the word "that" is not a conjunction

[Elliot Temple]

the explanation in the original webster’s dictionary convinced me that “that” is not a (subordinating) conjunction.

http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/that

(read entry 6)

i haven’t changed my mind about anything i said about subordinating conjunctions in general in my article. i just decided it’s better not to categorize “that” as one.

“that” is on various lists of subordinating conjunctions like:

http://www.chompchomp.com/terms/subordinateconjunction.htm

“that” is listed as a conjunction by multiple dictionaries including the 1913 Webster’s, current Webster’s, OED and New Oxford. but i now believe they’re wrong and the original 1828 Webster’s is right that “that” is not a conjunction.


the argument i think is convincing is changing the word order. a typical example sentence using “that” in the relevant way is:

> I think that Joe is tall.

Webster’s 1828 points out that this means:

> Joe is tall; I think that.

in the reordering, “that” is clearly a pronoun (or at least a special pronoun-like-thing which can refer to a clause, sentence or even paragraph rather than just to a noun).

the proper clause groupings are not “I think” and “that Joe is tall”. they are “I think that” and “Joe is tall”, as we can clearly see in the re-ordered version.

so i now think in the original, just like in the reordering, the word “that” by itself is the object of “think”. it refers to “Joe is tall”.

PS “that” can be a relative pronoun, but it isn’t here (knowing this usage is not a relative pronoun is one of the reasons i was thinking it was a subordinating conjunction rather than a pronoun). relative pronouns are the *subject* of their clause, e.g. “I ate dinner with the man who is tall.” (the relative pronoun “who” is the subject in the clause “who is tall”). “that” is not part of the clause “Joe is tall” and, regardless, the subject of that clause is pretty clearly “Joe” not “that”.

PPS “how” is a relative adverb which still is part of the relative clause in e.g. "The focus of our work is how we can satisfy customers most effectively.” whereas “that” has no function in the clause “Joe is tall” which is why you can reorder the words so “Joe is tall” is on its own with no “that” involved.

PPPS the reordering shows that "Joe is tall” is a *coordinate*, not subordinate, clause. (but no one is claiming that “that” is a *coordinating conjunction*.)

---

how come you can write 2 clauses in a row with no conjunction in “I think [that] Joe is tall”? because it’s useful and we talk that way. it’s just a special rule. it’s so well known you can even omit the word “that”. note that you can also have 2 clauses, with no conjunction (or two-clause-allowing punctuation like a semi-colon), using words like “how”, “who”, “which”, or “where”.

I think “I think that Joe is tall” basically is a shortcut for “I think that; Joe is tall” where “that” is a forward reference to the next thing. the reordering of the clauses just makes it easier to understand and nicer.

we leave out the semi-colon as a special exception, kind of like how you can write an appositive without a comma in “I call my dog Thumper.” (“Thumber” is a second noun in a row, after “dog”. normally when you write 2 nouns in a row you need a comma btwn them and the second is called an appositive and restates the first. but here you don’t use a comma, it’s a special case called an “object complement”.)


Elliot Temple
www.fallibleideas.com

[Kate Sams]

On May 30, 2019, at 4:27 PM, Elliot Temple <cu...@curi.us> wrote:

> the explanation in the original webster’s dictionary convinced me that “that” is not a (subordinating) conjunction.
>
> http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/that
>
> (read entry 6)
>
> i haven’t changed my mind about anything i said about subordinating conjunctions in general in my article. i just decided it’s better not to categorize “that” as one.
>
> “that” is on various lists of subordinating conjunctions like:
>
> http://www.chompchomp.com/terms/subordinateconjunction.htm
>
> “that” is listed as a conjunction by multiple dictionaries including the 1913 Webster’s, current Webster’s, OED and New Oxford. but i now believe they’re wrong and the original 1828 Webster’s is right that “that” is not a conjunction.
>
>
> the argument i think is convincing is changing the word order. a typical example sentence using “that” in the relevant way is:
>
>> I think that Joe is tall.
>
> Webster’s 1828 points out that this means:
>
>> Joe is tall; I think that.
>
> in the reordering, “that” is clearly a pronoun (or at least a special pronoun-like-thing which can refer to a clause, sentence or even paragraph rather than just to a noun).
>
> the proper clause groupings are not “I think” and “that Joe is tall”. they are “I think that” and “Joe is tall”, as we can clearly see in the re-ordered version.
>
> so i now think in the original, just like in the reordering, the word “that” by itself is the object of “think”. it refers to “Joe is tall”.
>

> “that” is not part of the clause “Joe is tall” and, regardless, the subject of that clause is pretty clearly “Joe” not “that”.

