Whatever happened to ‘who’?

[Trionyx]

I know, I know the purists would insist the title should be ‘Whatever happened to whom?’ But my question is even more basic. So many writers are using ‘that’ when referring to people. “She is the girl that went to the store.”
Are people now nothing more than objects, is this merely sloppy English or have I missed the chapter on how our language is rapidly evolving/devolving in the internet era?

 

[Duleigh]

I believe it would be "She is the girl which went to the store"
I believe the Who is still on tour after replacing John Entwhistle with Pino Palladino

 

[SimonDoom]

As far as the choice between "that" and "who" is concerned, there is no bright-line rule against "that." It is commonly, and correctly, used as a relative pronoun referring to a person. "The girl that got away" is perfectly correct. This is true in American English and I'm pretty sure it's true in British English as well.

"Which" can only refer to a thing. "Which" also is usually used with a comma, because it typically introduces nonrestrictive, as opposed to restrictive clauses.

Example:

On our safari we saw an elephant, which is the largest land mammal.

On our safari we saw the elephant that is the biggest of its kind in the world.

The "that/which" distinction is not universally observed. Some authors like to use "which" in place of "that" in restrictive clauses.

Sources: Dreyer's English.

 

[NoTalentHack]

The same thing that happened with the figurative literal, or near enough. People use spoken language in a way that makes sense to them, and then it starts getting used in text. Linguistic prescriptivism is largely a waste of time and often classist. Embrace change.

 

[MrPixel]

My characters' take on the issue:

"Hey, lover. No problem. You guys have been really good about not interrupting me in court and depositions. Just shoving papers around at the moment. This morning was great. You're so fun to tweak like that. I'd like some of you now, though. Who's doing who?"

"Whom."

"Fuck you."

 

[SimonDoom]

My characters' take on the issue:

This is a good example of how the rules in dialogue and narrative are different. Generally speaking, the use of "whom" instead of "who" when the word is an objective is mandatory, not permissive, but that's not true in dialogue, because the reality is that many people usually use "who" rather than "whom" in dialogue.

 

[alohadave]

The same thing that happened with the figurative literal, or near enough. People use spoken language in a way that makes sense to them, and then it starts getting used in text. Linguistic prescriptivism is largely a waste of time and often classist. Embrace change.

The figurative usage of 'literally' is documented as far back as the 1850s. It's not a recent change in usage.

It always tweaks people who think that it's 'kids these days' who are using it wrong.

 

[Duleigh]

I can't find anything about a comma being required for which, although it's in common usage. The difference is between the clause. Which is used in a sentence that has a nondefining clause, also called nonessential or nonrestrictive clauses where That is used in a sentence that defining clause (also called an essential clause or a restrictive clause) A non-defining clause can be removed from a sentence without changing the meaning of the sentence where a defining clause cannot be removed from the sentence, which we have here.

But even though the girl may or may not be the defining clause, the girl is still a person so who must be used.

Who when describing people
That when describing objects or groups
Which when describing objects

 

[MillieDynamite]

Who vs Whom is one of the more annoying things to figure out in the body of the story. Not so much so in conversational use, as real people use who and whom either way. Some are sticklers and correct your grammar. I call those people aggravators, as they aggravate the shit out of me.

 

[Britva415]

You got to dance with them what brung you.

 

[SimonDoom]

I can't find anything about a comma being required for which, although it's in common usage. The difference is between the clause. Which is used in a sentence that has a nondefining clause, also called nonessential or nonrestrictive clauses where That is used in a sentence that defining clause (also called an essential clause or a restrictive clause) A non-defining clause can be removed from a sentence without changing the meaning of the sentence where a defining clause cannot be removed from the sentence, which we have here.

But even though the girl may or may not be the defining clause, the girl is still a person so who must be used.

Who when describing people
That when describing objects or groups
Which when describing objects

You're right about the clause, but you're being overly restrictive on the that/who--thing/person distinction. The reality is that most style and grammar guides do NOT insist on this. The most authoritative guide for American fiction probably is the Chicago Manual of Style, and in section 5.56 (17th ed.) it says "that" is perfectly fine for use with people. "Which" on the other hand is only acceptable for objects. Webster's Dictionary agrees.

 

[Comshaw]

I know, I know the purists would insist the title should be ‘Whatever happened to whom?’ But my question is even more basic. So many writers are using ‘that’ when referring to people. “She is the girl that went to the store.”
Are people now nothing more than objects, is this merely sloppy English or have I missed the chapter on how our language is rapidly evolving/devolving in the internet era?

The language has always evolved, changed, sometimes quicker than others. The argument if it's better or worse can go on indefinitely. One thing is certain though, it will change. If a person was picked up and plunked down in the middle of the 12th century, I'm sure they would have a very difficult time understanding the lingo or written word. Those in that time would have just as much of a problem understanding modern English.

