# EN: who / whom / that / ∅ - for people



## krimo

I heard that quite recently : "... a taste of his own medicine, and I'm the man *that's* gonna shove it down his throat"

Is it common to use 'that' instead of 'who' ?? (Think it was american english...)

Thanks !

*Note des modérateurs :* Plusieurs fils ont été fusionnés pour créer celui-ci. Voir aussi EN: who / whom - when used with a preposition.


----------



## badgrammar

I think in spoken English you often here "that" in the the place of who.  Or even  "which"...  But I don't know how to explain the formal rules for the use of that, who and which...  Maybe someone else does.


----------



## geve

This is a very good question, krimo! I've seen "that" used to introduce propositions relating to people, too, and not only in slang -even on this forum. I've been wondering why and how it could be used, and if it implied any connotations, but never found the time to ask.  

Could this be a question for the EO forum?


----------



## KittyCatty

Yeah, you can say
"She's the one that's doing it"
"I'm the one that's got to clear all this mess up"
But I also think it is more natural to say
"It's her who's doing it"
"It's me who's clearing it up"
I can't really offer an explanation. But I can tell you that you will hear both expressions, whether it's grammatically correct or not.


----------



## CARNESECCHI

Hello,
"I'm the man that's gonna have" is definitely spoken english. You often hear "the soldier that was killed" instead od "the soldier who was killed". I have always been told that that "that"   is not correct, of common use, but still not correct.


----------



## geve

So KittyCatty, are you saying that after expressions such as "he's the man" or "she's the one", you would use "that" rather than "who"?

ie. _He's the one that's going_ _to win_ and _It's him who's going to win_?


----------



## KittyCatty

[…]
Apparently anything other than who's is wrong. I suspected that, but it doesn't mean you won't hear it.
"The person who's" beats "the person that's" in a google fight, but so many people say "that's" without even thinking about it. It's just incorrect but widely used English.

In answer to your question, geve, I would be more likely to use that's in the context of 'the one that's' (or the person that's) because this seems very impersonal. But if I was giving a name or a personal-sounding pronoun like 'He's/She's/KittyCatty's' I would be more likely to say 'who's'. In truth you can say either, though "who's" is the only correct one technically speaking - but if I was going to say that's, I would probably use it when I was being impersonal, not giving emphasis to the pronoun, but the action - "the one that's gonna shove it down his throat"
BUT "It's me who's gonna shove it", this is more emphatic on a personal level, I feel.
ps. this is only me! It's probably not a universal representation, but this is my take on my own spoken english. I would not advise writing _that's _down because it is technically wrong, but this is my view of how and when I say _that's_ rather than _who's_. Sorry if I'm blabbing!


----------



## captain_rusty

I wouldn't say that "that" is _wrong_ here (there's a school of thought that says that if the native speakers use a structure, then by definition it's right...), but it's certainly less formal than "who"...


----------



## geve

You are right, captain rusty: it's one thing to say that the sentence is not gramatically correct, but it's also important to know that it is nonetheless used and how and in what circonstances. We've had that discussion before, in some other thread, about the French... 
Inquiring minds want to know --even if it's not in the grammar books!!

So thank you all for the explanations


----------



## krimo

Thanks a lot you guys !
So, to summarize up the whole thing :
that -> colloquial
who -> more formal
Right?


----------



## KittyCatty

[…]
I don't believe "who" is more formal, you could quite comfortably use it in colloquial situations, it is just more grammatically correct. "That" is used in spoken English frequently.
So your summary is (very nearly) on the spot!


----------



## french4beth

Or you could summarize it in this way (American English):

The rules are as follows (but this doesn't necessarily apply to casual conversations) as found here:


> You've torn between the pronouns "that" and "who." How do you decide which pronoun to use? Start by looking at your noun... If your noun... is inanimate, use "that." _The building that burned down was insured. _But if your noun is animate, a person or persons, use "who." _The farmers who attended the meeting learned a lot. _


Also (found here):


> Taking myself back to journalism classes, "that" gives emotional distance and impersonality, compared to "who". It's use is similar to the journalistic tradition of always using "said" for everything attributed to a person. (A source never "states" or "exclaims" in a news story.)


----------



## isausa81

Hello,

I need some help! How do we know which pronoun to use?

"The little girl who/ whom / that / (nothing) you've just seen is pleased with her new haircut".

I don't get it. Can someone help me to understand, please?

Thanks in advance for your help ;+)


----------



## ptite_nala

that peut s'utiliser pour les personnes et les choses mais ce n'est pas un très bon niveau de langue je crois. Dans ton cas il faut utiliser who ou rien du tout


----------



## jann

_Who_ is a subject pronoun (la petite fille "qui" tu viens de voir [sic])
_Whom_ is an object pronoun (la petite fille "que" tu viens de voir).  
_That_ may be either an object or a subject pronoun.

