# That/which/who: He's the one (who/that/which) cares about us



## Lindsay52

Hello,

I'd like to know a few things I've been wondering about for a long time :

1) In such sentences, how can i know which word to use ?

eg All the stores (that/which/who) are in the street are closed this afternoon.
He's the one (who/that/which) cares about us


Thank you in advance for your answers. I can't ask these questions to my english teacher as I don't have any english teacher.
If I made any mistake ( apart from those I wanted you to correct ) , please tell me, and please give me an explanation of my mistake.


----------



## panjandrum

Hi Lindsay,

_*All the stores in the street are closed this afternoon.*_
No need for which or that in this sentence.

He's the one _*who*_ cares about us.
I choose _*who*_ because _*that*_ and _*which*_ are not normally used to refer to people.


----------



## Lindsay52

couldn't you tell me a general rule so i do't get confused anymore, please ?


----------



## julian_lp

Lindsay52 said:
			
		

> couldn't you tell me a general rule so i do't get confused anymore, please ?



I've been looking for general rules since I begun to learn, without luck I have to say...


----------



## panjandrum

Use _*who*_ for people.

All the stores _*that*_ are on the street ...
A _*that*_ clause will restrict the stores that you are talking about.

All the stores, _*which*_ are on the street, ...
A _*which*_ clause will describe the stores that you are talking about.

There are some general rules.
I made them up just now.
They are often bent or broken, without creating incorrect sentences.


----------



## elroy

Panj's rules of thumb are right on target.

For people, you may always use "who."

For things:

"That" is used if the clause is _essential_ - if it's meaning is indispensable to expressing the main idea of the sentence.

"Which" is used if the clause is _nonessential_ - if it can be taken out without affecting the main idea of the sentence.

You can also use "that" with essential clauses referring to people (although some people frown upon this), but you really shouldn't ever use "which" with people.


----------



## maxiogee

Panjandrum has (possibly inadvertently) raised my query with the original question.....



			
				Lindsay52 said:
			
		

> eg All the stores (that/which/who) are *in* the street are closed this afternoon.





			
				panjandrum said:
			
		

> All the stores that are *on* the street ...


Is this a British / American thing?
I would see "in the street" as between the kerbstones/curbstones. 
There is a well-worn phrase here which encapsulates my thoughts on this. 
It is used when some 'secret' is so widely known that it is no longer a secret…
- - "even the dogs in the street know … ".


----------



## panjandrum

It was entirely accidental, but must reveal something.
However, that something belongs in a different thread.
The topic has often been discussed before, for example in:
On the street or in the street


----------



## Lindsay52

So to sum this up, if i had to say these sentences, are the word used correct ?

He's the one who cares about us 
He's the one that cares about us
 He's the one which cares about us

or more simple, I can say : he's the one caring about us


The shop that used to sell these things closed down 
 The shop which used to sell these things closed down ---> I think this one is wrong but i can't say why
 The shop who used to sell these things closed down  ---> as long as i know, shops aren't human beings


----------



## maxiogee

Lindsay52 said:
			
		

> So to sum this up, if i had to say these sentences, are the word used correct ?
> 
> He's the one who cares about us
> He's the one that  cares about us
> He's the one which cares about us
> 
> or more simple, I can say : he's the one caring about us
> 
> 
> The shop that used to sell these things closed down
> The shop which used to sell these things closed down ---> I think this one is wrong but i can't say why
> The shop who used to sell these things closed down  ---> as long as i know, shops aren't human beings


 That implies that "he" is either (a) continually caring for us, or (b) caring for us as you speak, and I'm not sure that you want to give either of those impressions.

Note: All those sentences need a full stop =. (or some other form of punctuation) at the end of them.


----------



## Lindsay52

Why is the second sentence wrong ?


----------



## panjandrum

Lindsay, I think I knew that (I know of several Lindseys - female), but I apologise if I got it wrong accidentally 

He is the one that cares about us.
... is wrong because that is impersonal, who is personal - he is a person.

The shop which used to sell these things closed down.
... would be accepted by many because they don't distinguish between that and which.  For those who do (see posts from Elroy and me above) the _which used to sell these things_ is a non-essential clause and should be separated by commas.

The shop, which used to sell these things, closed down.

It's now a rather strange sentence that only makes sense with some additional context to explain something about the shop.


----------



## timpeac

I could imagine saying "he is that one that cares about us" quite easily - it's never occurred to me that that might be wrong before.

Even more - "who is the one that cares for us?" sounds good but I couldn't imagine saying "who is the one who cares for us?"


----------



## maxiogee

panjandrum said:
			
		

> the _which used to sell these things_ is a non-essential clause and should be separated by commas.
> 
> The shop, which used to sell these things, closed down.



But, panjandrum, surely if it weren't for "these things" those having this conversation wouldn't be discussing the shop at all, so it is not non-essential?


----------



## river

I'm sure that sometimes even editors have trouble deciding what is essential and non-essential and in those cases _that_ or _which _could be correct. I would say "the shop that used to sell these things closed down."


----------



## panjandrum

maxiogee said:
			
		

> But, panjandrum, surely if it weren't for "these things" those having this conversation wouldn't be discussing the shop at all, so it is not non-essential?


You're right, of course.  In that case, it should be a that clause without commas.

I didn't have time to write down the story in which the which clause sentence with commas would make sense.  I leave that to your imagination.


----------



## rsweet

Panj and Elroy have covered this well, but I'd like to add a trick for determining whether a clause is essential or nonessential.

To recap the rules _who/whom_ (for people) and _which_ (for things) are used for nonessential clauses. Nonessential clauses are set off with a comma, and if you delete the clause, the sentence will still be *true*. "All the bridges in Venice, which are each beautiful in their own way, cross water." Or "The local inhabitants of Venice, who seldom drive cars, walk across at least one bridge every day."

Essential clauses use _that_ for things and _who/whom_ for people and are not set off with a comma. If you remove the clause the sentence will no longer be *true*. "All the children who are on the bus will receive a gift." Take out "who are on the bus" and you are saying that *all *children will receive a gift, which is not true.

Some grammar texts will tell you that you can use _that_ for both things and people, but I would never do it. Old-school grammar also advises writers to use _that/which_ to refer to animals, but my personal opinion is that this usage shows rudeness to our fellow sentient creatures . I admit to bucking the system and proudly using _who/whom_ with animals. In fact I find it surprising that PETA hasn't come up with a campaign for this one.


----------



## bmo

Don’t do two things at one time. He ____ runs after two rabbits will catch neither. (A) that (B) who (C) which (D) whom 

The answer is (B), He who runs .... But is (A) also a viable answer? I see quite a few He that in Google.


----------



## SimplyBe

I can't imagine why it would be "that" instead of "who," when we are dealing with a person.  It it was, say, a cougar running after a rabbit, I would be quite comfortable with either who or that, but not with a person.  To use "that" would seem to be just carelessness or thoughtlessness -- two very common traits in language usage, n'est-ce pas?


----------



## winklepicker

SimplyBe said:


> I can't imagine why it would be "that" instead of "who," when we are dealing with a person.


 
Read this thread, in which several people with that were quoted.


----------



## jcminthedriversseat

maxiogee said:


> Panjandrum has (possibly inadvertently) raised my query with the original question.....
> 
> 
> 
> Is this a British / American thing?
> I would see "in the street" as between the kerbstones/curbstones.
> There is a well-worn phrase here which encapsulates my thoughts on this.
> It is used when some 'secret' is so widely known that it is no longer a secret…
> - - "even the dogs in the street know … ".


 
I don't think it's a British/American thing. It doesn't make sense to me either that the stores are _*in*_ the street. _*In*_ the street would mean between the curbs where the cars drive. _*On*_ the street means along both sides of the street; not actually on the pavement.


----------



## panjandrum

The question of in/on the street is outside the scope of this thread.
If you wish to discuss this further, please go to one of the threads on this specific topic, for example:
*On the street or in the street*


----------



## "Calui"

Relative pronouns have puzzled me so far. What I know about them cannot help me give a clear explanation for the following sentences:
1. Jack is the one *that I miss most. (Can I use who instead?)
2. Do you get on with the person who lives next door? (Can I use that instead?)
3. It is an event that/which I would rather forget.
4. The person who did it was never caught. (Can I use that instead?)
Could you please help me distinguish these cases?*


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Hullo, Calui.

"He's the greatest man that's ever lived" (LONGMAN Dictionary of Contemporary English).

This is for those who say that _that_ is not used for persons.

Coming to your sentences, 

1. Jack is the one that I miss most. (Can I use who instead?) *Yes*, you may use either *that* or *whom* (but then you'll sound old-fashioned) or *who *(but then some will consider you slovenly)
2. Do you get on with the person who lives next door? (Can I use that instead?) *Yes*.
3. It is an event that/which I would rather forget. *Either one* is correct
4. The person who did it was never caught. (Can I use that instead?) *Yes*.

GS


----------



## "Calui"

thanks a lot!


----------



## Daab

panjandrum said:


> Use _*who*_ for people.
> 
> All the stores _*that*_ are on the street ...
> A _*that*_ clause will restrict the stores that you are talking about.
> 
> All the stores, _*which*_ are on the street, ...
> A _*which*_ clause will describe the stores that you are talking about.
> 
> There are some general rules.
> I made them up just now.
> They are often bent or broken, without creating incorrect sentences.



Panjandrum's explanation is really helpful, but I know that there is also the restrictive use of 'which' without commas.

What if you said "All the stores which are on the street..."

Is the restrictive use of 'which' and the natural restrictiveness of 'that' different?


----------



## wandle

> Is the restrictive use of 'which' and the natural restrictiveness of 'that' different?


There is no valid basis for the 'rule' that 'that' is used for "restrictive" clauses and 'which' for "essential" clauses. This 'rule' appears to have been invented misguidedly for pedagogic purposes. It is not founded in observation of usage and has been well debunked by modern linguistic authorities including Geoffrey Pullum.

The proper distinction in my view is between defining and non-defining relative clauses. A defining clause is one which defines its antecedent. Its purpose is to identify the antecedent - the person or thing it refers to - from other possible people or things. 
A non-defining clause does not specify the antecedent. Its purpose is merely to add information about it.

Bearing in mind that 'which' may be used for either, how do we tell which type a given clause is?
There is only one sure rule for this: it depends on the sense. Think about what it means and ask whether the clause is defining the antecedent in order to identify it, or is merely giving additional information about something already identified.


----------



## LV4-26

Good question, Daab. It occured to me while I was reading this topic.
I think I was taught that the criterium to distinguish non essential from essential relative clauses was the commas, not the _which_.

But that was a long time ago and it no longer seems to reflect modern usage.
So my own question would be : was there a time when _which_ could be used for restrictive relative clauses or did I just dream of it ?


----------



## wandle

There has never been a time (as far as I know) when 'which' has not been available for a defining relative clause.

What can be said, I think, is:


'who' and 'which' are used in both defining and non-defining clauses;
'that' is normally used for a defining clause and not for a non-defining clause;
a non-defining clause is typically separated from the rest of the sentence by commas while a defining clause is not;
the only sure way to distinguish a defining from a non-defining relative clause is by the sense.


----------



## LV4-26

Thanks, wandle.
That's perfectly clear and confirm what I thought.

...except for one thing. 


> ... 'which' is used in both defining and non-defining clauses;...



So you don't confirm there's been an evolution in the use of _which_?
My impression was that modern speakers tend to use it less and less in defining clauses.


----------



## wandle

That is a question which would require some research.


----------



## LV4-26

OK, wandle. Thanks a lot.

Some sort of hint was given in Panj's post #12 (my emphasis)


panjandrum said:


> The shop which used to sell these things closed down.
> ... would be accepted by many because *they don't distinguish between that and which*.  *For those who do* (see posts from Elroy and me above) *the which used to sell these things is a non-essential clause* and should be separated by commas.


...although that would also mean some people use _that_ for non-defining clauses. Do they?

All that is a bit confusing and I'll be happy to just "forget" it for the time being since the essential questions have been answered.


----------



## wandle

LV4-26 said:


> that also would mean some people use _that_ for non-defining clauses. Do they?


It is done, but it is often regarded as incorrect. In a previous thread, I quoted an example from Kipling.


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Hullo, everyone.

I totally agree with what Wandle has expressed in a way that/which couldn't have been more brilliant.

I'll add that, in my opinion, one aspect of the topic should not be underestimated: _that_ (as a relative pronoun) and _which_ have different histories, and there's reason to believe that _that_– although the *use* of the former goes back to the Old English period — seems to have always acted more as a relative-pronoun substitute than as a "full-blown" relative pronoun. The idea is that in restrictive relative clauses the identification of the referent of the relative by means of  "_that_ + Predicate" is "less problematic", "more natural" than with "_which _+ Predicate_". _... Mmm, not easy to express. Sorry.

