Language desk
< September 10	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 11

That

He said he didn't do it.
The rumor was that he did it.

Both sound natural and "correct" to my ears, but the first one omits "that" while the second includes it. I don't understand how that can be. Is there some grammatical explanation? I occasionally see an editor inserting "that" where I feel it was more natural without it, but I don't know what basis I would have for reverting them beyond "it sounds better to me", which is an "I just like it" argument. Is there something authoritative on this? Also, is there a difference between AmEng and BritEng on this? ―Mandruss ☎ 20:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He said that he didn't do it.
The rumor was he did it.

Both of those sound right to me too. Sorry to complicate your problem. I have seen admonitions to drop "that" when possible because it often doesn't add information or clarity to a sentence, but that is just advice, not a rule. I do think that that "that" issue is "I just like it" as its core, unless you do something like I just did or there is an entire herd of them verging on a verbal tic. 45.37.108.163 (talk) 21:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The explanation is just that when "that" is used in this way, English usage allows the word to be omitted. Despite the advice (that) 45.37 has seen, in written English it's very often clearer to include it. --65.95.178.150 (talk) 23:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would omit it informally, especially in speech, but include it in formal writing. I think that there is a slightly higher tendency to include it in British English (... though I initially omitted "that" from this sentence). Dbfirs 21:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that in writing you don't have inflection, as you do in speech, to help guide the parsing of the sentence. Say you haven't read a book, but you have read the Wikipedia article about it, and it says it's very long. You might say one of:

1. I read the book is very long.

2. I read that the book is very long.

If someone reads 1, they're likely to first see "I read the book" as a unit and have to back up and re-parse when they see the word "is" (or maybe they don't notice the "is" and then they get the meaning wrong). This is called a garden path sentence, and you want to avoid is, so you should use 2. On the other hand, consider:

3. He said sheep are very woolly.

4. He said that sheep are very woolly.

This time 3 is better and 4 is a garden path: someone might initially read it as being about that sheep as opposed to this sheep, until they see the plural verb "are", which tells them that they have it wrong.

So sometimes using the "that" makes it clearer, and sometimes it makes it less clear. Here's a nice example that goes both ways:

5. He told me summer was warm.

6. He told me that summer was warm.

7. He told me that that summer was warm.

Here, 5 refers to summer in general and 7 refers to a specific summer that he was talking about. But 6 is actually ambiguous: it could have either meaning! So you should never use 6 in writing.

My feeling is that examples like 1-2 and 6-7 are more common than examples like 3-4 and 5-6, which is why I said it's very often clearer when you use the "that". But the important thing, when writing, it to think about it in any case. --65.95.178.150 (talk) 07:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Example 6 is instructive !

Here is another ambiguous example:

8. I've heard the dolphins whistle.

The absence of "that" makes it unclear whether #8 means I've heard that the dolphins whistle, or means I've heard them whistle.

The same is true for "I've heard you sing", and the like.

HOOTmag (talk) 08:49, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a credibility factor working here. If you say "I've heard you sing" and you're talking to a public performer they'll assume you're speaking from personal experience. If they're not a public performer and they don't recall you being present when they did sing they'll assume you're recounting what somebody told you. 80.43.196.11 (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

80.43.196.11 (talk) is one of several London area IP sockpuppets of banned User:Vote (X) for Change

Or that you were standing outside their bathroom window while they were practicing in the shower. But yes, mostly what you said. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:12, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments and the effort put into composing them. They help explain why "that" should be included in some cases and omitted in others. As to the Wikipedia editing question, I gather my recourse is to revert with a link to garden path sentence and hope that succeeds; it's not worth a trip to article talk. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I just came across a classic garden path of this type in a news headline. This was on one of those TV channels that present various information and one part of the screen has headline-style news items displayed one at a time. If the headline is more than about 10 words it is split into two parts, shown one after the other. And this one read:

Telescope protesters upset stone altar they

(pause)

built on Mauna Kea was destroyed by workmen

If the writer had used "that", the first half would not have suggested that the protesters upset the altar.

--65.95.178.150 (talk) 03:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]