atw: Re: 'that' vs 'who'
- From: Ken Randall <kenneth_james_randall@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 22:13:27 -0800 (PST)
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: http://au.overview.mail.yahoo.com/
Other related posts:
