atw: Re: 'that' vs 'who' - corrigendum

Obviously I should have written "who" vs "that".



--- On Wed, 4/11/09, Ken Randall <kenneth_james_randall@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> From: Ken Randall <kenneth_james_randall@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: atw: Re: 'that' vs 'who'
> To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Received: Wednesday, 4 November, 2009, 5:13 PM
> In Germanic languages there is
> often a distinction made 
> between humans and animals e.g. humans eat, but
> animals 
> feed. Objectively, the action is the same.  So
> having different
> personal pronouns - "which" vs
> "that" - fits the pattern.
>  
> A distinction can be made between living things
> and inanimate 
> objects too e.g. living things decompose, but
> inanimate objects 
> decay.  Again, what happens in practice
> is much the same. 
> 
> 
> --- On Wed, 4/11/09, Kathy Bowman
> <Kathy.Bowman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 
> From: Kathy Bowman <Kathy.Bowman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: atw: Re: 'that' vs 'who'
> To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Received: Wednesday, 4 November, 2009, 4:29 PM
> 
> 
> 
> 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
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
>       
> Get more done like never before with Yahoo!7 Mail.  Learn more.


      
__________________________________________________________________________________
Get more done like never before with Yahoo!7 Mail.
Learn more: http://au.overview.mail.yahoo.com/
**************************************************
To view the austechwriter archives, go to 
www.freelists.org/archives/austechwriter

To unsubscribe, send a message to austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 
"unsubscribe" in the Subject field (without quotes).

To manage your subscription (e.g., set and unset DIGEST and VACATION modes) go 
to www.freelists.org/list/austechwriter

To contact the list administrator, send a message to 
austechwriter-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
**************************************************

Other related posts: