=?UNKNOWN?Q?=A0_=A0_=A0?= Re: odd relative, and more

[Paul Johnston]

It's not only the English of Tomorrow, it's also the English of
Yesterday--cf. the King James Version's "Our Father, which art in heaven..."
where the Deity is certainly to be looked at as personified.  Perfectly good
Early Modern English, so my guess is it's a low-frequency variant that has
hung on (or been recreated).  It's interesting because its  presence raises
all kinds of questions about seeming reversals of linguistic change, the
randomness of variation, the status of low-frequency variants, "linguistic
recycling", which is well attested for vocabulary, but less for other areas.

Paul Johnston
----- Original Message -----
From: <RonButters at AOL.COM>
To: <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2005 10:29 AM
Subject: Re:       Re: odd relative, and more


> ---------------------- Information from the mail
header -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       RonButters at AOL.COM
> Subject:
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re:=20=A0=20=A0=20=A0=20Re:=20odd=20relative,=20a?
>               = =?ISO-8859-1?Q?nd=20more?=
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
>
> In a message dated 12/10/05 10:03:18 AM, wuxxmupp2000 at YAHOO.COM writes:
>
>
> > Sorry to say that the use of "which" to refer to human beings is
indeed=20
> > English - the dreaded English of Tomorrow.
> >=20
> > =A0 I have seen countless exx. of "which" for "who" since I began
grading=20
> > freshman themes in 1976.=A0 The majority of students at all levels
prefer=20=
> "that,"=20
> > however.=A0 Of equal interest, perhaps, is that they almost *never* use
"w=
> ho" in=20
> > relative constructions.
> >=20
> > =A0 A very, very few also use "which's" and "that's" for "whose,"=A0
even=20=
> when=20
> > referring to people.=A0 I can't say that I've ever noticed these forms
in=20
> > speech, though.
> >=20
> > =A0 JL
> >=20
>
> Perhaps "which" seems safer because it avoids the "who/whom" distinction
but=
> =20
> sounds tonier than "that"?
>
> There is also the Southern (only?) practice--common in speech--of using=20
> "which" as a sort of coordinating conjunction when the preceding
independent=
>  clause=20
> contains a [+human] direct object ("I don't really like my boyfriend's=20
> mother, which I am always trying to find excuses not to go o her house
with=20=
> him").=20
> Arnold's example, though, is certainly not Southern, and to be a
coordinatin=
> g=20
> conjunction the sentence would have to read, "... seeking HIV-negative
men,=20
> ages 18-45, which THEY have been a top or bottom in the past six months.
...=
> "
>