Grammar that Grates

This just may be the first installment of a series of blogs on "grammar that grates".

Let's begin with "that vs. who".

Use "who" for people. You can even stretch it to your dog! Even pets or pests.

Use "that" for entities, objects, trees, cars, and other inanimate objects. The error seen most often is "that" employed where "who" should be used.

Think about it:

Jane is on the team that won the game.

John was employed by the insurance company that failed.

Lizzy is the player who scored the first goal.

A list of media failures will soon be cited. As the Washington Post is the most read each day in this house, it will likely provide abundant examples. This morning's Special K commercial on NBC (during the Today Show)..."Women that eat breakfast...." ACK!!!!

On the nightstand: The books have been dismal. I gave up on Fences and found my sleep disturbed as well by the vernacular in Their Eyes Were Watching God. I've moved on to yet another American-moves-to-Italy-and-buys-a-house book. Both Fences and Eyes presented an opportunity to discuss why these books are on the reading list for IB English. DD did a suitable job defending the broad need to understand the journies of others from their perspective. (Butm how many "dat's" do I need to read?) It is interesting to know that this book caused angst among other African American writers, and had slipped into obscurity before being ressurected by Alice Walker. It just seems they one can read either Fences or Eyes, but does it really take both books. Isn't there some other book that (not "who"!) they could read, learn a lesson based on history, and build a useful vocabulary?