Language desk
< July 20	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 22 >

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.

July 21

The word “that”

Consider the following sentence.

A. Bonaparte believed his armies could defeat the British.

It looks fine to me, but it is possible to insert the word “that”.

B. Bonaparte believed that his armies could defeat the British.

Is sentence B grammatically superior to A? Or is it the prerogative of a writer to choose the more economical form of A?

If sentence A violates some rule of English grammar, does that rule have a name or a description? Dolphin (t) 08:30, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Both are fine. The second sentence would originally, i.e. by the rules of Old English, have been the only grammatical one, but according to the OED the ellipsis of the subordinating conjunction that has been going on since the 13th century, so it's a little late to object to it now. --Antiquary (talk) 09:23, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of style, note that the subordinate clause is indicated by inflection when you are speaking but not when you are writing. If a written sentence is at all complicated, using the "that" may make it easier for the reader to understand. In speech there is no such advantage to including it. --76.69.47.228 (talk) 01:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dolphin51: Strongly concur with 76.69.47.228. In most formal or semi-formal written constructions, it's preferable to include it for clarity – especially when writing Wikipedia and other wikis, because you have no idea if someone is going to later expand a short, simple sentence and make it more complicated. Inserting a "that" into an unclear sentence is a frequent copyedit I make here. There are many cases where a reader will have to stop, think, and re-read a sentence to make sense of it when a "that" is missing. Even "Bonaparte believed his armies could defeat the British" can have this effect, because the first half of it seems to suggest he believed something that his armies were telling him, until you get to the rest of the sentence and realize it's an elided-conjunction case. [Or, ahem, "realize that it's an elided-conjunction case"; it can also often have something to do with the the formality of the register at which you're writing. If you use "that" a lot in text messages when it's not really needed, it might come off as stuffy.] — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 12:15, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are many cases where a reader will have to stop, think, and re-read a sentence to make sense of it...

The author information at the foot of an article in a financial newspaper began "A is a criminal and ...". At this point I stopped and read the entire sentence very carefully. It was:

"A is a criminal and family law specialist at [name of firm]".

My thanks to everyone who has responded to my question.

I summarise the situation as follows. There are many sentences in which the use of “that” is essential, and everyone agrees it is essential. There are many others in which “that” is not essential, and everyone agrees. This thread is not about these sentences.

My original question is about sentences for which some Users see no need for the word “that” and so regard it as redundant in the interests of conciseness, as promoted in the Style Manual; whereas some other Users see a need for it to be retained or inserted.

Users who wish to see the word “that” retained or inserted must, if challenged, provide a cogent argument as to why the sentence should have the word “that”. It will never be true to say “that” is necessary to comply with the rules of English grammar; as Antiquary explained with the aid of the Oxford English Dictionary, that rule belonged in Old English and has not been in use since the 13th century.

If the word “that” is to be used in a sentence, it must be justifiable when examining that sentence individually. There is no general rule or recommendation regarding its use whereas there is a general recommendation in the Style Manual regarding conciseness of language used in Wikipedia. Dolphin (t) 05:53, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is most definitely not a correct summary of what you were just told. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:49, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You’re right; it’s not a summary of what has been written here. It is a summary of my thoughts surrounding the issue. Dolphin (t) 22:25, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think a sensible rule of thumb is; when writing such a sentence, if it sounds fine to you without 'that', you can leave 'that' out. If someone later adds 'that', let it stand. If the addition of 'that' changes the meaning, or makes the sentence awkward, ungrammatical or unintelligible to you, rewrite the sentence. - Donald Albury 12:06, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A poetic use, by Ogden Nash: The trouble with a kitten is that / It grows up to be a cat." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:57, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, please. Someone makes a comment, someone else comes along and says "That is most definitely not a correct summary of what you were just told" three days after the original comment was made. What purpose is served? 86.133.26.146 (talk) 12:36, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It may be helpful (or perhaps not) to mention the specific dispute that sparked this enquiry. In the article on Princess Beatrice of York, Dolphin51 removed the word "that" from two sentences ("In an interview to mark her 18th birthday, Princess Beatrice said that she wanted to use her position to assist others through charity work"; "Blunt later claimed that the story had been fabricated") on the grounds of "redundancy"; I restored it as "not redundant". I think we're all agreed that there is no real issue of grammatical correctness here, nor even one of clarity, so it boils down to a matter of stylistic preference. Dolphin51's case rests on arguments for concision; mine on arguments for adhering to a formal tone. (And, by the way, I've just written "I think we're all agreed that ...", without thinking about it, because that's simply how I write.) Eric Pode lives (talk) 18:03, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those should be retained, for different reasons.

