0
AskAndAnswer Posted 14 years ago
Grammar

"who" or "that" or "which"

Wondering which of these is correct:

A. We looked upon the three beings, that soon began to take on different appearances.

B. We looked upon the three beings, who soon began to take on different appearances.

C. We looked upon the three beings, which soon began to take on different appearances.

Thanks!
  

Top answer

Since the "beings" don't seem to be humans and since "who" is only used for humans, you have to use A or C. I prefer A.

— Canadian45

  • Since the "beings" don't seem to be humans and since "who" is only used for humans, you have to use A or C.
  • I prefer A.
Free · every Monday

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.

18 Answers
0
Since the "beings" don't seem to be humans and since "who" is only used for humans, you have to use A or C.
I prefer A.
0
0
Without the comma in the first sentence, all three are correct (I don't necessarily object to the use of who instead of which in this case, but which is probably more appropriate). Sentence A differs in meaning from B and C in that sentence A means that there are more than three beings but only the shape-shifting ones are being observed, while B and C mean that only three bein
0
0
i gree A, "that" is used to replace for the mix of several entities
0
0
Aspara GusWithout the comma in the first sentence, all three are correct (I don't necessarily object to the use of who instead of which in this case, but which is probably more appropriate). Sentence A differs in meaning from B and C in that sentence A means that there are more than three beings but only the shape-shifting ones are being observed, while B and C mean that
0
0
canadian45There are only three beings.
Maybe so, but that can't be used for nonrestrictive clauses.
0
0
Aspara GusMaybe so, but that can't be used for nonrestrictive clauses.
But sentence 1, as originally written with the comma, makes perfect sense, and I think negates your absolute restriction of such use. I understand that "that" is often used with restrictive clauses. But sentence 1 makes sense with or without a comma, with different meanings of course.
0
0
canadian45But sentence 1, as originally written with the comma, makes perfect sense, and I think negates your absolute restriction of such use. I understand that "that" is often used with restrictive clauses. But sentence 1 makes sense with or without a comma, with different meanings of course.
No. AG is right. With the comma, we have a non-restrictive clause,
0
0
fivejedjonNo. AG is right. With the comma, we have a non-restrictive clause, and that means that we use 'who' or which, not 'that'.
That appears to be a strictly arbitrary and unjustified prohibition against using "that" with a comma..
Tell me in what way the OP's sentence 1 is semantically or grammatically wrong.
0
0
canadian45That appears to be a strictly arbitrary and unjustified prohibition against using "that" with a comma..
There is no absolute prohibition, arbitrary or otherwise. It just happens that in normal speech and writing for most native speakers, "That is common as a relative clause in identifying clauses. In non-identifying clause, that is unu
0
0
fivejedjonThere is no absolute prohibition, arbitrary or otherwise. But you and Aspara Gus both prohibited it. You can't have it both ways. Unusual use, for whatever reason, is not the same as being wrong.
It just happens that in normal speech and writing for most native speakers, "That is common as a relative clause in identifying clauses. In non-identifying
0

Related Questions