[LMB] Re: Grammar OT: (was Re: Lois-Bujold Digest, Vol 15, Issue 17)

[Elizabeth McCoy]

At 3:40 AM -0700 8/6/06, Tracy MacShane wrote:
>On Sun, 6 Aug 2006 09:05:46 +0300, "Kalina Varbanova" <kikibug13 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Is that actually incorrect? I remember learning that "that" could be
>> used both for people and objects; it was using "which" for people that
>> was wrong ...

The word "that," according to all my research on it, is used only for
inanimate objects and animals, never people.

The word "which" can be used for people and animals.

The word "who" is for people. And cats. O;>

Use of "that" for people is one of my pet peeves which drives me screaming
up a wall and which I *POKE* people about should they be writing for me.
(It is, in fact, my very first _pet_ peeve, and it wears a pretty pink
ribbon.)

>Aha! I found something: http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000255.htm - 
>apparently you can use "that" to refer to a *class* of people. That kind of 
>makes sense, although I would still default to "who" in that instance.

So would I.
-- 
--Beth, arcangel at io.com / archangel at sjgames.com  In Nomine Line Editor  
http://www.io.com/~arcangel/