He is not the man he was.

Question

I understand that it is good English to lament that "He is not the man he was."

And the expert Eric Partridge reassures me that I can also say "He is not the man which he was" or (preferably) "He is not the man that he was."

But Mr. Partridge says that "He is not the man who he was" is "absurd and ambiguous."

Would someone please explain in easy English that an ordinary fellow like me can understand: why would "who" be "absurd and ambiguous"?

Thank you

CalifJim · Accepted Answer

James MBut Mr. Partridge says that "He is not the man who he was" is "absurd and ambiguous."

I don't know if I would go as far as "absurd and ambiguous", but it seems to me that he is calling attention to the fact that "who" in that context can suggest a logical contradiction more strongly than "which" or "that", namely that "that person" ("he") was not "that person". If we call him Pete: Pete was not the man that Pete was. / Pete was not Pete. Any sentence of that form might be thought of as absurd, I suppose. This pipe is not this pipe.

"which" or "that" are less likely to suggest the contradictory interpretation because these, unlike "who", are used with abstract ideas, not exclusively with persons.

CJ

Anonymous · Answer

Thanks so much for the great answer -- and in language that even I could understand.  I'm going to print it out right now.

He is not the man he was.

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions