Who or That for Animals? January 7, 2009
I’ve been thinking about grammar lately and the difference between who and that. For example, this first sentence is correct: “I’m the kind of girl who thinks animals are not food.” Vs. “I’m the kind of girl that thinks animals are not food.” When referring to a person, who is the correct word to use.
Where am I going with this? Well, according to all the places I checked, animals are considered thats, keeping company with inanimate objects.
Here is one description I found:
“That” can refer to animals, things, and people and should be used when the clause is restrictive. As mentioned before, “that” can be used to refer to human beings but is not the preference of most writers and editor.
They say about who:
“Who” (as well as its inflections “whose” and “whom”) can only be used to refer to people or entities equated with people (like deities and occasionally pets). It should never be used when referring to things or animals.
In my writing I naturally bought into this, because it’s what I learned. But in the last few months I’ve been doing my best to shift my mindset into using the word “who” for all animals - not just animals that are important to people. Why is this important? I believe that each animal is an individual/sentient being, and not to be confused with an inanimate object. If my cat Cthulhu is a who, then so is the squirrel hanging out on the tree outside my window. So a sentence would read like this: “The squirrel who won’t stop eating my birdseed, is just trying to keep his body fat so he doesn’t starve this winter.” Grammatically, that sentence is incorrect. But that’s how I’m doing it from now on. A small rebellion of grammar attempting to show that animals are individuals. After all, humans are animals too.