GS


----------



## timpeac

LV4-26 said:


> I think I was taught that the criterium to distinguish non essential from essential relative clauses was the commas, not the _which_.


I think it's still valid. It does of course raise the question of when you use commas - but here I think the use of a comma reflects a slight pause in speech (which is standard as far as I can hear) no matter whether "which" is used or "that".

In other words _in speech_ "I saw a car(,) which surprised me greatly" is not ambiguous because if you meant "because I thought no motorised vehicles were allowed on the island" then you would hear a pause (and have a comma in written representation) and if you meant "because it was painted in the colours of the rainbow" then there would be no pause or comma.

So I'd say that what you were taught is still correct, as long as commas are consistently being used to represent pauses in speech (as is my understanding that they should).


----------



## Daab

Can you notice whether there is a pause (comma) hence a difference in meaning when you hear these sentences?

I have two sons, who became doctors.

I have two sons who became doctors.

I want to know if you actually notice that short pause.

Or is there a subtle difference in intonation between those two sentences?


----------



## LV4-26

If there's a comma, there's a pause. Right. But there's no fixed length for that pause. It's up to the speaker*.

The real question, I think, would be ==>
would we rely only on commas to clear up the ambiguity or would we rather use a different wording?

EDIT: that wasn't clear. What I mean here (*) is: the greater the risk of misunderstanding, the longer the pause.
I think.


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Hullo, everyone.

Let's face it: in ordinary spoken communication, _restrictive_ relative clauses are the norm, while _non-restrictives_ (= _appositives_) are very rare, maybe because they are felt to be a sort of inroads of the written style into natural speech. 

The speaker who wants to show that the relative portion of the sentence does not refer to a subset of the antecedent ("_The Joneses who live upstairs have nothing to do with the Joneses _you_ know_") but represent a piece of information that is not essential to the identification of the antecedent, has other means for doing it in the _spoken_ medium: e.g. 
"_The Joneses, who have lived upstairs for the past ten years, have nothing to do with the Joneses _you_ know_" ——> 
"_The Joneses upstairs have nothing to do with the Joneses _you_ know; _Our_ Joneses have lived there for the past ten years _", etc.   

_Non-restrictives_ (= _appositives_) are instead common in written communication. 

I think this eliminates the problem of pauses and their length. 

GS


----------



## wandle

I am afraid it is a mistake to try to work out from potential pauses in speech where commas ought to go (some writers try to match commas to pauses, some do not); and it is a mistake to try to work out from commas whether a relative clause is a defining clause or not (people make mistakes in punctuation and sometimes one rule of punctuation overrides another). That sort of approach is all back to front.

Start from the other end: that is, the sense (the meaning in context). That will tell you whether a clause is there to identify one person or thing from other possible people or things.
Having established whether a clause is defining or not, then apply the rule of punctuation that a non-defining clause is typically separated off by commas, while a defining clause is not.
As for pauses in speech, do not worry about commas when you are speaking; simply try to be clear and let pauses take care of themselves.


----------



## wandle

Can 'which' be used in a defining clause? Answer: Yes.

There are two very clear cases where, I believe, all teachers and style advisers do in actual fact accept and regularly use 'which' for a defining relative clause. 

The first case is where a preposition is involved and is placed at the front of the clause.

Thus we can say _'This is the bowl that I put the rice in'_. 
We can also say _'This is the bowl in which I put the rice'_. 
What we cannot correctly say is: _'This is the bowl in that I put the rice'_. 

The second case is the familiar expression 'that which': this formula is used _*specifically* for the purpose of definition_.

_'That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet'_ (Shakespeare).

_'That which we persist in doing becomes easier' _(Emerson).

 John Green, Looking for Alaska 
_“But why Alaska?' I asked her. 'Well, later, I found out what it means. It's from an Aleut word, Alyeska. It means 'that which the sea breaks against,' and I love that._

These usages are I think universally regarded as correct and good English and they establish clearly that 'which' is regularly used in a defining relative clause. Nobody as far as I know would reject them.


----------



## Daab

I have another question.

Can you use a comma depending on the sense when a preposition is involved?

'This is the bowl in which I put the rice'.
'I bought this bowl, in which I put the rice'.

I am not sure if the defining and non-defining examples are right here since I am not the native speaker.


----------



## wandle

It is necessary to establish the meaning, and to make the expression fit that, before deciding on the punctuation.


Daab said:


> 'I bought this bowl, in which I put the rice'.


