atw: Re: 'that' vs 'who'
- From: "Kathy Bowman" <Kathy.Bowman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 15:59:31 +1030
Hi Howard,
Yes apparently it was common in the times of Shakespeare to use 'that'
when referring to people. By and large I am a curious observer of the
changing English language and don't get my nickers into a knot about it.
I have even tried to get new words (engageable, engageability) listed in
the Maquarie Dictionary. However I resist the use of corporate and HR
language that is designed to dehumanise people (or should I say
'resources'!).
cheers
Kath
________________________________
From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Howard Silcock
Sent: Wednesday, 4 November 2009 3:07 PM
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: atw: Re: 'that' vs 'who'
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
Other related posts:
