Timeline for Should you use "who" or "that" when talking about multiple people doing something?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 31, 2014 at 16:06 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| Jul 31, 2014 at 16:36 | |||||
| Oct 23, 2012 at 15:23 | comment | added | supercat | @BarrieEngland: My personal philosophy is that it is in most contexts more important that writing be clearly understood at first glance than that it follow "rules". Use of "which" in place of "that" feels right in some contexts, but not others, but I don't think "that" feels wrong in situations where it introduces a clause that identifies the things referred to by a noun. I would posit that if a person lacks a sense of when English speakers would or would not find that "which" feels natural in an identifying clause, such a person could safely use "that" and be understood. | |
| Oct 23, 2012 at 15:06 | comment | added | supercat | @BarrieEngland: There is certainly historical precedent for the use of "which" to refer to people and also in cases where it identifies rather than describes things; I think such usage is more common when the modified noun is the object rather than the subject of the enclosing sentence. I have revised my answer; what do you think of it? | |
| Oct 23, 2012 at 15:04 | history | edited | supercat | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Revised second paragraph
|
| Oct 23, 2012 at 7:41 | comment | added | Barrie England | It’s a superstition that which cannot be used in such cases. As the authors of ‘The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language’ write, ‘Integrated wh relatives with non-personal heads have been occurring in impeccable English for about 400 years.’ | |
| Oct 23, 2012 at 6:56 | history | answered | supercat | CC BY-SA 3.0 |