Not having seen Linda for many years, I find she is not the girl __ she used to be.

[on the way]

The sentence above is one I came across while working at a grammar excercise. The key opts for "that", which is understandable to me, but why is "who" unacceptable here? Any reply is appreciated. Thank you all again.

[HanibalII]

Moderator's note:

Hanniballl wrote a post saying that he would not use 'that' or 'who' in that sentence. In attempting to post the message below (in black), I inadvertently deleted Hanniballl's post and replaced it with my own. Unfortunately, I am unable to restore Hanniballl's original post.

My apologies to Hanniballl..

I too would probably omit 'that', certainly in speech. If I used a word, I'd probably use 'that', but 'who' is not unacceptable, in my opinion. Who told you it was?

[on the way]

The key in the exercise book opts for "that" instead "who", which indicates "who" is not appropriate there, if not necessarily unacceptable. By the way, the options include "who", "whom", "that", "which". I understand "that" can be omitted here, but why "that" is preferable to "who" in that particular context? What kind of principle or rule applies here? That's what I'm dying to know. Thank you all.

[bhaisahab]

I think "who" would make it sound like she was literally a different person.

[5jj]

I think "who" would make it sound like she was literally a different person.

I am not sure that I agree entirely, but I certainly think there's something a little odd about 'who' in such sentences.