Editor's Corner

Good morning, folks! This seems a little grim for summer, but it’s a busy day and I don’t have time to write an article myself.

Here are a couple of language tidbits from columnist Richard Lederer.

DEAR RICHARD: Have you ever seen this tombstone?

Here lies (not “lays”)
Billie Woody Robins Reed
English Teacher
–Bill Plachy, San Marcos

Your tombstone is a new one to me, and I am delighted to add it to my cemetery of occupational epitaphs that demonstrate how some folks take their jobs with them to the very end. I hope that readers will dig the humor and won’t find the plots too deep and the comedy too grave:

Epitaph on a dentist:
Stranger: Approach this spot with gravity.
John Brown is filling his last cavity.

Epitaph on a lawyer:
Goembel, John E.
“The defense rests.”

Epitaph on an auctioneer:
Born 1828
Going!
Going!!
Gone!!!
1876

My favorite in this category is an epitaph on a waiter:
By and by,
God caught his eye.

My own tombstone may read:

I write. Therefore I am.
I wrote. Therefore I was.

…

DEAR RICHARD: Is it correct to use the word that referring to a person rather than who? Examples: “The child that was absent was sick.” “The child who was absent was sick.” Referring to a person as “that” seems very disrespectful. –Alice Robeson. Oceanside

For centuries, that has been used to introduce adjective clauses that modify human beings, as in Mark Twain’s novella “The Man That Corrupted Hadleyburg.” But to my ear, that is too distant and impersonal for people. Stick with who, whom, and whose for people (and animals who have names) and that and which for things and ideas.

Kara Church | Technical Editor, Advisory | KE – Documentation

Pronouns: she/her | Call via Teams | jackhenry.com

Editor’s Corner Archives: https://episystechpubs.com/