Grrrrammar 101

I’ve got a bone to pick with Bill Gates and his software sidekicks at Microsoft. But that’s not all; the grammar gurus at Merriam-Webster Dictionary are driving me up a wall too. And if I could think of another idiom for the idiots who edit the Oxford American Dictionary, I’d include that here too. What’s my beef with the billionaire and the bookworms? Actually, it’s not WHAT, it’s WHO.

My problem with pronouns started a long time ago when I first began writing about animals. Whenever I wrote WHO in reference to a cute critter, my online grammar checker would freak out and ask me to substitute THAT for the word WHO. For instance, I’d compose this sentence:  “Lassie is a dog WHO starred in many movies and television shows.” My computer, on the other hand, suggested the following:  “Lassie is a dog THAT starred in many movies and television shows.”

Holy Wikipedia, THAT just makes me want to start spewing some rather colorful and decidedly unladylike four-letter words that, I’m sure, aren’t listed in either of the aforementioned alphabet books. Yes, yes, I realize I’m being the teensiest bit pedantic and more than a little persnickety (I looked up these big words in my trusty thesaurus!), but hear me out. According to all the print dictionaries, online grammar guides, and the mightiest spelling and grammar checker of them all – Microsoft Word – wordsmiths should use WHO when referring to a person (i.e., a human) and THAT when referring to an inanimate object (e.g., a pencil, a plant, a piece of furniture and, yes, an animal). Now I ask you, dear readers, should an animal be considered an inanimate object? Noooooo!

I’m not the only one who’s grumpy about grammar gaffes. Mignon Fogarty (aka Grammar Girl) has a thing or two to say about THAT and WHO in her very cool book, Grammar Girl’s Quick and Dirty Tips for Better Writing. In Chapter 1 entitled “Dirty Words,” Fogarty writes: “To me, using THAT when you are talking about a person makes them seem less than human. I always think of my friend who would only refer to his new stepmother as “the woman THAT married my father.” He was clearly trying to indicate his animosity and you wouldn’t want to do that accidentally. … Finally, even if you accept the conventional wisdom, there are some gray areas and strange exceptions. For example, what do you do when you are talking about something animate that isn’t human? It can actually go either way. I would never refer to my dog as anything less than WHO, but my fish could probably be a THAT.”

Fogarty’s flippancy about her fish notwithstanding, many of us are simply seething about syntax as it relates to our four-legged friends. For instance, In Defense of Animals, an animal rights organization based in Mill Valley , CA , wants to elevate the status of animals by changing our everyday lexicon from animal ‘owner’ to animal ‘guardian.’

“Animals were long recognized in legal terms as mere commodities or property, not as individual beings, and often their exploitation and abuse was ignored, rationalized and even justified,” states the IDA Web site. In response, Elliot Katz, a veterinarian and founder of IDA, created The Guardian Campaign in 1999 as a “nationwide platform to reflect growing public support for a redefined public standard of relating to animals.” In other words, Dr. Katz wants everyone to realize that animals deserve more respect than, say, a toaster or a TV.

I support any movement that seeks to enhance the deep, symbiotic relationship we share with cats, dogs, and other animal companions. That’s why I joined Dr. Katz when he asked the Santa Barbara City Council several years ago to add ‘animal guardian’ to the city’s animal-related ordinances. While our efforts failed locally, The Guardian Campaign caught on in many other cities and states such as Boulder, CO (2000), the state of Rhode Island, West Hollywood, and Berkeley, CA (2001), Marin County, CA (all 28 cities) and San Francisco, CA (2003), Santa Clara County, CA (2006), and San Jose, CA (2007). To date, more than 5 million Americans and Canadians have declared themselves ‘Animal Guardians.’ (What do you say Santa Barbara —shall we give it another try?)

Like most of you, I’m sometimes addled by adjectives, confused by conjunctives, and discombobulated by definite articles like the word THE. Why else would we call our faithful friend THE dog, as in “I need to take THE dog for a walk.” Why not say: “I need to take MY dog for a walk.” Or, better yet, refer to him by name as in, “I need to take Bowser for a walk.” And please, don’t even get me started on the ridiculous rule that gives us permission to refer to a living, breathing animal as IT rather than HE or SHE!

Now that I’ve dispensed grammar tips in the Daily Sound, I have set my sights on Seattle, where Billionaire Bill is someone WHO is awaiting my advice on THAT confounded spelling and grammar checker. But first, what to do about those darn dictionaries…?

###

Karen is certain that her readers are caring people WHO want to do everything they can to help animals WHO are suffering. Karen suggests visiting The Guardian Campaign Web site (www.guardiancampaign.org) or emailing her at karenleestevens@cox.net for more information.

---

By Karen Lee Stevens,
Founder & President, ALL FOR ANIMALS, Inc.
Copyright © 2008. All Rights Reserved.

---

Return to Karen Lee's Home Page
Return to the ALL FOR ANIMALS Home Page