"Princess Beatrice said ..." introduces a quotation. Sighted readers can tell in this case that it's not a quotation, because we can see the absence of quotation marks. That won't be true for user of screenreaders.
"Blunt later claims the story ..." is one of those "don't make the reader re-read" cases; to claim a story is to lay claim to it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:46, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re "My original question is about sentences for which some Users see no need for the word “that” and so regard it as redundant in the interests of conciseness, as promoted in the Style Manual; whereas some other Users see a need for it to be retained or inserted": Then retain it. Always err on the side of clarity. Anyway, I strongly concur with Donald Albury's rules of thumb, above. This idea of rewriting to simply get around a copyediting dispute is one of the first recommendations that MoS makes, right in its lead section. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:46, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to find out what Wikipedia wants on this matter. There is no copy editing dispute. WP:MOS doesn’t appear to address the situation directly enough. I would like WP:MOS to clarify a uniform standard for the benefit of all Users. Have I come to the right place? Dolphin (t) 22:33, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. That would be WT:MOS. But this isn't the sort of thing MoS would have a "rule" on. It's too "judgement call", too "case-by-case" for there to be a cut-and-dry rule on it. You probably won't find one in any other style guide, either. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia values clarity over conciseness, so, if in doubt, or if others think it improves clarity, please retain "that". Dbfirs 22:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In my original question I presented two versions of a sentence; I called them sentence A and sentence B. So far no-one has argued in favour of, or even suggested, that B is clearer than A. Can I draw this thread to a close by saying sentence B provides no greater clarity than sentence A, and therefore we cannot distinguish between the two on the grounds of either clarity or grammar?

I know this matter seems trivial to some and therefore not deserving advice or clarification by Wikipedia, but I can say the same thing about British English and US English. Both are acceptable, and yet Wikipedia is exemplary in providing advice and clarification on how Users should deal with the potential problem. Wikipedia has “procedures in place”. These procedures might not be in the Style Manual but they are available and Wikipedia can boast a very high degree of uniformity of spelling styles, grammar etc. within each article. Well done Wikipedia! Dolphin (t) 07:37, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to offer my own summary of this discussion as follows. In a short, grammatically simple sentence (such as both A and B at the head of this thread) both forms of words are wholly correct and acceptable, and there should be no dispute. In a longer and more complex sentence (or, as SMcCandlish points out, a simple sentence that subsequent editing may render more complex) it may be desirable in the interests of clarity to include "that". Arguments based on WP:BECONCISE don't really apply: that essay is concerned with excessive verbiage and detail, not with the inclusion or omission of single words. GrindtXX (talk) 14:00, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I already addressed [1] the "B provides no greater clarity than A" idea; in both cases at issue, it actually does, for different reasons (screen readers in the first case, and ambiguous syntax in the first half of the second case). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 14:49, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I particularly like the summary supplied by GrindtXX: “In a short, grammatically simple sentence both forms of words are wholly correct and acceptable, ... In a longer or more complex sentence it may be desirable in the interests of clarity to include “that” .”

This summary appeals to me because it acknowledges there is no rule of grammar or Wikipedia requirement that requires use of “that” in these situations - every sentence must be assessed on its merits. It contains no suggestion that “that” will usually increase clarity so it can or should be used just in case it might be beneficial. Dolphin (t) 23:13, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]