_Who_ and _whom_ are for people.
_That_ is for things, but may certainly be used for animates and people as well.

So we should probably say "the little girl *whom* you've just seen."  
But... many native English speakers will (incorrectly) say "the little girl who..." This mistake is so common that it doesn't really even sound wrong.

EDIT: ptite nala is correct that we could also omit the pronoun entirely... and "that" would grammatically acceptable.

Does that help?


----------



## born in newyork

By the way, even in standard/written English, it is considered proper to omit the word "whom" entirely in the example you gave. ( I would probably say "the little girl *you just saw . . . *").


----------



## ohmyrichard

To my understanding, although "whom" is the best choice grammatically, native speakers seldom use it in this case. I often hear them use "who", and more often I hear them use "that" or nothing. English is a tricky language.


----------



## laudace

True, ohmyrichard, but a big part of what makes it tricky is that, progressively, the proper rules are not followed.

Jann is correct.  born_in_newyork is also correct, as (sometimes) the word can be eliminated. 
So we must say "the little girl whom you've just seen."
The person whom I have quoted is right.


----------



## Arrius

who is a subject and whom an object, but the Americans are keener on this rule than the British, who more often say and write _*who* you've just seen._


----------



## kbbylily

Hello,
If I understand this rigut, for the first example, the best is to say nothing?
"The little girl you've just seen is pleased with her new haircut"?
and Arrius, said whom is a object, so, is it the rule? use whom everytime "who" is an object, or is it more complicated?
Thanks for your replies


----------



## Kurp

In spoken English, we probably would omit the "that". 

That's true, you're supposed to use "whom" when the preceding part is an object of the sentence but it's sound very formal and even in written English I wouldn't use it but I'm French ;p


----------



## Asr

Hi!

I was taught that "that" works for both subjects and objects. So "The little girl that sits next to me is my niece" should be just fine, right? (qui)

But I guess it would be wrong to use it for people in the sense it would replace the French que.


----------



## Tim~!

Asr said:


> I was taught that "that" works for both subjects and objects. So "The little girl that sits next to me is my niece" should be just fine, right? (qui)


 That's a strange sentence.  You could say "The little girl who(/that) is sitting next to me is my niece", if you're looking at a video or photo.



> But I guess it would be wrong to use it for people in the sense it would replace the French que.



Give an example, and I'll tell you how we would say it in English.


----------



## Kurp

Well, for this one I would say :

The little girl who is sitting next to me is my niece.

because the little girl is the subject of "to sit" and not an object

You could also say : the little girl that is sitting next to me ... but this time, you cannot omit the "that"

edit : owned by Tim


----------



## Arrius

jann said:


> _That_ is for things


[…] That just isn't so: just recall the old Frank Sinatra number "The girl *that* I marry will have to be...." which is perfectly good English on both sides of the pond, and t_he man *that* marries her will. indeed, be fortunate_, where_ that_ is in the nominative or subject case, is also quite correct.


----------



## Asr

Hello there!



Kurp said:


> Well, for this one I would say :
> 
> The little girl who is sitting next to me is my niece.
> 
> because the little girl is the subject of "to sit" and not an object


 
That was the point I was trying to make. "*That"* can be used as a relative pronoun for subjects as well. I am not good at coming up with examples; so here is one from a dico ,

The people that live next door...



> You could also say : the little girl that is sitting next to me ... but this time, you cannot omit the "that"


 
Really? I thought I could...The girl sitting on the stairs is my niece.? (yeah, can't improve it any further )



Tim~! said:


> That's a strange sentence. You could say "The little girl who(/that) is sitting next to me is my niece", if you're looking at a video or photo.


 
Right, I was also thinking of a photo. About the example you asked, I was just wondering whether I could use *that* just like *whom*.

hmm, The woman that you saw is the substitute teacher for our maths class. ? (ohh well, )

_P.S. missed the post of Arrius, trying to figure out the quotation thing. Thanks for all your help guys!_


----------



## Rory Melough

"That" is perfectly fine. I think "whom" is the "grammatically" correct version, but "that" is used so much in this context that it's perfectly acceptable.


----------



## uptown

To be "grammatically correct" and please your high school English teacher (who is now called a "language arts teacher"):
The little girl whom you've just seen is pleased with her new haircut.
The little girl that you've just seen is pleased with her new haircut.
The little girl you've just seen is pleased with her new haircut. (In this case the word *that* is omitted but "understood".)
The little girl who you've just seen is pleased with her new haircut. (However, most or at least many Americans and Brits make this "mistake" routinely in conversational English.)
The little girl which you've just seen is pleased with her new haircut.
In French, this sentence is (roughly):
La petite fille *que* tu viens de voir est heureuse avec sa nouvelle coupe de cheveux.

