 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2004Arkansas to Indiana to Florida?
From 1992: "People who don't know me can say all they want to," Clinton said later about the various charges. "But I think that the American people can spot *somebody that's* on their side. . . . They're tired of the politics of personal destruction." -- Bill Clinton Maybe that's where a certain poster here got his ideas about "that" vs. "who."  SignatureMaria Conlon Please send any email to the Hot Mail address. > From 1992: "People who don't know me can say all they want to," > Clinton said later about the various charges. "But I think that the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Maybe that's where a certain poster here got his ideas about "that" > vs. "who." Just a data point: =================== Incidentally, some writers insist that the word that cannot be used to refer to people, but in situations where the people are not specifically named, it is acceptable. The students that study most usually do the best. (But we would write "The Darling children, who have enrolled in the Lab School, are doing well.") Ref.: http://ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/notorious/that.htm ==================== An even more relaxed attitude is found in MWCD10: The notion that that should not be used to refer to persons is without foundation; such use is entirely standard. Because that has no genitive form or construction, of which or whose must be substituted for it in contexts that call for the genitive. ==================== Personally, when referring to people, stick-in-the-mud that I am, I prefer /who/ and its other forms. SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) www.geocities.com/opus731/ > From 1992: "People who don't know me can say all they want to," Clinton >said later about the various charges. "But I think that the American [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Maybe that's where a certain poster here got his ideas about "that" vs. >"who." I never played sax with that man. >> From 1992: "People who don't know me can say all they want to," Clinton >>said later about the various charges. "But I think that the American [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >I never played sax with that man. Oy! That should be "I never played sax with who man". -- Ross Howard Bill Clinton, 1992: >> People who don't know me can say all they want to," Clinton >> said later about the various charges. "But I think that the American >> people can spot *somebody that's* on their side. . . . They're tired of >> the politics of personal destruction." -- Bill Clinton Maria Conlon: > Maybe that's where a certain poster here got his ideas about "that" vs. > "who." I'm confused. Maria seems to think that only one person here would accept Clinton's usage of "that" as correct, when there's nothing wrong with it. SignatureMark Brader, Toronto "History will be kind to me, for I intend msb@vex.net to write it." -- Churchill > Bill Clinton, 1992: >>> People who don't know me can say all they want to," Clinton >>> said later about the various charges. "But I think that the American [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > accept Clinton's usage of "that" as correct, when there's nothing > wrong with it. I can't help but think that the "that", when used for a person, while being correct is sort of weird -- "who" being the natural and far better choice. That's just me, of course. SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) www.geocities.com/opus731/ >> Bill Clinton, 1992: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >correct is sort of weird -- "who" being the natural and far better choice. >That's just me, of course. Why do you say "natural"? There's nothing natural about grammatical structure. Being left-handed is a natural thing. Saying "We are going to the mall" is neither the natural nor the unnatural alternative to "We is going to the mall". Grammatical structure is learned. I didn't learn that "who" is preferred over "that", so I usually use "that" unless I correct it. Using "that" is now "natural" to me only in that the habit is ingrained. >>> Bill Clinton, 1992: >>>>> People who don't know me can say all they want to," Clinton >>>>> said later about the various charges. "But I think that the [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > "that" unless I correct it. Using "that" is now "natural" to me only > in that the habit is ingrained. Shall I repeat my "that's just me" part? I never claimed to speak for you. SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) www.geocities.com/opus731/ >>Bill Clinton, 1992: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > correct is sort of weird -- "who" being the natural and far better choice. > That's just me, of course. There must be some in-between position. I find "somebody that", in this sentence, rather odd, but I would have no qualms about writing "people that". I can't work out my own 'rule', but I suspect it has something to do with whether the person is specific or not. I am not pontificating on right or wrong. To the best of my knowledge, there is no 'rule' that states that 'that', referring to a person, is ever wrong, and I for one would disagree with it if it existed. However, my personal idiosyncrasies only allow 'that' in certain cases. SignatureRob Bannister > Bill Clinton, 1992: >>> People who don't know me can say all they want to," Clinton [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > accept Clinton's usage of "that" as correct, when there's nothing > wrong with it. Hmm. Well, Mark, there's only one person I see here regularly saying "that" when most others say "who." Unlike Mr. Clinton (and Tony, and apparently others, including you), I would use "who" with "somebody." My reasoning: "somebody" is a person, just like "Mark" and "Bubba" and "my aunt" and "someone" are persons (or people, if you prefer). So, they get a "who, who's, or whose." Pet animals may also get to be a "who, etc.," but that's a toss-up. "That" applies to non-human things (again, with the possible exception of some pets.) IMO, but a *strong* O. Unconfused now? <smile> SignatureMaria Conlon |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.