What do you want this sentence to mean? In its present form it is unclear.


----------



## Daab

Yes. Then I will think of some new example sentences. 

This is Lora, with whom I often hang out. 

This is the man with whom I had an argument. 

So again the point is whether I can use a comma in the same way when the prepositions are involved.


----------



## LV4-26

Yes, you can.
....but do keep in mind that the punctuation is not the criterium but only the consequence.


----------



## wandle

Daab said:


> the point is whether I can use a comma in the same way when the prepositions are involved.


The presence or absence of a preposition with the relative pronoun makes no difference to the punctuation. 
The preposition goes closely with the relative and for punctuation purposes they should be treated as a unit.


----------



## redgiant

Cornell: You believe me, don't you?

Parker: Why would we believe you? You lied to us earlier at the house.

Cornell:What was I supposed to tell you? Oh, it's not me. It's a guy that looks like me that keeps coming back to life,wearing my clothes.

Source: Haven Season 2 Episode 8

Background: The show is set in a fictional town where people are plagued with supernatural Troubles. A bank manager called Cornell has spawned a few darker, merciless copies of himself who are all bent on going after a teenager. They chase after him all the way to a bar and lead to a fierce gunfight. Officer Parker responds to the violent crime and traces it back to the original Cornell. At first he doesn't say anything about the copies, but when Parker and her partner see a few of them at an abandoned house, Cornell knows that he can't hide the truth anymore.

Hi, it's a long thread and I'm still reading all the interpretations. It seems that some of you balk at the use of that for people. But I just came across "It's a guy that looks like" in the TV show. Do you prefer "It's a guy who looks like" over the "that" version in the example above?


----------



## PaulQ

I think it is a matter of preference rather than an absolute. I would take "who". 

I remember asking for the First Officer on a ship; one of the crew pointed to a group of three men whose insignia I could not see. I pointed to one of the men and said, "Is that the First Officer?" The First Officer heard this and identified himself by saying, "THAT!? THAT!? Who are you calling THAT!?"

(The rest of the meeting went equally badly.)


----------



## redgiant

PaulQ said:


> I think it is a matter of preference rather than an absolute. I would take "who".
> 
> I remember asking for the First Officer on a ship; one of the crew pointed to a group of three men whose insignia I could not see. I pointed to one of the men and said, "Is that the First Officer?" The First Officer heard this and identified himself by saying, "THAT!? THAT!? Who are you calling THAT!?"
> 
> (The rest of the meeting went equally badly.)



Hi, PaulQ
Why would you use "that" when you're asking directly to the person? I also find it lacking in a bit of courtesy , but my sense may be wrong.


----------



## lucas-sp

redgiant said:


> Cornell:What was I supposed to tell you? Oh, it's not me. It's a guy that looks like me that keeps coming back to life,wearing my clothes.
> 
> It seems that some of you balk at the use of that for people. But I just came across "It's a guy that looks like" in the TV show. Do you prefer "It's a guy who looks like" over the "that" version in the example above?


I think two answers are possible:

1. In everyday English, people tend to use "that" rather indiscriminately in place of "who/m" and "which," because it's easy and English speakers have enough other things to worry about when they try to say anything. (The that/which restrictive/descriptive distinction, for instance, is not always followed in speech.) The rule about using "who" for people (like the AE rule for distinguishing between that/which) is about formal speech and writing. So in casual, excited speech - such as you would find displayed on an action-adventure TV show - you can expect to see "that" substituted for both "which" and "who/m."

2. You could also say that Cornell _is in fact following_ _the rule _- these doubles aren't really "people," and by using "that" he is (correctly!) describing them as less than human.

redgiant, you can choose which answer is most satisfying for you.


----------



## Filocullen

Hi, I have a question on this sentence: "People that want tickets for the cup final can expect to pay over 200 Euros." 

My book says that I can't use "that" here (informally speaking) and I can only use "who", but to me it sounds like a defining relative clause, so "that" should be possible, why not?thanks


----------



## Loob

*Re post 50*

Hi Filocullen

In informal speech, I would happily say "People that want tickets ..."; so, yes, for me "that" is possible.

As you will have seen earlier in the thread, however, some speakers don't like using "that" for people, even informally.  Can you tell us the title of your book, and where it was published?


----------



## Filocullen

Hi thanks, the book is Grammar for cae and proficiency published by Cambridge university press


----------

