What Do "Relative Pronouns" Have To Do With The Fundamental Moral-And-Cultural Putrescence of "Normalized Reification?"

 

Alan Archibald

otSodspnreJw87ufm5i5uti41f9aos2l7a1anhi5fu807 cmc6l0cu52lm46  · 

Shared with Public

Since the good Mercy Sisters taught me grammar at St. Thomas the Apostle grammar school in Irondequoit, New York - waaayyyyy back in the fifties -- it has been my firm understanding that the relative pronoun "that" should ONLY be used with things, as in "the gun that was used in America's umpteenth mass murder was not that gun found at Mar-a-Lago."

Similarly it is always necessary to use the relative pronoun "who" to refer to people, as in "Donald Trump and his cultists are disproportionately responsible for the ongoing horror of mass murders."

The reason why this distinction is crucial is because, whenever we use the relative pronoun "that" to refer to people, we commit the bedrock moral error of objectifying people which diminishes their humanity by turningt them into objects, no matter how slight this ongoing linguistic assault may be in any single instance.

Cumulatively, referring to people with the objectifying relative pronoun "that" is part of the whole modern and post-modern matrix that has left the world start-raving mad, and often eager to redefine "other" human beings as less than human.

LANGUAGETOOL.ORG

Who vs. That vs. Which—Grammar Rules

When modifying or describing a noun phrase, should you use “who,” “that,” or “which?” We’ll explain when to use these words and if they require commas.