Degradation of language, part 2

[Richard Lindsey]

2) Use "who", not "that", when you're referring to humans.
It's not "They are the people that run the country", it's "They are the people WHO run the country."

"That" has always been used to apply to humans; in fact, it was the original relative pronoun in English, used for people and things alike. It's definitely come into and out of fashion. It's true that these days, "who" and "whom" are preferred in what we consider standard formal written English, but it would be a stretch to say that "that" is actually wrong.

 

[BismarckHerring]

"That" has always been used to apply to humans; in fact, it was the original relative pronoun in English, used for people and things alike. It's definitely come into and out of fashion. It's true that these days, "who" and "whom" are preferred in what we consider standard formal written English, but it would be a stretch to say that "that" is actually wrong.

I’m not sure why, but I specifically remember learning in English (not my first language) class that both are correct, but ‘who’ is usually preferable.

A quick google search shows there’s no consensus. Some pages say both are correct, others say that only ‘who’ is correct.

Someone on reddit quotes from Shakespeare’s Macbeth:

Fleance his son, that keeps him company

So if this is degradation of language, it has been going on for a long time, and Shakespeare contributed to it.

 

[ProbablyTooLoud]

Upsell that backbeat or imma git uppity

 

[Richard Lindsey]

You mean “pedants”, right? ;-)

That's a heck of a label to hang around somebody's neck....

 

[singlemalt]

So many get lost between lose and loose!

 

[Bar Band Bassman]

I am really enjoying this thread! As for "less jazz fans", I'm sure there are Finnish fans of less jazz... Stop me before I start defending Oxford commas and raging about the opposite meanings of "moot" depending upon which side of the pond you reside!

BBB

 

[FilterFunk]

I get that language is fluid, and I believe that slang and other casual uses of language can make it more interesting.

My problem is with people using improper spelling, grammar and pronunciation, and neither knowing nor caring whether or not it's correct. For instance - "loose" instead of "lose," or "should of" instead of "should have." It's not a good thing if some people think "prolly" is a legitimate way to spell "probably."

My biggest pet peeve is people using the sound "uh" for words that begin with either a short "i" sound or a long "e" sound. "Event" is pronounced "uh-vent." "Immense" is pronounced "uh-mense." I actually heard a news anchor say, "uh-fective uh-mediately" instead of "effective immediately."

IMO, that's not language evolving, that's language devolving.

 

[iammr2]

1) "Less" applies to a substance. "Fewer" applies to things which could be counted.
"There is less water in this glass."
"There are fewer water molecules in this glass."
It drives me nuts when people say something like "There are less jazz fans in Iceland." It should be "There are FEWER jazz fans in Iceland."

2) Use "who", not "that", when you're referring to humans.
It's not "They are the people that run the country", it's "They are the people WHO run the country."

Some people get twisted when there's a 1/32" gap between the pickguard and control plate on a Jazz Bass.
I get twisted when people are tonedeaf about language.

Thank you for your time. Goodbye for now.

I missed your first post, but I agree. If you can't speak your own native language well, you're just lowering your credibility. Some posts are so bad, I just won't waste time trying to read them.

 

[el murdoque]

So if this is degradation of language, it has been going on for a long time, and Shakespeare contributed to it.

"Arcite and Palamon,
That foughten breme, as it were bores two."

—Chaucer, Knightes Tale, l. 841, ed. Morris.




The Bard of Avon contributed to it, but it started some 750 years earlier.

 

[wysiwyg248]

Use "who", not "that", when you're referring to humans.
It's not "They are the people that run the country", it's "They are the people WHO run the country."

You never know. Perhaps the writer does not believe humans are running the country.

 

[dougjwray]

"That" has always been used to apply to humans; in fact, it was the original relative pronoun in English, used for people and things alike. It's definitely come into and out of fashion. It's true that these days, "who" and "whom" are preferred in what we consider standard formal written English, but it would be a stretch to say that "that" is actually wrong.

Ok-- interesting.
I actually wouldn't mind going the other way, and extending "who" to the rest of the animal kingdom.
"The ants who live in my backyard."

 

[Ralph Manak]

I've spent a good part of my woking life communicating with people for whom English is a second (or third or fourth) language. As long as I can understand what they are trying to say, it's good. Same for my American friends. Life is too short to get bent up about grammar or choice of words.

Precisely. The generosity of spirit to just work things out is one of the greatest achievements of human beings, whether woking or working. Perhaps it takes both.

 

[SuperTheBass]

Look man, not all of us got the kind of fancy education you got. We're doing our best out here

 

[dougjwray]

Look man, not all of us got the kind of fancy education you got. We're doing our best out here

Admirable, but you forgot the punctuation at the end of your second sentence.

 

[KidAmnesia]

Using the water molecules in a glass of water as an example of things that can be counted is wild.

 

[WRM]

Using the water molecules in a glass of water as an example of things that can be counted is wild.

Mols, Avogadro's number, etc.?...

 

[WRM]

 

[DownRound]

Yeah, I jumped right past that without picking up on that, just how is that done anyway..weigh the glass with water, empty it, and then weigh the glass and divide the difference by the molecular weight of H2O? Seems like you might be missing a few that way. And wouldn't a certain number of them be escaping to the vapor state while you're at it?

(edit: That Animal House clip reminds me of a friend of mine, brilliant guy, son of a hotshot surgeon. He used to sit in a Captain's chair that he built a little desk top for, with a bong always standing in the corner, and do his molecular physics. He said he did it because he "liked the taste" and that it helped him visualize what was going on. He used to have smoke-study-discussion sessions with the guy who taught the course. He aced everything. Became a petroleum engineer.)

 

[WRM]

Yeah, I jumped right past that without picking up on that, just how is that done anyway..weigh the glass with water, empty it, and then weigh the glass and divide the difference by the molecular weight of H2O? Seems like you might be missing a few that way. And wouldn't a certain number of them be escaping to the vapor state while you're at it?

Even if you "could" count every molecule, think about how long that would take - generations?...

Best to estimate. Water is indeed truly fascinating as a "3-phase" molecule!

Cheers,

 

[SDC1-ClickClack]

The biggest word some people know is huge.

Really? How huge is it?

(Quotation marks or italics to emphasize that you meant the word huge would have helped avoid that misinterpretation.)