As far as the stuffy and staid view that it should remain static, should never change, I subscribe to the "ugly rule".

What's that you ask? This:

Convention and usage should always supersede institutional formality.

It's from an article I read (quoted and linked below) and I totally agree.

Much like the discussion we had a while back on the arcane and useless "Oxford Comma" language is going to continue to evolve. It will shed those things that aren't used or don't fit to be replaced by things that are being used and do fit. The article below discusses the usage of ok. Is it ok, Ok, or Okay? There are many who would insist that one form or the other is correct. I agree with the author of the article who thinks all of them are correct.

Excerpt from the article:
"One of the best pieces of advice I ever got was from an old alt-weekly copyeditor at a bar, who didn’t really prescribe to this fixed style or that, but rather believed first and foremost in the “ugly rule.” He held (correctly) that language and its rules are slippery and ever-changing, and that convention and usage should always supersede institutional formality. So, within that admittedly wild and wooly ethos he came up with the Ugly Rule, which privileges the reader’s eye above all else, and seeks to minimize typographical distractions (in practical terms, the New Yorker’s truly eccentric insistence on diacritics is a direct and egregious violation of the rule). He also believed that words, over time, tended to shed their size: compound hyphens disappeared, capitalization faded, and spaces closed up. Hence to-day became today, Band-Aid became band-aid, and (thank god) Web site is becoming website; and if these contractions were inevitable, why not just get in early?"

https://lithub.com/which-one-is-correct-o-k-ok-ok-or-okay/

Comshaw

 

[ElectricBlue]

But even though the girl may or may not be the defining clause, the girl is still a person so who must be used.

Who when describing people
That when describing objects or groups
Which when describing objects

I'm with you on this. It's one of my edit passes, to make sure I've not inadvertently used "that" when referring to a person. It's a real cringe for me - referring to people the same way one refers to an object. I suspect most people don't make any distinction in their usage, don't even know there is one, but for me, it sets up a little "tell" of alienation. I'm particular about this one, and look for it in edit.

 

[Trionyx]

Who vs Whom is one of the more annoying things to figure out in the body of the story. Not so much so in conversational use, as real people use who and whom either way. Some are sticklers and correct your grammar. I call those people aggravators, as they aggravate the shit out of me.

Whom is clearly falling out of favor, at least in the US. When I was younger I was taught that if the who/whom could be replaced with the word ‘him’ in the sentence, then the word ‘whom’ should be used. When I write dialog I almost never use whom as very few use the term anymore.

 

[alohadave]

If a person was picked up and plunked down in the middle of the 12th century, I'm sure they would have a very difficult time understanding the lingo or written word. Those in that time would have just as much of a problem understanding modern English.

Middle English and Modern English are effectively two different languages. It'd be extremely difficult to understand each other. It's hard enough for us to casually understand Shakespeare and that is Early Modern English, during the Great Vowel Shift.

 

[SimonDoom]

"Whom" is not falling out of favor in WRITTEN English. When the sentence calls for the objective form of the pronoun, you use "whom" not "who." Every style and grammar guide you can find will tell you this. This remains the convention for both nonfiction and fiction.

That rule does not apply to dialogue, because with dialogue it is OK to write the way people really speak rather than in grammatically correct terms.

I know, I know the purists would insist the title should be ‘Whatever happened to whom?’

Actually, no, a purist would say "Whatever happened to 'who'?" is correct. The reason is that in this case you are asking a question about the word "who," so you put it in quote marks and there is no need to convert it to its object form. It's important in this case to make clear that you are asking a question about "who" and not "whom."

Note that I inverted your use of quote marks; you used them in the British way and I used them in the American way. Both are correct in their respective countries.

I'm with you on this. It's one of my edit passes, to make sure I've not inadvertently used "that" when referring to a person.

If you like it this way as a personal preference, that's fine, but this preference is NOT dictated by considerations of "proper" English, most authorities of which say that the use of "that" is perfectly acceptable.

 

[SamScribble]

Who when describing people
That when describing objects or groups
Which when describing objects

As a general rule: which informs and that defines.

This is the house that Jack built.

The house, which Jack built, is just across the river.

 

[ElectricBlue]

If you like it this way as a personal preference, that's fine, but this preference is NOT dictated by considerations of "proper" English, most authorities of which say that the use of "that" is perfectly acceptable.

I know that. It's one of those moments when I don't really care for the prescriptive rules of grammar, where I don't give a toss about those authorities. It seems so wrong to me, so I try to never do it - it's my small contribution to always humanising people. We're people, not things. Your grammarians might not care about the subtlety, but I do.

 

[XerXesXu]

Of course, there's usually the option of omitting 'that' and 'which'. It makes your writing less clunky.

 

[ElectricBlue]

Of course, there's usually the option of omitting 'that' and 'which'. It makes your writing less clunky.

That's part of the crusade. Eliminating "and that" from my sentences - it was a real tic for a while.