Relative pronouns - that and who

@Frank Apisa,

And how the hell did you get him to do this??? In my favorite newspaper, yet!

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/opinion/22pinker.html?th&emc=th

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Did you recognize yourself in that article, Frank? I sure did. Smile

You're a dyed in the wool prescriptivist, Frank, but in some respects at least, you're an honest guy.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Just can't get yourself to acknowledge that I have dealt with the issue--but that all you've done is to deny that I have.

Frank, I fail to see how a review of your discussion with h2oman, and your relative degree of politeness to him, has anything at all to do with the issue that is this thread, Read the title, Relative pronouns - that and who.

You are flat out, dead wrong on this central issue. It is both grammatical and it is Standard English to use that as a relative pronoun when the referent is people.

1 Reply

@JTT,

I was not talking about politeness or respect for H2O...I was talking about politeness and respect I showed YOU.

You are dead wrong on almost everything in this thread. But I don't expect you to be man enough to acknowledge that.

So...let's just keep kicking each other in the balls until one of us gets a sore foot.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Absolutely astounding, Frank. You haven't offered one thing, not one thing to defend your errant position on language. If your idea of debate is to advance a position and then offer nothing to defend it, and you've offered less than nothing.

0 Replies

@JTT,

I have offered plenty...but you are simply arbitrarily deciding what I offer does not count.

You claim that “There are no language scholars at all who subscribe to that errant, outdated notion, Frank. Why? Because it is simply unsupportable.”

The “errant, outdated notion” in your comment refers to the concept of "good English grammar" and "poor”…as amended several times to “acceptable English grammar” or “standard English grammar.”

So you are saying there are no language scholars AT ALL who subscribe of the concept of “good, acceptable, or standard English grammar” and “poor, unacceptable, or non-standard English grammar.”

I think you are completely, utterly full of **** on this.

I have produced several books written by language scholars that even have in their title “good English grammar”…and all of which have the notion of “standard and non-standard” English grammar. Library shelves are filled with books on the subject; bookstores have stocks of books on the subjects.

All you have done is to classify any book that disagrees with this preposterous notion of yours…as non-language scholars…in order to make your stupidity stand.

Ain’t gonna happen, Asshole.

1 Reply

Ok childern. You have me so confused I am afraid to use either word in my posts!!!!

3 Replies

@rabel22,

LOL.

One got I that!

0 Replies

@rabel22,

That all depends on who is doing the reading!

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I have offered plenty...but you are simply arbitrarily deciding what I offer does not count.

Frank, you wrote,

Quote:

I’d like to pursue a discussion on those two grammar topics, JTT.

Point to one place where you have discussed the grammar issue;

In case you've forgotten, here it is again,

Can 'that' be used as a relative pronoun when the referent is human?

0 Replies

@rabel22,

There should never be any confusion, Rabel, because as I said, you know the grammar of English as well as any other user. In your life, you've probably been subjected to the bleat of grammar marms/mavens/no nothings who have tried to fill your head with rules that are alien to the natural workings of language.

Here is a prescriptive grammar site that I don't recommend anyone go to. It is a site that is riddled with errors, as any prescriptive site is.

Quote:

... who (and its forms) refers to people; that usually refers to things, but it can also refer to people in a general kind of way.

http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/pronouns1.htm#relative

The point I make here is that even these folks realize, [partially, they still don't understand or describe how and why; typical of a prescriptive site] that the relative pronoun, 'that' can be used to refer to antecedents that are human.

1 Reply

@JTT,

Rabel

Quote:

There should never be any confusion, Rabel, because as I said, you know the grammar of English as well as any other user.

That's right, Rabel, and if JTT says it, how could it possibly be wrong, even if every bone in your body senses that there is something very wrong with that kind of thinking?

So out of your mind get it!

Don't you let dose “no-nothings” (!) fool you into thinking otherwise!!!

You is done gud no mattar wat, becauce JTT sez its awerite!

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

That's right, Rabel, and if JTT says it, how could it possibly be wrong, even if every bone in your body senses that there is something very wrong with that kind of thinking?

If I were the only one saying this, it could safely be discounted. As it is, all of the best minds in language science say the same thing, something Frank, conveniently or through sheer ignorance, seems determined to forget.

But then again, it might be possible for Frank to bring us around to his side, IF he had the, whatever it is he is lacking, to actually argue the science and the grammar.

0 Replies

@JTT,

You might consider the fact that the study of grammar has little hard science behind it. The reason for the lack of scientific research is quite possibly that grammatical structure, like spelling and pronunciation, is constantly eroding, becoming less complex. That erosion has been the subject of serious scientific inquiry (go to MIT website), but the heaviest thought has continuously gone into syntax and the attempts to demonstrate what syntactical abilities we may be born with. Grammar, for scientists, is an icing issue. Syntax, on the other hand, is a cake issue. Grammar also is a shorthand way of assigning a value to a speaker's argument. This has always seemed unfortunate and exclusionary to me, for, if a speaker's thoughts are expressed in different but clear syntactic arrangements (which is very different from "good" grammar) the thoughts have indisputably equal value. Basically, syntax is flexible; "good" grammar pretends to be frozen, but it's constantly wearing away. Flexible can take one in a variety of profitable directions; frozen takes us along one fading line.

3 Replies

@Miklos7,

Miklos

I am certainly not arguing that grammar is static...or inflexible...or even that it is not presumptuous to suppose some forms of communication are "superior" to others.

But I am arguing that there is, whether rightly or wrongly, such a thing as “good or acceptable or standard” English grammar and “not so good, not so acceptable or non-standard” English grammar.

I am also arguing that there ARE language scholars who agree with that.

JTT here is arguing that there is no such thing...and that NOT A SINGLE language scholar on the planet says that there is!

He are full of ****.

This went from a reasonable discussion with I making all sorts of concessions...and it making none at all--to farce.

But me want to emphasize what me said earlier...he (JTT) are full of ****.

1 Reply

@Miklos7,

Quote:

You might consider the fact that the study of grammar has little hard science behind it. The reason for the lack of scientific research is quite possibly that grammatical structure, like spelling and pronunciation, is constantly eroding, becoming less complex. That erosion has been the subject of serious scientific inquiry (go to MIT website), but the heaviest thought has continuously gone into syntax and the attempts to demonstrate what syntactical abilities we may be born with.

I'm not sure of the distinction you're trying to make, Miklos. Grammatical structure is eroding, as are all aspects of language, but the process is really exceedingly slow when measured against one's lifetime or even two or three life times.

Quote:

Grammar, for scientists, is an icing issue. Syntax, on the other hand, is a cake issue. Grammar also is a shorthand way of assigning a value to a speaker's argument. This has always seemed unfortunate and exclusionary to me, for, if a speaker's thoughts are expressed in different but clear syntactic arrangements (which is very different from "good" grammar) the thoughts have indisputably equal value. Basically, syntax is flexible; "good" grammar pretends to be frozen, but it's constantly wearing away. Flexible can take one in a variety of profitable directions; frozen takes us along one fading line.

It's prescriptive grammar that "is a shorthand way of assigning a value to a speaker's argument. Descriptive grammar doesn't do this, Miklos. And for a very good reason.

I don't understand the distinction that you're trying to draw between the terms syntax and grammar. Could you explain further?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I am certainly not arguing that grammar is static...or inflexible...or even that it is not presumptuous to suppose some forms of communication are "superior" to others.

But I am arguing that there is, whether rightly or wrongly, such a thing as “good or acceptable or standard” English grammar and “not so good, not so acceptable or non-standard” English grammar.

And you're wrong, Frank. But, granted, it is hard to change given a lifetime of being wrong.

There is such a thing as Standard English and Nonstandard English. I was the one who posted on it.

What you have wrong, [egregiously so and not because you're a bad fellow, but that you have been foisting upon others bad ideas about what language is], is that there is a qualitative difference between the two.

And yet, you can't seem to elucidate, on the present grammatical issue, just what this qualitative difference is.

Why can't we use 'that' for people? What's the reason? Surely there's some good reason for it other than, "It's just so", or "I read it in a style manual", or "My English teacher told me", ... .

1 Reply

@JTT,

JTT you wrote:

Quote:

And you're wrong, Frank. But, granted, it is hard to change given a lifetime of being wrong.

Not sure if it is a lifetime of being wrong on your part...but you definitely are wrong here.

(Also not sure how you manage to be so certain as to what I've done in my lifetime; most of it was probably done before you were born. Ahhh...chances are you are merely bullshitting again.)

You have this silly bug up your ass...and you just cannot seem to scratch it.

To continue to argue it makes no sense...except for the recreational value, which is considerable. So, I'm not going to put that much effort into it--and just take lots of enjoyment out of it.

You shoulda stayed out of this. This was nothing but a small time tit-tor-tat...but officious ass that you are, you had to get involved.

Dumb move.

Under any circumstances, you are not going to sell that snake oil to me...an if you try to merchandise it to anyone else here, I'm gonna keep popping up.

Hope all is going well with your life besides here, JTT.

You really ought to develop the balls to put a name up here...and maybe a little bio information.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

So, I'm not going to put that much effort into it-

Yup, why start now, eh, Frank?

All the rest was nothing but red herrings.

This is the egregious part, Frank. You've likely pulled this crap on others and without any apparent knowledge of the subject.

Quote:

I'm gonna keep popping up.

For what possible purpose, Frank? Certainly not to discuss language or grammar issues. You've made it abundantly clear that that is not within your ken.

1 Reply

@JTT,

JTT, I have a hunch that you may have learned different meanings for "grammar" and "syntax" from the ones I did. Your written language is very clear and precise, another reason for me to think that we have different definitions in mind. For me, syntax is a chosen, specific arrangement of words, the choices of position having originally been influenced by our first language. In other words, we begin with a syntactic potential that is very broad; then, learning our first language begins to influence our choices of word position. Scientists believe that, although our first language affects our choice of word positions in phrases, there is a window of opportunity to learn second and third or more languages fairly easily until we are around 12, as our innate syntactic potential is more open early in our lives than it is later. When I spoke of grammar, I meant "prescriptive grammar." Forgive me for not making this clear. Prescriptive grammar can, I believe, change rather quickly. I think of the grammar used by my parents, then by my grandparents, and I remember significant changes, most of them having to do with the erosion of complexity. Descriptive grammar is, as you point out, a different animal. It's eroding, too, but much more slowly. Are we approaching being on the same track now?

0 Replies

Relative pronouns - that and who

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know