atw: Re: 'that' vs 'who'
- From: Howard Silcock <howard.silcock@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 15:36:42 +1100
Kathy, you may be interested to read what 'The New Fowler's Modern English
Usage' (ed. by R.W. Burchfield) has to say about this 'convention' or 'rule'
(or whatever you want to call it). Among other things, Burchfield says that
"down through the centuries, 'that' has often been used with a human
antecedent". But he does add that "the twentieth century [when the book was
published] abounds with writers who keep to the rule that only 'who' is
appropriate when the antecedent is human". He then seems to endorse this
rule himself, except that he also suggests that you can use 'that' with a
human antecedent when the person is a representative of a class or is an
indefinite pronoun.
So, as usual, anyone looking for a simple, hard and fast pronouncement is
going to be left unsatisfied.
Does it matter if we say 'the man that'? For me, it matters if it makes
people seem less than human - in other words, the real test is the actual
outcome. But compared with the awful use of 'resource' to refer to an
employee or contractor, which seems to be quite commonplace now, I don't
think it's something I'd worry too much about.
Howard
2009/11/4 Kathy Bowman <Kathy.Bowman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> I think the upholders of the "use 'who' when referring to people"
> convention are losing the battle. Have you noticed that in speech and print,
> 'that' seems to be winning, as in "the man that..." and "the person
> that...".
> Is it a generation thing?
>
> cheers
> Kath
>
>
Other related posts:
