Secretforlife.com

Posts Tagged ‘Who–That–It’

Who is a Who and not a That.

Why do I make a big fuss about some grammar errors or changes in our English language?

It is not so much for the defense of correct grammar. It’s because there are some rules that have to do with attitudes toward personhood. My resolve is strengthened by the title of a book written by Yvonne Oswald called EVERY WORD HAS POWER. But even more so by the truth in the Gospel of John: “The word was made flesh.”

Years ago an unborn baby of unknown sex was generally referred to as “he” or “him.” That was a generic pronoun and could refer to either male or female. Then the libbers came and changed that to “it.” Even “manhole cover” became “utility cover.” Fortunately, it didn’t become an “it-hole cover!”

Special interest groups must first abrogate the humanity of people, make them appear less than human, before controlling them, or destroying their right to life. In wars, each side seeks to demean the personhood of the enemy so that killing them is easier on the conscience. To some extent, modern English has done that to unborn babies and, to a growing extent, to babies in their early years.

What does this change in pronouns signal? Infanticide—the killing of handicapped babies?

I predict that in time elderly folks who are severely handicapped will be referred to by the pronoun “it.” “I tried to talk to the Alzheimer’s patient, but it didn’t respond to my questions.” Seems far-fetched? About as far-fetched as if 50 years ago people would call a newborn baby an “it.”

We are approaching that itness, though, with sentences like: “I tried to talk to an Alzheimer’s patient that didn’t respond to my questions.” I hear the non-human pronoun that used frequently for humans, even in sermons from the pulpit.

Now we have a Bible translation—Today’s New International Bible—that is supposed to be gender friendly. Why? Because some modern folks are no longer able to accept “he” as a generic pronoun to describe someone whose gender we don’t know or who may not have a gender. That’s why to me it is correct to refer to God as “He,” not because God is male but because he is neither male nor female.

When an unborn baby becomes “it,” abortion is easier on the conscience than if one referred to the baby as a “him” or “her.” It is just easier to kill an “it” than a “him” or “her.”

I’ve seen a growing trend among journalists, commentators, preachers and politicians to refer to a child up to two years old as an “it.” I’ve even seen Christian writers fall into this habit, even if they know the gender of the child. Is that laying the groundwork for infanticide, killing of born babies with defects? After all, if the child is an “it,” infanticide can’t be murder.

The use of the relative pronoun “that” is now also supplanting the use of “who.” A simple rule: “Who” refers back to a person and sometimes a pet. “That” refers back to a thing, event or idea. To refer to a person as a “that” is to call him an “it.”

“The carpenter WHO built my cabinet was one of the best. The cabinet THAT he built was a beautiful one.”

If we want to maintain the personhood of people, we need to describe them in terms referring to people, not things.

If we honor God’s creation of mankind and his redemption of man (used in the generic here), then we should honor people with the human pronoun “who.”

What about “whom?” I’ll let that go, for it is now acceptable to use “who” for both subjective and objective cases. I’m all right with “I’m happy that you gave the ring to whoever wanted it. He is the person who I referred to.” That use doesn’t lessen the idea of personhood.

It’s near midnight—so now I’m off to bed to join the woman that is sleeping!