I don’t understand why the entire noun clause “that Joe is tall” isn’t the direct object of “think”? Do you think “that Joe is tall” is a noun clause? In general, when you see a dependent clause in a sentence, do you ask yourself what part of speech the whole clause is functioning as (adjective, adverb, or noun)? Is that part of your approach? Or no?

If “that Joe is tall” is a noun clause, what’s the best way to think about the words that introduce noun clauses? I vaguely think of relative pronouns as introducing adjective clauses and subordinating conjunctions as introducing adverb clauses. But what about noun clauses?

Some websites list words that commonly introduce noun clauses without giving them a label. For example:

http://www.dailygrammar.com/Lesson-272-Noun-Clauses.htm

https://www.dailywritingtips.com/noun-clauses/


Also, regarding “that” not being a conjunction, consider this:

http://www.dailygrammar.com/Lesson-261-Adverb-Clauses.htm

> Ann was confident that she would play the best.


Independent clause = "Ann was confident”. “Confident” is an adjective.

Dependent clause = “that she would play the best”. I think the dependent clause modifies the adjective “confident”. So, I think it’s an adverb clause (as “adverb" is the name given to words that modify adjectives). So, if it’s an adverb clause, then what is “that”? My guess is it’s a subordinating conjunction, which usually(?) or always(?) introduces adverb clauses.

What do you think? I do think it’s rare, though, for “that” to serve as a subordinating conjunction introducing adverb clauses. Maybe it’s because adverb clauses usually modify verbs and the subordinating conjunction “so that” is commonly used? For example, from the link above:

> I stood on the box so that I could see the top of the shelf.

I think “so that I could see the top of the shelf” is a dependent, adverb clause modifying the verb “stood”. It answers the question “stood why?” and “why” is one of the adverb questions.

> PS “that” can be a relative pronoun, but it isn’t here (knowing this usage is not a relative pronoun is one of the reasons i was thinking it was a subordinating conjunction rather than a pronoun). relative pronouns are the *subject* of their clause, e.g. “I ate dinner with the man who is tall.” (the relative pronoun “who” is the subject in the clause “who is tall”).

I think relative pronouns can also serve as the *object* of their clause. As pronouns, they have to stand in for a noun, but it can be either the subject or the object.

Consider: The song that I heard yesterday was good.

“that I heard yesterday” is a dependent, adjective clause. It modifies “song”. What’s the structure inside the dependent clause? → I / heard / that. And “that” is the pronoun standing in for the word “song” (I / heard / song). I think “that” is the direct object of the verb “heard”. I heard what? Song.

Here’s another one: This is the soup that I made.

Again the breakdown of the dependent, adjective clause → I / made / that. “That” is a relative pronoun that is standing in for the noun “soup" and is serving as a direct object of “made”.

> PPS “how” is a relative adverb which still is part of the relative clause in e.g. "The focus of our work is how we can satisfy customers most effectively.” whereas “that” has no function in the clause “Joe is tall” which is why you can reorder the words so “Joe is tall” is on its own with no “that” involved.
>
> PPPS the reordering shows that "Joe is tall” is a *coordinate*, not subordinate, clause. (but no one is claiming that “that” is a *coordinating conjunction*.)

>
> ---
>
> how come you can write 2 clauses in a row with no conjunction in “I think [that] Joe is tall”?

I think it’s because there’s a hierarchy involved. I think the main sentence structure is N V N → I / think / "group of words serving as one noun". That’s it for the main structure.

But then **within** that last N, we don’t just have one word serving as the noun. Instead we have a group of words serving as the noun. And it’s got it’s own little structure of N V N (Joe / is / tall).

