This & That - A Writerly Thread

[McKenna]

Today at work a colleague and I had a discussion about the word "that". We were trying to come up with an answer for the appropriate use of "that".

I looked through the Chicago Manual of Style and still can't find a satisfactory answer. Anyone care to help?

Here's the dilemma: Should "that" be omitted in the following sentence:

I recommend you stop speeding. vs. I recommend that you stop speeding.

At first I thought it was simply a dialectical difference; some dialects include "that", and some do not. Then I wondered if it was a stylistic choice, something like the use of a series comma in academic writing vs. not using a series comma in journalistic writing.

I talked to two different technical writers and one English teacher about the appropriate use of "that"; all had differing opinions.

So, which is correct? Keep "that" or omit it?

 

[TE999]

Excuse me, what was that again?

 

[bronzeage]

The best advice I ever recieved was to take it out in every sentence. If the sentence still makes sense, leave it out.

Its a habit of speech which clutters prose.

 

[rgraham666]

Can you believe that? I certainly can't.

 

[cloudy]

Both are grammatically correct. It's a style difference, however, as bronzeage says, it can tend to clutter up your writing at times.

Up to you.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I'm always so proud of myself when I remember to excise it. Hardly ever happens....

 

[McKenna]

I found some "rules" that make sense to me; thought I'd share them here:

When you have the following modifiers* in the sentence, use 'that.'
the only
the same
the very
the first
the last
all
only
any
no
every

1) The only thing that remains unchanged is our pursuit of changing for the better.
2) All that glitters is not glod.
3) Any paper that you read will give you the same story.


*What I can tell from this author's list of modifiers is that they are all quantitative. Perhaps that is the best "rule" to follow for when to use "that".

P.S. I just noticed I used "that" out of habit/instinct in the above sentence. I used it correctly, I might add, as I used "all" as well.

 

[FatDino]

I found some "rules" that make sense to me; thought I'd share them here:

When you have the following modifiers* in the sentence, use 'that.'
the only
the same
the very
the first
the last
all
only
any
no
every

1) The only thing that remains unchanged is our pursuit of changing for the better.
2) All that glitters is not glod.
3) Any paper that you read will give you the same story.


*What I can tell from this author's list of modifiers is that they are all quantitative. Perhaps that is the best "rule" to follow for when to use "that".

P.S. I just noticed I used "that" out of habit/instinct in the above sentence. I used it correctly, I might add, as I used "all" as well.

Those are examples at which "that" is used as starter of subordinate clauses.

Subordinate clause doesn't express a complete thought and cannot stand alone as a sentence. The meaning of it is complete only when the clause is attached to an independent clause.

Ex: The store did not have the video game that I wanted.

The italic part is the independent clause, while the bold part is subordinate. "that I wanted" clarifies what video game "I" am talking about.

There are 3 kinds of subordinate clauses: adjective clause, noun clause and adverb clause. They modify the words immediately before them.

In these cases, "that" can be replaced by "which, what, how, where, when, whatever, whoever," etc.

Hope that helps.

 

[Liar]

I'm always so proud of myself when I remember to excise it. Hardly ever happens....

That's kind of funny. As a non-native writer, I always feel like I've done a sloppy job if I omit the 'that'. Like writing in txt shorthand or forgetting the initial "I've" in a sentence like "Been driving for six hours."

 

[damppanties]

That's kind of funny. As a non-native writer, I always feel like I've done a sloppy job if I omit the 'that'. Like writing in txt shorthand or forgetting the initial "I've" in a sentence like "Been driving for six hours."

Hmmm. The same here. I have to consciously go back over my writing and omit the 'thats' and then it kind of looks wrong without them, and I get totally confused. It's probably because we've been taught a more rigid sort of English? Which means, we put more thought into being more correct I suppose. If it doesn't come as naturally, you have to be more careful about it.

 

[McKenna]

There are 3 kinds of subordinate clauses: adjective clause, noun clause and adverb clause. They modify the words immediately before them.

In these cases, "that" can be replaced by "which, what, how, where, when, whatever, whoever," etc.

Hope that helps.

But can "that" be eliminated completely from the sentence?

i.e., The store did not have the video game I wanted. Must it be included for correct grammar, or is it simply a stylistic choice?

 

[McKenna]

Hmmm. The same here. I have to consciously go back over my writing and omit the 'thats' and then it kind of looks wrong without them, and I get totally confused. It's probably because we've been taught a more rigid sort of English? Which means, we put more thought into being more correct I suppose. If it doesn't come as naturally, you have to be more careful about it.

Very true. However I've found at times in Dutch they use words that when I ask my husband what they mean, he says, "I don't know, I just know the sentence sounds wrong without them." Great. That makes it SO much easier for a non-native speaker.

 

[N0madS0uL]

Great! I'm back in Grammar school! Pretty interesting though.

 

[FatDino]

But can "that" be eliminated completely from the sentence?

i.e., The store did not have the video game I wanted. Must it be included for correct grammar, or is it simply a stylistic choice?

