(d) All other given examples read OK with or without the that.
.
.
.
Irrespective of my opinions, what are the rules of grammar for the above examples? Items (2), (4), (6), (7) and (9) seem to have the same type of sentence construction demanding the same answer but, again, I could be wrong.
First, note that in the cases where two copies of the word “that” occur next to each other in a sentence, they have two different meanings. Indeed, they are two different parts of speech. There is the “that” that is parallel to “this,” either as a modifier or as a noun-like word. So there is:
That is a cat.
That animal is a cat.
which is parallel to:
This is a cat.
This animal is a cat.
In both cases, this is usually thought of as a pronoun.
Then there’s the “that” which introduces a clause:
I know that the cat is in the room.
This is usually thought of as a conjunction.
So there is no problem with having two copies of “that” in a row if one is introducing a clause and the other is the first word in the clause (either as a modifier or in a noun-like role). Sometimes one can drop the “that” which introduces a clause without changing the meaning of a sentence and sometimes one can’t. For instance, there’s a subtle difference between these two sentences.
I believe that there’s a God.
I believe there’s a God.
There’s an entire book called That’s That by Dwight Bolinger on the various meanings of the word “that.”
“This restaurant serves Devils on Horseback to die for” is an independent clause. It could stand on its own as a sentence. ‘That’ is serving as a conjunction between the two clauses. That can also serve as an adverb, an adjective, and a pronoun. When you say “I’ve heard that” by itself, that is a pronoun. When you say “I’ve heard that that wine is good,” the second ‘that’ is an adjective. Oftentimes using that as a conjunction (the first that of the that that pair) can be unnecessary if you’re following properly. In French, this is sin. In English it remains purely for clarity. Your opinions on where it is necessary is purely aesthetic, as they are generally the same example.
Once again, there is absolutely nothing wrong with two copies of “that” in a row.
Here’s an example of a subtle difference between one and two copies of “that” in a sentence: You’re standing at a bus stop with a friend. You see a bus coming and say, “I believe that is our bus.” Suppose on the other hand, you’re standing between two bus stops. There is a bus waiting at each stop. Your friend asks, “Which one is our bus?” You look at them and think about it and then either say (pointing to the nearer one), “I believe that this is our bus,” or (pointing to the farther one), “I believe that that is our bus.” Leaving out the “that” as a conjunction makes the sentence sound more like an immediate reaction rather than like a considered opinion.
I think that in examples (2), (4), (6), (7) and (9) the presence of that also lends an air of considered opinion to the statement. It seems more formal. What is your view on this?
You’re at a restaurant and overhear the sommelier at the next table recommend a particular wine. You say to your companion: “I’ve heard that that wine is delightful.”
Remove one “that” and you have, “I’ve heard that wine is delightful.” Now you’re talking about wine in general. Saying “I’ve heard that this wine is delightful,” would confuse your companion into thinking that you’re talking about the wine that you’re drinking rather than the one the sommelier was discussing.
I think (that) this example was actually an excercise in correct use of commas, but also illustrates a necessary ‘double that’.
Ferret Herder’s example would be great for teaching the different pronunciations of ‘that’. When you say that the specific wine that the waiter’s holding is a good wine, you use the long ‘a’, when you make the general statement about wines, you use the short ‘a’. Because of the different pronunciations, you could drop the conjunction in speech, even though it’s necessary in writing.
True, but the overall intonation or prosody of the sentence would be different. I’ve heard that wine is delightful, the general statement, would have no accent on the ‘that.’ If you say, “I’ve heard THAT wine,” that particular wine you’re drinking, “is delightful,” your voice goes up on ‘that.’ Sometimes people have trouble distinguishing this, however.
I try to avoid dropping in a “that” if it doesn’t add to the clarity or the rhythm. In “I think I shall never see/ A poem lovely as a tree,” it doesn’t scan without “that.”
In, “I know that the author didn’t mean it in a nasty way,” without “that” you have an instant where I seem to be saying the author is an old friend. So the “that” adds clarity.
I have an awful feeling that I haven’t added any clarity at all. :smack:
I’m going to modify your example for the purpose of illustration: “I believe that is our bus driver.”
You may substitute the pronoun he — “I believe he is our bus driver” — or a proper noun — “I believe Bob is our bus driver.” That takes on a noun/pronoun role.
You may also substitute a common noun, but it needs an article: “I believe a cat is our bus driver.”
However, since that is also a definite article, you can also substitute that for a: “I believe that cat is our bus driver.” Here that takes the role of a specifier, an article more specific than “a cat,” meaning not just any old cat in the area, but the one over there.
The trouble is, that is also a contextual chameleon: you could say, “A cat is our bus driver? I don’t believe that.” Now that encompasses the entire first sentence.