Crits of this way of looking at it?

> because it’s useful and we talk that way. it’s just a special rule. it’s so well known you can even omit the word “that”. note that you can also have 2 clauses, with no conjunction (or two-clause-allowing punctuation like a semi-colon), using words like “how”, “who”, “which”, or “where”.
>
> I think “I think that Joe is tall” basically is a shortcut for “I think that; Joe is tall” where “that” is a forward reference to the next thing. the reordering of the clauses just makes it easier to understand and nicer.
>
> we leave out the semi-colon as a special exception, kind of like how you can write an appositive without a comma in “I call my dog Thumper.” (“Thumber” is a second noun in a row, after “dog”. normally when you write 2 nouns in a row you need a comma btwn them and the second is called an appositive and restates the first. but here you don’t use a comma, it’s a special case called an “object complement”.)

left context

[anonymous FI]

On May 30, 2019, at 5:05 PM, 'Kate Sams' via Fallible Ideas

Why did you come back just to completely ignore the word-reordering
point? Not a word you said had anything to do with ET's (via Webster's
1828) reasoning about word reordering.

[Kate Sams]

I think there’s a more fundamental issue regarding sentence structure and clauses that should be clarified first. And then it’s easier to figure out how specific words, such as “that”, are functioning in particular sentences.

https://www.dailywritingtips.com/noun-clauses/

> Clauses function as parts of speech:
> He bumped into the wall when the lights went out. (Adverb clause modifying the verb “bumped.”)
>
> There’s the man who saved the kitten. (Adjective clause qualifying the noun “man.”)
>
> He knows what consumers like. (Noun clause, object of the verb “knows.”)

So, first, what you do think about whole clauses functioning as parts of speech? This means that on one level you can think of that whole slew of words in the clause as *one* noun, adjective, or adverb. I think this makes organizing the structure of the sentence easier because you can have organized *levels* of structure.

Consider: After she entered the kitchen that was dark, Sue ate whatever she could find.

There are a lot of clauses here, but it’s not hard to structurally organize them.

First, start with the main clause. There’s one independent clause: Sue / ate / “whatever she could find”. (N V N structure is the core of the whole sentence.) At this step you can think of that the last N (the direct object) as one noun, like “cake”.

Then, moving to another level of analysis, you can analyze within that last N (“whatever she could find”) and break it down into its components → she / could find / whatever.

(My initial guess is that the pronoun “whatever” is serving as a direct object here. So, hey, here’s a noun clause where the word that introduces it is functioning as a pronoun, not a conjunction or a nonspecific introductory word. I’m not yet convinced that ET's “that” in “I think that Joe is tall.” is functioning as a pronoun, though.)

Then, moving to another level of analysis, you have the dependent clause “after she entered the kitchen that was dark”. Think of this whole thing as one adverb, like the word “afterward” or something. It modifies “ate” by telling us “ate when”.

Then, if you want to analyze the core within this adverb clause, you have the structure: she / entered / kitchen

Then, moving to another level of analysis, you have the adjective clause “that was dark” which modifies “kitchen". Again, just think of this whole adjective clause as one adjective, like the word “dark”. You are just using a clause to serve the adjective function instead of a single word.

And then if you want to analyze the structure within the adjective clause, it’d be: that / was / dark (relative pronoun as subject, verb, predicate adjective complement)

What do you think about this approach to sentence structure?

So, when I see:

>>>> I think that Joe is tall.

My very first consideration is the primary structure. And I think it’s N V N. Period. I think “that Joe is tall” is a noun clause with the whole thing serving as the direct object.

https://www.dailywritingtips.com/noun-clauses/

> A noun clause functions as a noun in another clause.


And then once the primary structure is set, I look *within* that last N. We have: Joe / is / tall (subject, verb, predicate adjective**). I don’t think the word “that” is serving much of a role here other than introducing the noun clause (which may be one reason that it can be omitted).

ET wrote:

> the argument i think is convincing is changing the word order. a typical example sentence using “that” in the relevant way is:
>
>> I think that Joe is tall.
>
> Webster’s 1828 points out that this means:
>
>> Joe is tall; I think that.
>
> in the reordering, “that” is clearly a pronoun (or at least a special pronoun-like-thing which can refer to a clause, sentence or even paragraph rather than just to a noun).

I agree.

The reordering does change things, though. You have 2 independent clauses now. And you can’t drop the “that” in the rewrite. In the original, you don’t have 2 independent clauses (IMO), and you can drop the *that*. Even though the meaning is the same between the variations, I think you are relying on words to serve different *functions*. If the same words were serving the same functions in both variations, you should be able to drop the “that” in both and drop the semi-colon in the second one. But you can’t. And my hunch is that it’s because there’s different stuff going on functionally with the words. The order you puts words in matters to what’s going on functionally.

> the proper clause groupings are not “I think” and “that Joe is tall”. they are “I think that” and “Joe is tall”, as we can clearly see in the re-ordered version.

Maybe the crux of our difference of thought is that you see something closer to 2 independent clauses, and I only see 1 independent clause. I just see N V N. (And then you can do some *secondary* analysis on the second N if you want. And if you do that, you’ll see that you have a dependent clause and a “that” in there to introduce the dependent clause.)

Another part of my hesitation might be that I’ve never seen the word introducing a dependent clause (which I think “that” does in this case) not be included as a part of the dependent clause that it’s introducing. The introductory word is often (always?) what makes the clause dependent in the first place. You have this introductory word that results in the clause not conveying a complete thought.

- "After I ran the dishwasher” does not convey a complete thought. It’s a dependent clause because of the word “after”. “I ran the dishwasher” is complete, and it’d be an independent clause.

- “that Joe is tall” does not convey a complete thought. It’s a dependent clause because of the word “that”.

Although, this might not be relevant to you if you don’t think we are dealing with a dependent clause.

FWIW, I’m not a fan of calling “that” a subordinating conjunction in this sentence either (unless you broaden the definition to include anything that introduces or connects a subordinate/dependent clause to the main clause).

ET also wrote:

> I think “I think that Joe is tall” basically is a shortcut for “I think that; Joe is tall” where “that” is a forward reference to the next thing. the reordering of the clauses just makes it easier to understand and nicer.
>
> we leave out the semi-colon as a special exception, kind of like how you can write an appositive without a comma in “I call my dog Thumper.” (“Thumber” is a second noun in a row, after “dog”. normally when you write 2 nouns in a row you need a comma btwn them and the second is called an appositive and restates the first. but here you don’t use a comma, it’s a special case called an “object complement”.)

I don’t know. I’m still skeptical. Leaving out the comma in “I call my dog Thumper.” (so renaming a noun with another noun) seems a lot different than running 2 whole independent clauses together without any punctuation or conjunction.

But the bigger issue for me is that the sentence screams “N V N” and "noun clause serving as the direct object of the verb in the main clause". And I think noun clauses are dependent clauses, which generally means they include the word that introduces them.

And I don’t know if you also see a noun clause, yet you don’t think about its function as I do? Or if you don’t think there’s a noun clause? If so, why?

** I made a mistake in my previous email on the following point. I wrote:

> But then **within** that last N, we don’t just have one word serving as the noun. Instead we have a group of words serving as the noun. And it’s got it’s own little structure of N V N (Joe / is / tall).

It’s own little structure should be — N V A.

[anonymous FI]

On May 30, 2019, at 8:54 PM, 'Kate Sams' via Fallible Ideas

Why did you come back? What changed? Are you going to address the
reasons you left or follow up on any prior conversations?

Have you read ET's draft grammar article parts 1-4?

[Kate Sams]

Maybe don’t think of me as being back. I posted because I’m a grammar-liking person who wanted to share some grammar ideas with other people who are thinking about grammar. That’s it. I wasn’t thinking about my history here or the future. I set those issues aside and wrote posts for the fun of discussing grammar.

> What changed? Are you going to address the reasons you left or follow up on any prior conversations?

Maybe at some point. Not soon, though.

> Have you read ET's draft grammar article parts 1-4?

Not closely. I’ve skimmed parts to get a gist.