atw: Re: 'that' vs 'who'
- From: "Kathy Bowman" <Kathy.Bowman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 17:06:56 +1030
Ha ha. Well that just goes to show how slippery the language is!
Kath
________________________________
From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bob Trussler
Sent: Wednesday, 4 November 2009 4:44 PM
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: atw: Re: 'that' vs 'who'
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
Other related posts:
