3 ms·
A minor re-formatting. > Welcome to Web 2.0, where people who think they're programmers try to interact with people who are programmers. The results are often
by irahul 15y ago
A minor re-formatting.
> Welcome to Web 2.0, where people who think they're programmers try to interact with people who are programmers. The results are often ... depressing.
I was confused by your initial framing of the sentence, though my not being a native speaker would have played a part.
- jackowayed 15y agoYeah, though not really "correct", it's very common to use "that" as a relative pronoun for a person instead of "who". Some pedants may correct you, but it's rare for native English speakers to actually be confused by it.
- tuukkah 15y agoHope this helps: "[T]his distinction applies only to which and who. The alternative that is found with both human and non-human antecedents." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_relative_clauses#Human_or_non-human http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_relative_clauses#Human_...
- irahul 15y agoThat's news to me. Language follows speakers, especially influential speakers, and the list of speakers using that for human antecedents includes Shakespeare and Mark Twain, so I guess it's all right now, even if it were an error at some point(grammar isn't static - it has been changing ever since it came into being). Now I am wondering about why I thought that isn't to be used for human antecedents. Was it an error earlier or it changed recently? If it was an error earlier, Shakespeare using it doesn't fit.
- ellyagg 15y agoYou probably thought that because it's uncommon in good writing and you're taught not to do it. It's probably against style guidelines for major newspapers, for example, and it sounds elegant to educated native writers.