Questions about English

[clawgrip]

Here is how I organize the three major relative pronouns (defining "animate" as XXXVII described it, i.e. mostly people but sometimes animals):

that
-defining
-animate or inanimate

which
-non-defining*
-inanimate

who
-defining or non-defining
-animate

You can probably find examples that contradict this, but I am relatively sure this is by far how they are most commonly used.
My only guess as to why people use both "who" and "that" for defining relative clauses is that, although intonation and punctuation determine whether "who" is defining or non-defining, perhaps "that" is occasionally used to modify animate nouns because it makes it even more unambiguously defining.

* "which" is possible in defining relative clauses as well, but I feel this usage is markedly formal, and is less likely to occur in informal or spoken language.

[Alomar]

In my form of English, "that" and "who" can be applied to unnamed people (maybe this is right?).
Both sound fine:
"The man who I saw in the store was a huge jerk."
"The man that I saw in the store was a huge jerk."

Although, I'd probably say something like "The man I saw in the store was a jerk" and skirt the whole issue.

Or even:
"I saw a jerk in the store."


But I would never say:
"John, that called my mother the other day, found out."

Always who there, though that's a pretty crap example sentence.


It's definitely not a definiteness issue though. "My teacher, who..." or "My teacher, that..." Maybe there the "who" marks a specific one, while that is more open... God, I'm terrible at English (even though I'm native).

[Ànradh]

It must be said, for people, I almost always use 'who'. I can't think of occasions when I don't off the top of my head. This is one of those occasions where I want to get a little bit arbitrary for the sake of my sanity; calling it an animacy thing just seems neat and logical.