0
Anonymous Posted 12 years ago
Grammar

Who versus that

In the following sentence, my daughter's teacher gave her a red mark for writing "that" instead of "who" after "...people younger than you..."
Which is correct? "Wherever you work there will be old employees that have worked there since before you were born, and there will be people younger than you that have just started working."
  

Top answer

Some people feel that 'that' should not be used for people. This is a matter of style, not grammar. For me (and the British Council) 'that' is acceptable for people.

— Fivejedjon

  • Some people feel that 'that' should not be used for people.
  • This is a matter of style, not grammar.
  • For me (and the British Council) 'that' is acceptable for people.
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.

6 Answers
0
Some people feel that 'that' should not be used for people. This is a matter of style, not grammar. For me (and the British Council) 'that' is acceptable for people.
0
0
Anonymousmy daughter's teacher gave her a red mark for writing "that" instead of "who" after "...people younger than you..."
Oh, that’s nothing but prescriptive nonsense. It’s perfectly standard to use that relatives in noun phrases denoting people. Also, the latest cutting edge grammar analyzes that as a subordinator rather than a relative prono
0
0
Aspara Gus In this analysis that of course doesn’t refer to people, or anything; it’s only serving to mark the relative clause as subordinate.
So what decides whether the subordinator is followed by a singular or plural form of the the verb if that subordinator is not a relative pronoun with a singular/purl noun as an antecedent?
0
0
fivejedjonSo what decides whether the subordinator is followed by a singular or plural form of the the verb if that subordinator is not a relative pronoun with a singular/purl noun as an antecedent?
The covert relativized element, H&P would say: people younger than you that __ have just started working. It’s this element that has an anaphoric lin
0
0
Oh, I see. It's a subordinator with a covert relativised element. Silly me. I should have seen that. Is it OK to refer to it, informally of course, as a CRE?
0
0
fivejedjonOh, I see. It's a subordinator with a covert relativised element. Silly me. I should have seen that. Is it OK to refer to it, informally of course, as a CRE?
0

Related Questions