A travel is a person that/who ?

[birgit33]

"A travel agent is a person that helps people arrange their travel plans." Or : "A travel agent is a person, who helps people arrange their travel plans." Because it's a restrictive clause it's not correct to use the word "who" as in the second sentence ?

[Gillnetter]

"A travel agent is a person that helps people arrange their travel plans." Or : "A travel agent is a person, who helps people arrange their travel plans." Because it's a restrictive clause it's not correct to use the word "who" as in the second sentence ?

The comma in the second example is incorrect. A person is a "who", not a "what".

[birgit33]

The comma in the second example is incorrect. A person is a "who", not a "what".

I would like to hear some opinions about this quote.

[5jj]

"A travel agent is a person that helps people arrange their travel plans." Or : "A travel agent is a person,(no comma) who helps people arrange their travel plans." Because it's a restrictive clause it's not correct to use the word "who" as in the second sentence ?

There is no comma with a restrictive clause, as Gillnetter said. 'That' is a perfectly acceptable alternative to 'who' in restrictive clauses.

[Raymott]

[QUOTE=birgit33;828157]"A travel agent is a person that helps people arrange their travel plans." Or : "A travel agent is a person, who helps people arrange their travel plans." Because it's a restrictive clause it's not correct to use the word "who" as in the second sentence ?
[/QUOTE]
No, this is incorrect. There is no rule saying you can't use 'who' in a restrictive clause.
However, if you do use 'who' in a restrictive clause, you can't use a comma.

Building on what 5jj said, 'Who' is a perfectly acceptable alternative to 'that' in restrictive clauses - and, in fact, you should use it when referring to people.

"A travel agent is a person who helps people arrange their travel plans."

[5jj]

'Who' is a perfectly acceptable alternative to 'that' in restrictive clauses - and, in fact, you should use it when referring to people.

"A travel agent is a person who helps people arrange their travel plans."

Gillnetter seems to imply the same. I don't agree. I agree with Swan:

"We often use that instead of who or which, especially in an informal style."

Swan, Michael (2005) Practical English Usage (3rd edn) Oxford: OUP.

[Raymott]

Gillnetter seems to imply the same. I don't agree. I agree with Swan:

"We often use that instead of who or which, especially in an informal style."

Swan, Michael (2005) Practical English Usage (3rd edn) Oxford: OUP.

I take it you're disagreeing specifically with "you should use it [who] when referring to people."
Gilnetter and I might have been overstating the "should".

I think the reason for this is that the OP is suggesting that she didn't know that "who" could be used in a restrictive clause. Perhaps insisting that it should be used is a case of hypercorrection.
I'll rephrase: "Who" certainly may be used in a restrictive clause, and many of us would consider it the natural pronoun to use with people.

PS: I've taken the trouble to purchase a copy of Swan. I don't much like his Index, so a page reference might be useful - unless of course you're citing from memory, in which case I wouldn't expect you to look it up every time you gave an opinion from Swan. This is 494:4 on page 478, in case anyone is interested.

Even so, there's no direct contradiction between Swan's statement and those of Gilnetter and me. He says that "that" is often used informally, and we say that "who" should be used. One statement is descriptive, the other normative.

[5jj]

I take it you're disagreeing specifically with "you should use it [who] when referring to people."
Gilnetter and I might have been overstating the "should".

I think the reason for this is that the OP is suggesting that she didn't know that "who" could be used in a restrictive clause. Perhaps insisting that it should be used is a case of hypercorrection.
I'll rephrase: "Who" certainly may be used in a restrictive clause, and many of us would consider it the natural pronoun to use with people.

Fine

PS: I've taken the trouble to purchase a copy of Swan. I don't much like his Index, so a page reference might be useful - unless of course you're citing from memory, in which case I wouldn't expect you to look it up every time you gave an opinion from Swan. This is 494:4 on page 478, in case anyone is interested.

I'll do that in future.

5