Take the 2-minute tour ×
English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

We help you verify, validate and monitor your systems live, 24/7, with our human resources who are rich in experience, commitment, dedication, flexibility and with high analytical skills...

Could you help me check if the words I used in this statement make sense? Is human resources a thingie noun that I should use which with instead of who?

share|improve this question

closed as off topic by Lynn, tchrist, FumbleFingers, MετάEd, Matt Эллен Sep 4 '12 at 10:11

Questions on English Language & Usage Stack Exchange are expected to relate to English language and usage within the scope defined by the community. Consider editing the question or leaving comments for improvement if you believe the question can be reworded to fit within the scope. Read more about reopening questions here.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

2  
If human resources means people not HR, just say people. –  tchrist Sep 3 '12 at 4:10
1  
It looks like its supposed to mean "resources who happen to be human, as opposed to technological", not the management of people. –  simchona Sep 3 '12 at 4:15
1  
In the corporate world, anyone willing to work for the corporation is just a chunk of meat with benefits, no different from raw coconuts, silicon, iron ore, and fork lifts. They used to be people until corporations decided to replace them with robots and cheaper foreign workers; then they were transmogrified into human resources and sold down the river. [No political comment intended here and not a troll -- I don't want a discussion, just a snicker or two; just an explanation in the same register as the term "human resources".] –  user21497 Sep 3 '12 at 4:25
1  
@Huizhe I think you are being very generous. I did not think expressions like 'thingie noun' were permitted. Also this question could have been answered by simply looking up 'Human Resources'. What people have actually done is to use the question as a platform to air their political opinions. But you are right, this is an example of a question being answered in a helpful way. By the way, what is an 'OP' - OK (Original Poster). –  Robin Michael Sep 3 '12 at 5:59
1  
Suggestion: "with our skilled analysts who are rich in experience, commitment, dedication, flexibility...". I hate the term resources to mean people. –  Lunivore Sep 3 '12 at 12:53
show 8 more comments

3 Answers 3

Is human resources a thingie noun that I should use which with instead of who?

Yes, it's an "inanimate object" that refers to a certain kind of asset of an organization. It of course, consists of animate human beings, which is only incidental to the context.

So, if you would at all use human resources, then you will need to say which.

One way would be to make it more reader-friendly by rephrasing as

... with our human resources bringing in rich experience, ...

share|improve this answer
    
Human Resources are not an 'inanimate object' therefore it should be 'who'. –  Robin Michael Sep 4 '12 at 8:35
    
Dear Kris, You have got 8,367 points and yet you have clearly got this answer wrong. I think that where the confusion lies is that Human Resources (capital letters) is the name of a department within an organisation. This department used to be called the Personnel Department. Actually, this incident makes me think about my motivation. What is it? - a desire to help, power/authority, a mental exercise - I am not sure. The other thing is, I know I am right, but how can I convince you? –  Robin Michael Sep 4 '12 at 9:35
    
@RobinMichael Very nice, thank you. "I know I am right, but how can I convince you?" -- which is what ELU is all about: find canonical answers. You can see that no one has said "I know I am right" on this site -- we don't do that here. –  Kris Sep 4 '12 at 12:31
add comment

We help you verify, validate and monitor your systems live, 24/7, with our human resources who are rich in experience, commitment, dedication, flexibility and with high analytical skills...

There is nothing wrong with this statement. You could replace the words 'human resources' with the word 'people' or 'staff'.

We help you verify, validate and monitor your systems live, 24/7, with our people who are rich in experience, commitment, dedication, flexibility and with high analytical skills...

When Bob Diamond, the Head of Barclays Bank was being questioned by a Parliamentary Select Committee, he constantly referred to 'the people at Barclays'.

Another word you could replace 'human resources' with is 'personnel'.

Both Human Relations and Personnel can be proper nouns and can be capitalised. Although of course the meaning changes somewhat.

It is 'who' not 'which' as you are referring to people.

share|improve this answer
    
For most part, the answer does not discuss the basic question of who vs which. When it eventually does, what the answer says seems incorrect: human resources would go with which, not who -- see other answers. I've not yet down voted. –  Kris Sep 4 '12 at 7:58
    
Human Resources are not an 'inanimate object' therefore it should be 'who'. –  Robin Michael Sep 4 '12 at 8:33
add comment

Regardless of your political opinion, the use of the phrase human resources here is bad, and OP puts his finger on the reason: human resources are neither men nor women but economic units.

In a context where you're trying to assure your readers that their inquiries will be answered by real human beings, rich in real human qualities, it is imbecilically counterproductive to employ language which reduces those human beings to components of economic analysis—to designate them by what OP eloquently identifies as a "thingie noun" which (as OP recognizes) calls for the impersonal which rather than who.

share|improve this answer
    
I think that this is an opinion about large organisations and capitalism in general. Where men and women are units of production - inanimate objects. Again, it is interesting that someone with 2,097 points should get this wrong. –  Robin Michael Sep 4 '12 at 9:40
    
@RobinMichael, you're missing the point: not that it's a bad attitude but that it's bad ad copy. The language is inappropriate because it contradicts the message. "People", as in the example you cite from Barclay's, would be far better. –  StoneyB Sep 4 '12 at 11:33
    
I could be generous and give you a point but I don't feel in the mood. –  Robin Michael Sep 5 '12 at 11:11
add comment

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.