Friends and fellow writers,
I'm having a debate about the inclusion of the word "that" as illustrated in the sentences below. My friend contends the word "that" must be present to offset a restrictive clause. I contend there are no restrictive clauses. I also posit the noun clauses in question do not require the "that." Can you help me figure out which one is correct?
This one:
Noting fundamentalism is an expression of deep insecurity and fear, Dr. Chopra asserts world peace will be achieved when enough individuals decide to make peace a part of their spiritual practice.
Or this one:
Noting that fundamentalism is an expression of deep insecurity and fear, Dr. Chopra asserts that world peace will be achieved when enough individuals decide to make peace a part of their spiritual practice.
Or this one:
Noting that fundamentalism is an expression of deep insecurity and fear, Dr. Chopra asserts world peace will be achieved when enough individuals decide to make peace a part of their spiritual practice.
I'm having a debate about the inclusion of the word "that" as illustrated in the sentences below. My friend contends the word "that" must be present to offset a restrictive clause. I contend there are no restrictive clauses. I also posit the noun clauses in question do not require the "that." Can you help me figure out which one is correct?
This one:
Noting fundamentalism is an expression of deep insecurity and fear, Dr. Chopra asserts world peace will be achieved when enough individuals decide to make peace a part of their spiritual practice.
Or this one:
Noting that fundamentalism is an expression of deep insecurity and fear, Dr. Chopra asserts that world peace will be achieved when enough individuals decide to make peace a part of their spiritual practice.
Or this one:
Noting that fundamentalism is an expression of deep insecurity and fear, Dr. Chopra asserts world peace will be achieved when enough individuals decide to make peace a part of their spiritual practice.
posted by:
|
-
Re: That or no That
Wed, July 19, 2006 - 11:32 PMI was never very good at grammatical labels, so I can't tell you about the noun clause vs. the restrictive clause. That said, I think you need a "that" in "Noting that fundamentalism...." He's not noting fundamentalism; he's noting something about fundamentalism, or something about people who adopt fundamentalism. Basically, I had to read the first clause of the first sentence three times to figure out what was being said.
As for the second clause, it depends (I think) on whether you see "world peace" or "world peace will be achieved" as the object of his assertion. The sentence is slightly different, conceptually, depending on how you read it, but both are clear enough. Dropping the "that" makes it a little more colloquial, leaving it in makes it a little drier, but I think it works either way.
However, I have not a shred of proof to offer you. Sorry. :) -
-
Re: That or no That
Sun, July 30, 2006 - 12:09 AMLike Mark, I can offer no opinion based on accepted grammar rules. I can, however, say that including the "that" makes it easier for me to understand. Without it, the second clause states in part "Chopra asserts world peace", which is not what's intended. If he could do such a thing, I wish he would. When the rest of the clause is read, the meaning falls into place, but not without some cognitive labor.
My two cents, anyway. -
-
Re: That or no That
Mon, August 7, 2006 - 9:19 AMi agree with mark and bryan. the sentence could flow in an unambiguous way if it were spoken, because pauses could be inserted implying almost a quotation:
chopra asserts <pause> <quotation implied by change in tone> world peace etc etc etc.
the first clause definitely wants a 'that'.
-
-
