Perhaps it would help to think about whether it is the running or the time it took which is what you want to accentuate. "He ran for 12.2 seconds in the 100m" emphasises that it was the 100m which matters,and the time is not of interest, "He ran 12.2 seconds in the 100m" emphasises the time taken.

To clarify : In other words, people use "that" in the first sentence - "the old lady that I had helped.." but know better and use a "wh~~" word (a relative pronoun, to be exact) in the second sentence: "the man to that I had given..."?? - so should know to use a "wh~~" word in both examples. That is my first quibble: if you can get one right, why not both?

My second problem is that people do not know which "wh~~" word to use. It should be "whom" in both sentences, as it is not the subject of "given" nor of "helped" - if it were, it would be "who" - but NOT "that"!

Is that clearer?

To clarify : In other words, people use "that" in the first sentence - "the old lady that I had helped.." but know better and use a "wh~~" word (a relative pronoun, to be exact) in the second sentence: "the man to that I had given..."?? - so should know to use a "wh~~" word in both examples. That is my first quibble: if you can get one right, why not both?

My second problem is that people do not know which "wh~~" word to use. It should be "whom" in both sentences, as it is not the subject of "given" nor of "helped" - if it were, it would be "who" - but NOT "that"!

Is that clearer?

Matt P:
Fill in the missing word from the ones on the list in brackets: "The old lady ~~~~ I had helped across the street thanked me." (she/her/who/whom/that). And again: "The man to ~~~~ I had given a lift gave me $10." (him/them/who/that/whom). You would argue, and I would agree, that "whom" is the right choice in the first sentence, because it is the object (of helped) but you think it is merely an affect (sic) to put "whom" in the second one, and you would put "him", you say, because "to" is a preposition: "The man to him I had given a lift ...". I don't think so.

My problem with what you call "normal persons'" use of English now is that people are using "that" in, for example, my first sentence above (The old lady that I had helped ...) but know that "that" is no good in the second test sentence: "The man to that I had given ...".

My second grievance is that people know to use a "wh~" word (relative pronoun - because it relates back to the man (or the woman, or whatever) mentioned earlier (the antecedent). In French it is "qui" or "que" depending on subject/object, in German it is "wer, wie. ... or another from a chart of 24 such words, and in Latin there are 30 from which to choose the right one. In English there are 3: "who, whom, whose". As you have said, we should use "whom" in the second sentence because it goes with (is governed by) "to" and in fact it is the indirect object of "given a lift".

When the language is used incorrectly, it is not a clue that one is a "normal person" nor is it an affectation. It is a sign that one is being sloppy, which is fine in day to day chat, but not when it is done in formal situations, such as written language. My grievance is that sloppy English is now used where it should not be, by people who should know better.

I think you are confused too about what "common" and "of the people" signify.

Eat your words, Entomophagist! You spelled 'minutiae' and 'whose' wrong, by the way. Of course language changes as time passes, but there is no need for it to be debased.

Spellcheck is one culprit, then. I said in the first place that I blame the Americans, but had modified that stance since then. The word "Spellcheck" gets a red wiggly line too!!
Is it something to do with English now being used as a second language, perhaps, or is it just the abject failure of some schools to teach grammar? As Boris Johnson says, anyone who has learned Latin is incapable of writing a bad English sentence, and that is because Latin requires a total understanding of sentence structure.
The further failure of politicians to use the word "who", insisting on "that", and their avoidance of the subjunctive "may" and "might", hint at inverse snobbery rather than poor education - they dread appearing to be elitist (is it true that New Labour tried to abolish the using of English words with Latin roots, for this reason?) but that is another rant for another day.

Spellcheck is one culprit, then. I said in the first place that I blame the Americans, but had modified that stance since then. The word "Spellcheck" gets a red wiggly line too!!
Is it something to do with English now being used as a second language, perhaps, or is it just the abject failure of some schools to teach grammar? As Boris Johnson says, anyone who has learned Latin is incapable of writing a bad English sentence, and that is because Latin requires a total understanding of sentence structure.
The further failure of politicians to use the word "who", insisting on "that", and their avoidance of the subjunctive "may" and "might", hint at inverse snobbery rather than poor education - they dread appearing to be elitist (is it true that New Labour tried to abolish the using of English words with Latin roots, for this reason?) but that is another rant for another day.

"The Man that fell to Earth" or "Ladies that Lunch": "people that care" about the English language must despair. It is just plain ugly usage to have the word 'that' replace "who" -
"The man who fell to Earth" and "Ladies who lunch" are the forms which people who care would use!

I still think they must have banned the word when I wasn't looking. It is used on government websites and those of other institutions which should know better, such as the BBC.

What is the motive for this? Is English grammar too hard for them?

"Normal" English? It is certainly very common!

Carol: quite right, not all Americans use "that" in place of "who/whom" and the English are worse! I agree that it is an 'educated' and older persons' bugbear. Niles and Fraser Crane wouldn't do it and nor would Martin!