Pretty much a stylistic choice, but in formal papers, "that" shouldn't be omitted in that case.

 

[oggbashan]

I think (the use of the word that/that) it depends on the length of your sentences.

If the sentence is long, with several subordinate clauses, "that" can make the meaning clearer.

If you are writing direct speech, omitting "that" is usual. In reported speech, "that" can be a useful pointer to the subject of a clause.

Og

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

I'm with Bronzeage. I try and never use That except as an object as in "I would never do that."

 

[FallingToFly]

I'm with Bronzeage. I try and never use That except as an object as in "I would never do that."

Unless of course we're talking NaNo- and then you write everythign out, so your work as a whole is impossibly stilted and screwed up- but it adds to the word count!!!

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Unless of course we're talking NaNo- and then you write everythign out, so your work as a whole is impossibly stilted and screwed up- but it adds to the word count!!!

I stand corrected

 

[gauchecritic]

I recommend you stop speeding. vs. I recommend that you stop speeding.

The second is correct. The first would be acceptable (not by me though) in speech.

It reads like a newspaper headline to me.

'that' makes the connection between the recommendation and the action recommended, otherwise there is little need for 'recommend'. Just "You stop speeding."

In fact the sentence by itself seems to be without context and ought to have something like "If you don't want points on your licence then..."

Which is where Liar comes in and in order to forego the 'that' then you have to forego the If of the contextual addition.

"You don't want points then I recommend you stop speeding."

 

[jomar]

I recommend you stop speeding. vs. I recommend that you stop speeding.

I took English so long ago the pages in my Strunk and White are yellow and brittle so I don't dare open it up. But most of the discussion seems to be about the use of 'that' in conversation. So wouldn't the character determine if they used 'that'? Proper vs. casual, the way people really talk, that sort of thing.

 

[McKenna]

So far, lots of mixed opinions expressed here.

The English teacher I spoke of earlier said to omit "that." It's extra junk in a sentence that might sound fine in colloquial speech, but does not belong in written word.

Two of the tech writers I spoke with were in favor of keeping "that", though they could offer no technical reason why it should be there.

I am not in favor of keeping it. It feels cleaner and more precise to omit it.

Above all the opinions expressed here, my own included, as a technical writer I can offer this one piece of advise: Whether or not you use "that", be consistent; always include it or always omit it.

 

[elsol]

In most cases of 'that'... which or who is better.

I spoke to the woman that hit my car the other day.
I spoke to the woman who hit my car the other day.



As someone suggested, I usually go through and remove 'that' from every sentence I see it in... if it still makes sense, I leave it out... if it doesn't I replace it with 'which' or 'who' and see 'if that' (which) is better.



Ha ha see

It's extra junk in a sentence that might sound fine in colloquial speech, but does not belong in written word.

You could make it "It's extra junk in a sentence which might sound fine in colloquial speech but does not belong in written word."

 

[McKenna]

In most cases of 'that'... which or who is better.

I spoke to the woman that hit my car the other day.
I spoke to the woman who hit my car the other day.



As someone suggested, I usually go through and remove 'that' from every sentence I see it in... if it still makes sense, I leave it out... if it doesn't I replace it with 'which' or 'who' and see 'if that' (which) is better.



Ha ha see



You could make it "It's extra junk in a sentence which might sound fine in colloquial speech but does not belong in written word."

I still have a crush on you, grammar nazi or not.

 

[McKenna]

In most cases of 'that'... which or who is better.

I spoke to the woman that hit my car the other day.
I spoke to the woman who hit my car the other day.



As someone suggested, I usually go through and remove 'that' from every sentence I see it in... if it still makes sense, I leave it out... if it doesn't I replace it with 'which' or 'who' and see 'if that' (which) is better.



Ha ha see



You could make it "It's extra junk in a sentence which might sound fine in colloquial speech but does not belong in written word."

But on a side note... I'm not talking about the usage of "that" as a replacement for which; I'm talking about using it as some kind of conjunctive-insertion (I don't know what the proper name for it is, really.)

i.e., He said that he already paid the bill. vs. He said he already paid the bill.

 

[elsol]

But on a side note... I'm not talking about the usage of "that" as a replacement for which; I'm talking about using it as some kind of conjunctive-insertion (I don't know what the proper name for it is, really.)

i.e., He said that he already paid the bill. vs. He said he already paid the bill.

The problem is that we tend to reach for 'that' very naturally.

If you don't use it instead of which or who, the infestation seems a lot better... so you can get away with more conjustive-insertions.

I've been the wipe-outs for so long (that) I can now see where the word gives an air of informality. Like I very rarely use "can't", "won't".. except in dialogue, to give the illusion that dialogue is more natural (when it's not).

I would write completely without it, except in cases where my goal is a more informal prose.

Edited to add: With the caveat that (by the way... this that WAS necessary) my prose tends to be minimalist.