<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Language Perfectionist: Is This Word Always Unnecessary?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.earlytorise.com/2008/10/04/the-language-perfectionist-is-this-word-always-unnecessary.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.earlytorise.com/2008/10/04/the-language-perfectionist-is-this-word-always-unnecessary.html</link>
	<description>The Web&#039;s Most Popular Newsletter</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 09:45:21 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.3</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: John F. Tashjian</title>
		<link>http://www.earlytorise.com/2008/10/04/the-language-perfectionist-is-this-word-always-unnecessary.html/comment-page-1#comment-2352</link>
		<dc:creator>John F. Tashjian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 May 2009 15:19:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.earlytorise.com/?p=3314#comment-2352</guid>
		<description>Mr. Hauptmann:

My thanks for your article &quot;Is This World Always Necessary?&quot; regarding the word &quot;that&quot;. While reading it, something occurred to me: the word &quot;that&quot; as a relative pronoun.

I&#039;d always been told that when referring to inanimate objects, such as computers, tables, scissors, etc., I should use &quot;that&quot; as a relative pronoun; when speaking about plants and animals, I should use &quot;which&quot; as a relative pronoun; BUT, when speaking about human beings, I MUST use the relative pronouns &quot;who&quot;, &quot;whom&quot; and &quot;whose&quot;. When one stops to think about it, for a human being to be called a &quot;that&quot; would be rather de-humanizing, right?

In any event, I thank you for this particular aticle.

John F. Tashjian</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mr. Hauptmann:</p>
<p>My thanks for your article &#8220;Is This World Always Necessary?&#8221; regarding the word &#8220;that&#8221;. While reading it, something occurred to me: the word &#8220;that&#8221; as a relative pronoun.</p>
<p>I&#8217;d always been told that when referring to inanimate objects, such as computers, tables, scissors, etc., I should use &#8220;that&#8221; as a relative pronoun; when speaking about plants and animals, I should use &#8220;which&#8221; as a relative pronoun; BUT, when speaking about human beings, I MUST use the relative pronouns &#8220;who&#8221;, &#8220;whom&#8221; and &#8220;whose&#8221;. When one stops to think about it, for a human being to be called a &#8220;that&#8221; would be rather de-humanizing, right?</p>
<p>In any event, I thank you for this particular aticle.</p>
<p>John F. Tashjian</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
