|
Post by robeiae on Feb 7, 2017 8:42:56 GMT -5
www.cnn.com/2017/02/07/us/shedd-aquarium-centenarian-fish-grandad-dies-trnd/index.htmlOkay, I know it's a fish. And one can, I think, reasonably argue that "fish feelings" are quite limited things, that Granddad had a good life, always fed, with a mate for most of it, and no fear of predators. Still, 80 years in a cage is a long time. And it seems to me that if it is "just a fish," euthanizing it, indeed agonizing over whether or not to euthanize it, is pretty silly. Also, "He was the one WHO got away," not "THAT got away." I make that mistake a lot. But I'm not a legitimate news source with truckloads of editors...
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Feb 7, 2017 17:49:05 GMT -5
Also, "He was the one WHO got away," not "THAT got away." I make that mistake a lot. But I'm not a legitimate news source with truckloads of editors... Unless AP style has changed recently (one of my undergrad degrees is in journalism), "who" is used for people. "That" is used for non-human animals and things. It's also that way in APA style (and other scientific styles I'm aware of), which is what I generally have to write in.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 7, 2017 19:20:46 GMT -5
Also, "He was the one WHO got away," not "THAT got away." I make that mistake a lot. But I'm not a legitimate news source with truckloads of editors... Unless AP style has changed recently (one of my undergrad degrees is in journalism), "who" is used for people. "That" is used for non-human animals and things. It's also that way in APA style (and other scientific styles I'm aware of), which is what I generally have to write in. If the animal has a name and you're calling it a "he" or a "she", you use "who," not "that." Once personified, always personified. Otherwise, "IT was the one THAT got away." (Finally, a real argument!)
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Feb 7, 2017 20:03:24 GMT -5
I really just wanted an excuse to use the Trump "Wrong" meme. However, the "use who for personified animals," in this case, is still an opinion. Where's your evidence? Given that this was used in a news article, and they go by AP style guidelines, they are correct in using "that." I no longer have my copy of the Associated Press style guide, but I do know that it's AP style to use "that" for non-human animals (whether personified or not). For APA style scientific writing, it's on page 79 of the Publication Manual. That isn't to say that in normal conversation (everyday grammar), that we shouldn't use "who" for personified animals. Indeed, if I recall correctly, it is an accepted usage (though there is some debate). But, when writing professionally for a specific industry, the writer has to go by that industry's style guidelines/standards, even if those standards might seem dumb. But, I do see your point that the author made it confusing by mixing a personal pronoun (he) with a relative pronoun (that). In my attempt to bring the world together through peace and harmony, I'll concede that we're both right on this one, but for different reasons.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 7, 2017 20:55:25 GMT -5
However, the "use who for personified animals," in this case, is still an opinion. Where's your evidence? erinwrightwriting.com/refer-animals/Of course: I would contend that we have--as a society--extended enough "personhood" to some animals as to go with "who" for those animals. After all, the same article on the death of Granddad talks about "euthanizing" him, fairly common now for pet-style animals, and euthanasia was originally for people, alone. Animals that were suffering were simply put down. ETA: I concede nothing!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Feb 7, 2017 21:05:40 GMT -5
However, the "use who for personified animals," in this case, is still an opinion. Where's your evidence? erinwrightwriting.com/refer-animals/Of course: I would contend that we have--as a society--extended enough "personhood" to some animals as to go with "who" for those animals. After all, the same article on the death of Granddad talks about "euthanizing" him, fairly common now for pet-style animals, and euthanasia was originally for people, alone. Animals that were suffering were simply put down. ETA: I concede nothing!!!! Touche, sir. You found the AP stuff that I no longer had access to. You have defeated me and I do, indeed, concede. p.s. Euthanizing a fish is dumb and pointless anyway, given that they probably don't even feel pain. Which renders moot the entire reason for "euthanizing" in the first place. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130808123719.htm
|
|