Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: TheThirdRuffian; econjack

Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage (1989): “The notion that that should not be used to refer to persons is without foundation; such use is entirely standard.” It traces the interchangeability back centuries and deems both correct in standard English.

Garner’s Modern English Usage (5th Edition, 2022): Classifies the restriction against “that” for people as a “skunked term” (a debated usage in flux), but affirms both are valid, with “who” more formal.


24 posted on 11/13/2025 9:34:15 AM PST by MeanWestTexan (Sometimes There Is No Lesser Of Two Evils)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies ]


To: MeanWestTexan
The notion that that should not be used to refer to persons is without foundation; such use is entirely standard.”...

"Standard", as it is used here, simply means we have debased it for such a long time, it's okay to ignore it. I don't think it should be ignored.

Garner’s Modern English Usage (5th Edition, 2022): Classifies the restriction against “that” for people as a “skunked term” (a debated usage in flux), but affirms both are valid, with “who” more formal.

If "that" is used to refer to people and it is a "skunked term", why not use the "non-skunked" form?

30 posted on 11/13/2025 11:33:19 AM PST by econjack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson