This paper examines the humanness restriction on specificational Pseudo-clefts where the pseudo-cleft clause in subject position is followed by the post-copular, clefted constituent denoting a person. We will first note that the verbs within the pseudo-cleft clause at issue are restricted to what Moltmann (2013) calls ‘verbs describing (visual, tactile, or auditory) perception’ or what Akmajian (1970) calls ‘verbs which take as subjects (or objects) either abstract nouns or human nouns.’ Since like the subject of specificational copular sentences it is substituted for by it or that, but not by he nor by she, the pseudo- cleft clause is essentially construed not as a person but as a thing. The copula is required to be present in this construction and has the role of equating/identifying the open variable provided by the pseudo- cleft clause-internal gap with the referent of the post-copular, clefted constituent. However, the pseudo-cleft clause connected to the post- copular, clefted AP/VP constituent is not entity-but property-denoting, thus being resistant to its substitution by entity-denoting pronominals such as it and that.