Hacker News Reader

Comment by james_david | Hacker News Reader

The subtitle of the article is cats who fetch. I'm sorry to be a pedant, but language matters when we talk about other living beings, and I think it's important that we recognize them as such, rather than, say, a box that opens, or a Bluetooth speaker that ran out of battery.

View on HN

I agree that language matters. But we also say “the people that..” even if it’s not as grammatically precise as “the people who..”

“Who” is more often identified with individual/identity than sentience. They’re not talking about particular, individual cats.

Usually "the people that," is referring to a role that some people fulfill, like "the people that make the laws." Whereas if you're referring to a category of people with a shared behavior, it feels more natural to say "people who bicycle to work" rather than "people that cycle to work."

I'm not sure there is any grammatical rule for this, though. And besides, nobody likes people that nitpick ;)

Hard disagree. Language doesn't matter. Only communication and intent matters and language is only a servant to communication and intent.

If the intent and meaning came across and the intention wasn't to offend and the meaning is clear there is zero and I mean zero need to pretend to be offended. The cat doesn't even care and clearly no body here thinks of cats as Bluetooth speakers... what practical purpose does any of this serve? None.

It's all part of that pronoun thing started by transgender people. The desire to be recognized as a certain gender in language codified into a "law" and that law is now being taken to logical extremes in such a way that we have to use the correct term for cats. The next step is to teach cats English so they can actually be offended.

It seems the problem you have isn't with language or its use.

Exactly. Ignore the language. Get offended by intention, don't get offended by language.

My problem is other people having arbitrary problems with language.

You shared an effective response to my opening statement - certainly more thought than I put into making it. Thanks.

Are "humans that walk" and "people that sing" incorrect in some versions of English? I am a foreigner who is relatively good at English, but I do not remember seeing this prescription in textbooks or style guides.

On the other hand, above I just wrote "I am a foreigner that ..." and Grammarly corrected me to "I am a foreigner who ...". I am still leaving this comment here as a reference to others that wonder the same.

Yes, in all versions of English, actually. But no one will even pick up on it or judge you for it - the rules have grown lax.

Nevertheless, in formal, written English, “who” is the overwhelmingly correct choice. Cf https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=people+who%2Cp...

I don’t think most English speakers have a strong preference for ‘who’ over ‘that’ in these constructs, which means it’s no longer a matter of ‘correctness’.

When it no longer even sounds wrong to well educated well-read native speakers, it’s pure prescriptive conservatism to hang on to the idea that there’s a grammatical rule there.

I think there’s a stronger instinct to use ‘who’ in preference to ‘which’ in these kinds of constructions - but overall in English both who and which are frequently replaced with ‘that’ in contexts where that previously would have been considered incorrect.

This isn't pedantic, it's just wrong. "Who" is for humans.

Language can be used flexibly, word choice can be used to subtly emphasise an aspect.

I think it's more permissible when it is used to emphasise that the cat as a living being is exercising agency in voluntary behaviour that they enjoy. (1)

e.g. "Cats that shed" or "rocks that crumble" vs "Cats who fetch" and "people who sing".

"Cats that shed" is definitely correct. "Cats who fetch" implies that the cat has agency and choice here, is in a small way "human-like".

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38405224

This is the point I am making. Human exceptionalism is built into our language and it is wrongheaded. Anyone who has known a cat will be aware that they are full of personality, very much unlike a box or a Bluetooth speaker.

I don't think "that" means "cats are just like Bluetooth speakers". The same way that "who" doesn't imply all humans are the same.

I think this topic is not important. We slaughter self aware animals and eat their flesh. That's the biggest sin we commit and I don't even care. Why should I care about this grammatical politeness?

Also the cat doesn't even care, it's not cats getting offended it's just people.

Are you implying that cats have less rights then humans or are you implying that this topic is important?

> less rights then humans

This is better bait for a pedant then a laser pointer is for a cat...

Neither. I'm stating that, grammatically speaking, "who" refers to humans, and that the title of the post has correct grammar.

Besides, cats objectively have fewer rights because I can own one, for example.

Good that you aren't implying this topic is important. I was going to be extremely offended if you did. Because thats the new trendy thing to do: get offended by things that aren't important.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com