We use *whom* in this circumstance, not *who*, because we need the pronoun to act as a direct object within the subordinate clause. The word *whom* is the direct object of the verb *have seen* (with *have* contracted to *'ve*).

Compare to these sentences:
The little girl who waved is pleased with her new haircut.
The little girl that waved is pleased with her new haircut.
The little girl whom/which waved is pleased with her new haircut.

In French, this sentence is (roughly):
La petite fille *qui* a fait un signe de main est heureuse avec sa nouvelle coupe de cheveux.

We use *who* in this case, not *whom*, because it is the subject of of the verb *waved*.

Note that the word *that* is correct in both cases.

The relative pronoun *which* should only be used to refer to things, not people.

I hope this helps.


----------



## Arrius

La petite fille qui a fait un signe de la main est contente de sa nouvelle coiffure.


----------



## Thomas1

uptown said:


> To be "grammatically correct" and please your high school English teacher (who is now called a "language arts teacher"):
> The little girl whom you've just seen is pleased with her new haircut.
> The little girl that you've just seen is pleased with her new haircut.
> The little girl you've just seen is pleased with her new haircut. (In this case the word *that* is omitted but "understood".)
> The little girl who you've just seen is pleased with her new haircut. (However, most or at least many Americans and Brits make this "mistake" routinely in conversational English.)
> The little girl which you've just seen is pleased with her new haircut.
> [...]


I have read about it today and grammar books intended for foreigners would accept all your first four sentences, although technically the 4th one is not correct. The last sentence is of course wrong, _which _is used for things not for people.


----------



## Anatolia

Dans ma scolarité, on m'a toujours enseigné qu'on utilisait "who" lorsque celui-ci est sujet et "whom" pour toute autre fonction dans la phrase (COD, etc.). Or, dans le langage courant, on utilise "who" à la place de "whom". Exemple : Who would you like to talk to ?" "Who did you meet ?" etc. Après m'être documentée, j'ai appris que "who", dans ce contexte était officiellement incorrect mais que "whom" faisait pédant...
Que me conseillez-vous d'enseigner à mes étudiants de BTS de commerce international dans le cadre d'une négociation-vente en anglais ?
Thank's a lot for your help !


----------



## cropje_jnr

Je leur conseillerais personnellement de suivre les règles grammaticales et dire _whom_ là où il le faut, même si la plupart des anglophones ne vont pas considérer _who_ comme fautif dans la majorité des cas. A mesure que des étudiants de l'anglais sont exposés à l'anglais de tous les jours, ils font souvent comme tout le monde (c'est à dire privilégier _who _par rapport à _whom_ sauf dans des contextes formels), mais à mon humble avis ce n'est pas aux éducateurs d'encourager cette pratique.


----------



## minederien

Bonjour Anatolia,
Dans l'Anglais enseigné aux adultes, il est d'usage d'aborder la règle que vous mentionnez en expliquant qu'au-delà de la grammaire l'emploi de who/whom est une question de registre du langage.
Cependant, il est d'usage d'imposer l'emploi de whom avec les prépositions : for whom, with whom etc...


----------



## mtmjr

Tandis que je suis d'accord avec cropje jnr que les éducateurs devraient enseigner la grammaire complètement correcte...

Je voudrais ajouter que dans n'importe quel contexte, l'usage de "who" au lieu de "whom" ne semblera jamais incorrecte à la plupart des anglophones. En fait, beaucoup trouveront "whom" à sembler un peu drôle. "Who" ne sera pas du tout sembler inculte.


----------



## Padraig

mtmjr said:


> Je voudrais ajouter que dans n'importe quel contexte, l'usage de "who" au lieu de "whom" ne semblera jamais incorrecte à la plupart des anglophones.



Jamais? _To whom it may concern...  for whom it is intended.... _


----------



## Jean-Michel Carrère

In any case, as you know, in most cases English speakers have found a way round the problem by simply leaving the relative pronoun out altogether :

e.g. : the customer *to whom* I was talking ... : the customer *__* I was talking *to*


----------



## mtmjr

Padraig said:


> Jamais? _To whom it may concern... for whom it is intended.... _


 
I meant spoken.  Obviously, there are written contexts such as these which are customary.

Along the lines of what Jean-Michel Carrère said, we generally just put the preposition at the end of the sentence anyway, thus allowing the "who" to sounds less incorrect:

_Who are you talking to?_
_Who did you get that from?_


----------



## The Morrigan

Hi,
I have doubts concerning the use of relative pronouns in English so here are some sentences, please tell me if they are all correct, thank you:

1) The man you saw is my dad.
2) The man who you saw is my dad.
3) the man whom you saw is my dad.
4) The man that you saw is my dad.

[...]


----------



## jann

We can't generally correct lists of sentences... 

