definitely who

Wenn es um Menschen geht, immer "who". (Und mir fällt kein Beispiel ein, in dem mit "person" kein Mensch gemeint wäre.)

@Sophil:
Ganz einfach - "a juristic person" ist kein Mensch.

you could also say "the person standing in the shop" but otherwise it would always be "who is standing"

Unfortunately, it is not always "who." I prefer "who" in this type of situation, and I do not believe I have yet heard of "the person which," but it is common and idiomatic to use "that" in reference to human beings.

To quote Bernstein ("The Careful Writer," p. 446), "'which' normally refers to things, 'who' to persons, and 'that' to either persons or things. The point is elementary and needs no elaboration."

Danke euch!
Aber wie ist das, wenn ich mythical creatures habe? Sind die dann which?

Mythical creatures? As in "The unicorn, which/that was standing in the clearing." Or as in "The elf, who had my fate in her hands." ?

No, I don't mean unicorns. That's my thing:
Leprechauns are Irish mythical creatures who/which make shoes for fairies.
Then who, right?

Thank you much!

To review: in reference to people, real or imaginary, use "who" or "that." "Leprechauns are mythical Irish creatures who (or that) make shoes for fairies."

In reference to animals or things, real or imagined, use "which" or "that."
"The unicorn that was standing in the clearing"

"Which" is never used in reference to people.

There is an additional rule governing the use of "which" and "that." Use "that" to introduce a restrictive clause: "The unicorn that was standing in the clearing was white."

Use "which" to introduce a nonrestrictive clause: "The unicorn, which was standing in the clearing, was white."

The next-to-last "rule" cited by Bob C. (whose comments I generally agree with) is only a grammar book rule, and is followed by hardly anyone, including the grammar book writers themselves. I refer to the so-called rule requiring "that" before a restrictive clause. Most writers have never heard of this "rule" and blissfully ignore it. Others (including yours truly) who have heard of it, ignore it nevertheless.

So Martin, you'd say "The unicorn, that was standing in the clearing, was white"?

I agree that many writers, probably most, are unaware of this useful convention. That's a problem for them--although I admit it does annoy me that those who would be writers and translators disdain to study the history and tools of their craft.

Another point that some seem to miss or misunderstsand in our discussions here is that rules of grammar and correctness are not imposed but derived.

Hey, Martin, I clicked on the next item (off-year elections) and boom, there was a good example:

"Presidential elections which take place every four years are the main events among American elections."

Wouldn't you agree that the sentence would benefit if commas were inserted after "Presidential elections" and "years"?

And wouldn't you agree that the meaning changes significantly if we say "Presidential elections that take place every four years are the main events among American elections"?

Hi Bob,

I'm afraid that you misunderstood me. What I said is that people often use "which" before a restrictive clause, where you would have us use "that", not vice-versa.

So, for example, according to the rule book, we should write:
a)Presidential elections, which occur every four years, are the main events.
b)Presidential elections that do not result in a majority are often contentious.

People do NOT say:
c*)Presidential elections, that occur every four years, are the main events.

and I didn't suggest (or mean to suggest) that this is correct usage.

But people do often say and write sentences such as the following"
d)Presidential elections which do not result in a majority are often contentious.

I would have no compunction about writing such a sentence, even in a formal paper. Nor would most writers. The so-called "rule" which (sic) prescribes using "that" in restrictive clauses (like (d) ) was invented more than derived from observation of actual usage.

By the way, here's a short quote from Fowler's "Dictionary of American Usage"
"The disctiction between restrictinve 'that' and descriptive 'which' or 'who' is an invention of the grammarians and a very recent one. Fowler, who recommends it, says, 'it would be idle to pretend that it is the practice either of most or of the best writers.' What is not the practice of most, or of the best, is not part of our common language."


P.S. To close on an agreement:
Yes, I agree, commas are missing from the sentence you cited. And yes, I agree, substituting "that" for "which" does indeed change the meaning or your last example.

Fowler notwithstanding, if changing "which" for "that" can in some cases change meaning, then how is this invented or imposed by anything other than the nature of the language?

I'm glad, however, that you point out Fowler's article. I have, regrettably, only one Fowler book, "Modern English Usage," but I believe I'll be able to find something there on this subject. I'll post a note tomorrow (Sunday) to report.

We needn't worry overly much about agreeing; it wouldn't be any fun if we did so all the time.

Sorry, Bob, misled by their citation of Fowler, I mistyped the authors' names, and also didn't get the name of the book quite right either.

I should have said "A Dictionary of Contemporary American Usage" by Bergan Evans and Cornelia Evans. My edition was published in 1957(!) by Random House. The quote I inserted was from the article called "that; which" on page 505.

who for persons......what about PURRsons? who or which?

Fowler's lead-in to the discussion of "that," "which," and "who" is such a delight to read! (Modern English Usage, second ed., p. 625.)

Here is a sample relevant to the issue at hand:

"The two kinds of relative clause, to one of which 'that' and to the other of which 'which' is appropriate, are the defining and the non-defining; and if writers would agree to regard 'that' as the defining relative pronoun, and 'which' as the non-defining, there would be much gain both in lucidity and in ease. Some there are who follow this principle now; but it would be idle to pretend that it is the practice either of most or of the best writers."

There is something for everyone here; Fowler acknowledges that the rule governing "which" and "that" is more honored in the breach than in the observance, yet further on defends its usefulness.

(So Martin, do you mean that my disagreement is with the Evanses rather than with Fowler?)