't have anything to do with this, but it bothers me so I'm going to put it here. I have a coworker who says "whatnot" about 30 times a day. "After we send this to the vendor and whatnot" "So if we have a meeting and whatnot" "I think we should add instructions and whatnot"

STOP SAYING WHATNOT AFTER EVERYTHING YOU DOUCHEBAG.

[eb777888]

[stellas]

I have sketchy grammar.
Sorreh.

[noodleskooze]

I work for a SCHOOL, and the website was riddled with this type of error. I had to do a complete overhaul!

[noodleskooze]

Ok, now that punctuation has been brought into this thread, it is officially my favorite thread ever.

[BaliHai]

Oct 2, 2014 7:59:14 GMT -5 MsRedPencil said:

Sept 30, 2014 9:18:03 GMT -5 justjen said:

This is not a hard-and-fast rule. "That" can also be used to apply to a person, though in most cases "who" is preferred.

I don't know who you are, but I like you.

[moolarkey]

Oct 2, 2014 8:05:01 GMT -5 oliveyou said:

This really doesn't have anything to do with this, but it bothers me so I'm going to put it here. I have a coworker who says "whatnot" about 30 times a day. "After we send this to the vendor and whatnot" "So if we have a meeting and whatnot" "I think we should add instructions and whatnot"

STOP SAYING WHATNOT AFTER EVERYTHING YOU DOUCHEBAG.

I had a co-worker like that.  I wanted to strangle her every day, wisely she retired before I could do so.

[cville]

Oct 2, 2014 8:05:01 GMT -5 oliveyou said:

This really doesn't have anything to do with this, but it bothers me so I'm going to put it here. I have a coworker who says "whatnot" about 30 times a day. "After we send this to the vendor and whatnot" "So if we have a meeting and whatnot" "I think we should add instructions and whatnot"

STOP SAYING WHATNOT AFTER EVERYTHING YOU DOUCHEBAG.

I have the same knee jerk hatred for "anywho."

NO.  NO NO NO NO NO.

No.

Stop it.  No.

[DotAndBuzz]

I know I mess this up.  Probably a lot.