Your question has been split up and transferred into a number of related threads where this topic has already been discussed.  If you read through the posts above, you will discover that all four of the sentences you have given can be commonly encountered in everday speech... even though sentence (2) is grammatically incorrect.  Sentence (3) is probably the answer that would be expected on a multiple-choice exam for people learning English as a foreign language.


----------



## say-it34

Hi, 

'do we know whom/ who she frequently sees ?' which one is best ?


----------



## realestate

I'd vote for "whom" because this sounds like an object to me.

"Who/whom" can be very difficult for even native English speakers.

It may be easier for you to test if if the sentence calls for an object by swapping it around and substituting pronouns. Your ear is probably better trained to select between subject and object pronouns than to pick "who/whom":

1) WHO she frequently sees = HE => "do we know HE"? [incorrect]

2) WHOM she frequently sees = HIM => "do we know HIM?" [correct]

does that help?


----------



## Glasguensis

I don't agree - it is no longer the case that whom is used whenever it is the object.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whom#Rules_for_determining_who_vs._whom_in_traditional_usage 
In this sentence I would choose "who", and so would virtually every other modern native speaker.


----------



## guillaumedemanzac

The *who/whom* controversy is "legendary" and modern usage means *who* is now used much more even when technically incorrect.
And anyone "correcting" someone could be regarded as pedantic or a linguistic snob!!!
*To whom am I speaking?* *Who am I speaking to?*  Technically the second has two mistakes *who - whom* and *preposition at the end of a sentence*!!!!!
"A preposition is a word which should not be used to end a sentence with"  (- very old language joke).
*Whom* can still be used in common phrases especially if a legal or archaic style is required (frequently in a humorous way).
*... the person on whom this degree is conferred ...*
*... amongst whom ...*
*... with whom he had conspired to ....*
but generally # 4 especially if *whom* is used without a preposition e.g. *I know who you are secretly seeing. * *He must be the one who you mean.*
*Who were you kissing last night?*
Realestate's rule however is a good one:    object *whom = him*,         subject *who = he*.
Native speakers don't obey all the nice rules, especially on *who/whom* and *final preposition*s !!!  

guillaume


----------



## Keith Bradford

Basically, the answer seems to be:

Avoid *whom *wherever possible, except in the most elevated style.
Do this by replacing it with who (_Who did you see?_), putting prepositions at the end of the sentence if necessary (_Who am I speaking to?_).
Otherwise, use _whom _only after prepositions.
The only modern person I "know" to still insist on _whom _is the fictional detective Morse - and he died 12 years ago!


----------



## Chimel

Can we say that there is surely one thing you should _not_ do, that is combine "whom" and the preposition at the end of the sentence?

Either:
Who are you speaking to? (usual)
Or 
To whom are you speaking ? (elevated style)
But not:
Whom are you a speaking to? (unadequate mixture of both styles)

Am I right?


----------



## guillaumedemanzac

Actually all three are OK as word order does not matter much in English. The third is strange/weird rather than "inadequate".
Follow Keith's guidance and you won't go far wrong.
As he says, the first is usual, the second pedantic and pompous, the third is a humorous mixture of both but without the typo letter A*.

Whom are you aspeaking to?* is actually direct from the Goon show 1950s where Kenneth Williams' character often puts an extra A in front of a verb and speaks in a squeaky voice - so, for me and many others, it actually sounds perfect - absolutely hilarious..  thanks for the Monday laugh

guillaume


----------



## lucas-sp

Fred_C said:


> the little boy that cried wolf


Oh golly, please take "that" out of "the little boy that cried wolf." Since boys are people, the phrase is only correct as "the little boy *who *cried wolf."

[…]


----------



## Fred_C

Ah bon ???
Cette phrase est donc fausse ? «Eileen was a protestant and when she was young she knew children *that* used to play with protestants».
C’est pourtant une phrase de James Joyce, dans «portrait de l’artiste en jeune homme».


----------



## Enquiring Mind

I think that "the boy _that_" is something of a bête noire for many AE speakers. I wouldn't agree that it is *only* correct as "... boy *who *cried wolf". This page from English Language and Usage, or this page from BBC's Learning English, explain.

It is - and has been - used down the ages right up to the present day, in literature and spoken English.


----------



## uptown

Agreed, even in American English. You can indeed use either *that* or *who* to refer to people. You cannot, however, use *which*.

That said, I really think it _sounds_ better with *who*, especially when it comes closer to home.


----------



## Marek27

Hi,

I'm having trouble(s) with this sentence:

''Anderson presents the harsh everyday life of an old writer *that/who* he follows in his dreams and work.''

Is the ''who'' solution correct?

Thanks  !


----------



## Wildcat1

In my opinion both "that" and "who(m)" are correct here.  Some people have a preference for one or the other.


----------

