In Fowler's ... _English Usage_, "which" and "who" are the describing or
non-restrictive relative pronouns, for things and people respectively, but
"that", and only "that", is the restrictive or defining relative pronoun
for both things and people. The misuse of these is, however extremely
common, nearly to the point that the error is "accepted". Some time ago I
figured it out, and now I am a "purist" (and prosletyzer) for the correct
usage, because it allows clearer exposition. 

12 responses total.

We were at the Mitchell school in Dearborn for Solo and Ensemble. In a
classroom in which I waited the following sentence was displayed in a
sign above the blackboard:

"Some verbs express action which can be seen or heard."

I think if you think about it long enough you might be able to figure out
what this means. I can't. The problems are both an error in punctuation,
and in the use of the relative pronoun "which" when it is "that" that should
be used. Let's punctuate it properly first, since the relative pronoun
"which" must be preceded by a comma.

"Some verbs express action, which can be seen or heard."

Can *all* action be seen or heard? That's what it says, since "which"
here describes the noun "action". It is saying *all* action "can be seen or
heard. But that is not true. A hint that they didn't mean to use the pronoun
"which" is the word "some", but it isn't clear. I think they meant

"Some verbs express action that can be seen or heard."

Now, the predicate is the clause "action that can be seen or heard",
and does not implicitly include action that cannot be seen or heard. 
Clearly, only *some* verbs have that property, so the meaning is consistent.

If this distinction is adhered to, one can express the defining or
non-defining pronouns, and hence concepts, unequivocably. Mixing them up,
however, puts the burden on the hearer to interpret what it is that the
speaker (writer) means.

Fowler makes it clear that the rel. pro. "that" applies to both things and
people, as there is no alternative word, as there is in "which" or "who"
for the describing rel. pro. 

Hmm. I don't know Fowler. I learned grammar in Junior High, which was indeed
a long time ago. I remember being told that "who" must be used for people,
regardless of whether it is restricting. I essentially learned a grammar 
that is quite at odds with Fowler. Perhaps I mislearned it, or misremember
it, but it does seem to be more in keeping with modern usage than Fowler.

I understand where you are coming from. I am usually found in the position
of a purist who is opposing change to the language, especially the
formalization of corruptions and errors as newly correct. Not in this
case, though, it seems. Hmm.

(Fowler's book (*_Modern_*_English_Usage_), is wonderful, esp. the original
edition - the second ed was put out years later edited by someone else.  But
some things do change, & also the book (esp. the first ed) is definitely
*English* as opposed to American usage.

I use the later, *American* edition (I forget the compiler and the book is
at my office). The book itself is delightful because of the witty or wry
comments and examples. I came across this issue because I submitted a
paper for submission in which I had used what I had learned in public
school, which is to use which almost everwhere. The editor changed almost
all my "whiches" to "thats". I fumed for a bit, studied the matter, and
became converted to the proper usage. The more difficult one for most
people, perhaps, is that there is no alternative to "that" for the
restrictive relative pronoun for both things and people. It cannot be
avoided. The use of "who" for people and "which" for things applies only
to the unrestrictive relative pronoun.

I now think it sounds much better to speak of "the people that use
relative pronouons correctly, as it is clearer that I am making the
restrictive use.

Try it for a month and you will be converted.

The OED says:
That, relative pron. OE. [An unstressed and phonetically weakened form of
prec. used to subordinate one predication to another  The general relative
pronoun, referring to any antecedent, and used without infexion irrespective
of gender, number, and case. I.1. Introducing a clause defining or restricting
the anteedent, and thus completing its sense.  (The ordinary use; referring
to persons or things.) b. As obj. of a prep., which in this case stands at
the endo fo the relative clause ME. 2.  Introducing a clause stating something
additional about the antecedent (the sense of the principal clause being
complete without the relative clause). now only poet. or rhet.; usu. repl.
by _who_(whom)_ of persons, and _which_ of things.  OE. 3.  As subj. or obj.
of the relative clause, with ellipsis of the antecedent. a. Of things: = (the
thing) that, that which, what.  Now _arch._ and _poet._; repl. by _what_ in
prose. OE. b. Of persons: = (the person) that, he (or him) that, one that;
_pl._ (persons) that, they (them) or those who.  Now only after _there_are_
and the like. 

So it looks like using "that" as a subordinate conjunction is now only
poetical or rhetorical, usually being replaced by "who" and "which".  
BTW the line "the endo fo" should read "the end of".

However, in reading further, the OED also says:
Who..II.rel. pron. (skipping some archaic uses) 4.  As simple relative (of
a person or persons), introducing a clause defining or restricting the
antecedent and thus completing the sense ME. 5. As simple relative introducing
an additional statement aaabout the antecedent; ;thus sometimes ='and he (she,
they)' 1466.  

There are no symbols or warnings that these uses of "who" are in any way
incompatible with the previous "that" information, or with each other.  
However "who" as a restricting use predates (ME = first used in Middle
English) "who" as additional information (1466 = first documented use in
1466).  Over 500 years of usage in both situations has blurred any substantive
claim that "who" can be used in one way, but not the other.  
In fact, it appears by rcurl's information, that Americans have now made the
later usage the "right" one. 

Thank you, Catriona. It is evident that some writers like the restrictive who
for persons, and some like that (but not for describing pronoun). Fowler,
who I follow, argues elegantly for that. I find it prefrereable to settle upon
one anyway, and choose that, for Fowler's reasons. I also feel that who and
which have become too dominant for everything, so being inclined toward the
underdog (or, underdoggeral), I wish to give that more exposure (to whichit
is certainly entitled).

Can't argue with that.  <g>

The basic rule is "who" or people and "which" for non-people, or "that" for
anything.  I have not heard anything about "who" being preferred over "that".
It is certainly *untrue* that "that" cannot be or shouldn't be used for
people.  And if you're so hot to trot about using "who", just make sure you
get your "who's" and "whom's" straight (which has not always been true in this
very item! :-).

Maybe I should have said,
Who can argue with that.  <grin>

The "basic rule" must also consider restrictive or non-restrictive. The
matrix is:
                          things     people

           restrictive     that      that*
       non-restrictive     which     who

    *this is what the argument is about. Fowler prefers "that"; custom
      appears to sanction "who".

               

This has been very enlightening.

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss