THAT VS. WHO: The Politics of Linguistics

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carol-maric/that-vs-who-brthe-politic_b_100292.html

This piece might be restored. Please feel free to read all the reviews below. Thank You All !

Reviews

Speaking of politics, you're careful not to offend those for whom "that" has replaced "who". Next time you should write a piece on "who" vs. "whom", or maybe "so-and-so and I" vs. "so-and-so and me" -- both huge pet peeves of mine.

Hmm, I'm afraid the above appears somewhat sarcastic... Well, it's not. I enjoyed your story immensely.

[Wulfe N. Straat]

You wrote: "...since the average resident of the USA possesses the attention span of a two-year-old caught in between the throws of yet another temper tantrum; news stories (if they do not consist of..." Now, now, you know that 'throws' is the wrong spelling for the right word, right? Just funning with you. Of course, you meant 'throes.'

I love your use of the English language. Lately, it's a flower that has been kept from blossoming under manure piled up to the petals...rotting the bloom. You have so much to say, but you take us on tangents that have little to do with your main points, at least on this article. Of course, I agree with you with the objectification of people by the use of 'that' for 'who.' But then you take us for wild rides with Saddam Hussein, globalization, stress in urbanites, etc.

In fact, wouldn't all three paragraphs beginning with 'globalization' and the paragraph starting with 'I can imagine' stand much better as a separate piece rather than being sandwiched in a 'who/that' linguistic exercise? You make valid polnts in both cases. We follow your argument both times. We agree with you both ways. But both these arguments are essentially unrelated except in the grander scheme of things. The fact that they both made their presence known out of your psyche during the writing of one essay does not mean that they belong together.

Carol, your writing is unbelievably cultured and structured. Your clarity of expression and vocabulary are beams of light in "Ministry of Truth" darkness. Your ideas are expansive and enjoyable to the ear and eye. But you've got to stay focused, one subject at a time. Otherwise (and I don't mean to be cruel by any means) it's like having a conversation with a drunk who can't keep to the subject.

This essay is the marriage of a turnip to a sow.

[Amberly...]

very good poem...keep up the good work!!! i liked it!!!

[[untitled]]

I think it was Martin Buber who elucidated the 'I-thou' or 'I-it' relationships. Most people choose the latter in their treatment of others, ie, choosing to use them, commodifying them into products, into things for consumption; Erich Fromm later said it was a manifest disease of our very culture.

Shawn

[Pamela]

Wow Carol. What a magnificent piece of writing. I can't pretend to understand all of it, being as I am from Southern England, but so much strikes huge chords in my head and I shall read it again and again I'm sure.

[Helen Woodward]

Hi Carol,
I'm sweating bullets, I'm glad you finally came back to your point of debate, that vs who. I think I agree with your long winded argument, but fail to see why your work is so crippled that it's limping! You are obviously intelligent, however, when you cover so much ground to make a small point, you may as well have said nothing. You both exhaust and enthrall your reader.
This piece has political overtones that are lost on me "cause I'm an Aussie, mate" We have our own political nightmares. If you want to chat about grammar, lets get the gloves out and do a couple of rounds on Australian English, I'm damn sure I could have you begging for mercy.
Carol, stop for breath and we'll all live a lot longer.

[Janice S. Warner]

It's rather funny. Lately, I've questioned appropriate times to use "that" over "who" and vice versa. Until I read this, I thought I had figured it out. Perhaps it's a matter of order; two "who's" or "that's" in a row cancel each other out. They say math is capable of being applied in many areas of life.

It seems people attribute "who" to something that's living followed by a "that", if completely necessary, to avoid redundancy. Then again, I never knew a person to refer to a deceased individual as a "that", which would bring up the whole "soul" discussion.

If I'm not making much sense, it's only because this passage has confused me in all of the right ways. Bravo, Ms. Maric.

[Brad Windhauser]

Spot on. Also curious: looking at how people refer to children: "It" surfaces frequently. As far as Globalization, you would love a book by Mark Hertzgaard: The Eagle's Shadow. Touches on a number of the issues you address, even calling globalization, Americanization. Check it out if you are looking for a solid, brisk read.

[S. J. Fisk]

well, I've allways wanted to reside in whoville.

Excellent point though. We find ourself falling into niches of writing, and the work suffers, the human mind consuming it suffers, and there goes humanity now defined as a population of "that's".

[Glimpse of Heaven]

Sometimes the best compliment is to be able to render someone speechless. Thank you.

[Melinda Smith]

uh, yeah?

Ok, this was all a bit hard to swallow at first.
Very interesting point,
very true.
but necessary?
yes.
We will one day all reside to thats in text handed down to whos, maybe that by that point, however, what sounds better to your ears,
the girl who hit the boy who hit the woman,
or the girl who hit the boy that hit the woman?
I think that is a matter of opinion, and writers can choose who or that to add into their writing