atw: Re: 'that' vs 'who'
- From: Bob Trussler <bob.trussler@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 17:14:27 +1100
Kath,
The language really is changing quickly.
Yesterday, I would have written "Don't get your knickers in a knot".
Is it now - don't get my nickers into a knot - ?
Do I need to update and get trendy?
Bob T
2009/11/4 Kathy Bowman <Kathy.Bowman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 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
>
>
--
Bob Trussler
Phone 0418 661 462
Other related posts:
