Perfessers, writin', conjunctions and stuff. that

Posted by: Jim_

Perfessers, writin', conjunctions and stuff. that - 01/27/13 02:11 PM

So what are the rules for using that. For example "When I heard that it was done by the same two that did The Wire I figured that it would be worth it."

The second that is correct, but is it okay to not use the first or third? Just want to conserve precious keystrokes. smirk
Posted by: carp

Re: Perfessers, writin', conjunctions and stuff. that - 01/27/13 02:23 PM

I often wonder (who) the f---k cares ? ?

It is not like the world is gonna end nor does it means that all life will end - really the only thing it has any meaning to are - f--king as -holes.

Really - this day and age where communication is so world wide with many many different nationalities from different languages that are instantly combined <-- it is super stupid and ludicrous that the (Queens) language is observed world wide.

IMO <- besides I am not a (Dick Head) to even point that shiit out.
Posted by: Jim_

Re: Perfessers, writin', conjunctions and stuff. that - 01/27/13 02:40 PM

Originally Posted By: carp
I often wonder (who) the f---k cares ? ? It is not like the world is gonna end nor does it means that all life will end - really the only thing it has any meaning to are - f--king as -holes.
Wow, what part of your psyche did that rant come from? Just because I choose to communicate in a different way from you why does that make me an assholé? I'm not trying to change the world, just the way that I transcribe a thought. You certainly wrote a lot into a simple question. I don't think that I'm the one with the problem. crazy

Oh, the Dick Head part? Maybe a little this time. smirk
Posted by: carp

Re: Perfessers, writin', conjunctions and stuff. that - 01/27/13 02:54 PM

LOL

Not pointed at anyone in specific.

Just bad memories of as-holes that hone into ( it,as,was,there. to , too) they, have a all became unglued by of shear stupidity to point out that someone has made a mistake <- according to their own language.

Besides I am smart enough to understand what people are trying to convey without - their miss use of English .

Not a bitch match - just saying grow up and get over it.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Perfessers, writin', conjunctions and stuff. that - 01/27/13 03:24 PM

Thanks. As one who makes his living in large part from the proper use of language, I really appreciate the sentiment. It explains your casual butchery of English — beloved as it may be in these parts. Lucky for you we're smart enough to understand what you're trying to convey — most of the time.

And lucky for me, because I get paid for being an A-hole. smirk
Posted by: NucleusG4

Re: Perfessers, writin', conjunctions and stuff. that - 01/27/13 03:36 PM

Ba-da-bum-bum.

There is nothing wrong with trying to adhere to a standard.. a set of rules. Otherwise it becomes all willy nilly and a break down in communications ensues.
That's always been my point.

Some A-holes don't care to learn... can't be bothered.

Edit: Oh.. yeah... btw.. Not pointed at anyone in particular.
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Perfessers, writin', conjunctions and stuff. that - 01/27/13 04:00 PM

Oh dear . . . and here I make my living from teaching those rules! Next time I'm in New York, I'll go up to the top of the Empire State Building so I can just put an end to my useless life.
Posted by: Jim_

Re: Perfessers, writin', conjunctions and stuff. that - 01/27/13 04:20 PM

Before you make the leap, what's up with "that?"
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Perfessers, writin', conjunctions and stuff. that - 01/27/13 04:35 PM

Quote:
So what are the rules for using that. For example "When I heard that it was done by the same two that did The Wire I figured that it would be worth it."

The second that is correct, but is it okay to not use the first or third? Just want to conserve precious keystrokes.


The first and last you may safely omit (in fact, I believe omitting them is preferred usage -- those "that"s are implied ;-) ...

The second "that" you can also replace with "what," just to make Carp happy =D
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Perfessers, writin', conjunctions and stuff. that - 01/27/13 04:47 PM

But to answer your question, Jim.

First, "that" has three different functions. It's a demonstrative pronoun--for instance, "That dog is brown, but this one is brindled." Like any pronoun, though, it can also stand on its own--"I knew that!" There's an implied antecedent in such a statement, but if the statement appeared in a real sequence of sentences, the antecedent, what the "that" refers to, would be obvious. So imagine a sentence just before "I knew that!" where someone says, "The US is a democracy."

Second, "that" is also a relative pronoun, and in that role it introduces relative clauses. The relative pronoun has to have an antecedent in the sentence where the clause appears--for instance, "Here is the house that Jim bought," where the "that" refers back to "house." As is true of all clauses, the whole of the clause acts as a modifier, an adjective in the case of relative clauses--in the example, the clause, "that Jim bought," modifies "house" and specifies which house in particular the sentence is about. There's a little rule as to when you'd use "that" as opposed to "which" in such clauses, but the distinction has become less and less employed, so that it's beginning to disappear as an active rule. Still, here goes: "that" is used in restrictive relative clauses, and "which" in non-restrictive relative clauses. A restrictive clause is one where the modification defines the object in an absolute and necessary way. So "Here is the house that Jim bought" is an example of a restrictive clause because the relative clause defines absolutely which particular house it is that I visited. The clause, in other words, really expresses the central point of the sentence. By contrast, I could have said something like "I visited the house, which Jim bought, so I could assess its market value." The relative clause here is non-restrictive because what the clause says is incidental to the central meaning of the sentence--in fact, the clause is really a parenthetical remark. Notice that non-restrictive clauses are set off by commas, but restrictive clauses are not.

As I said, though, the distinction has more or less disappeared--a shame, I think, since there are contexts in which the difference can be really significant.

Finally, "that" is also a subordinating conjunction. Subordinating conjunctions introduce another kind of subordinate clause--in the case of "that," a substantive clause, which means that the clause acts as if it were a noun. Here's a substantive subordinate clause: "I know that tomorrow is Monday." The whole of the subordinate clause acts as if it were a single noun, the object of the verb "know" (compare "I know Jim"). Almost all other subordinating conjunctions can be substantive but are almost always adverbial. For instance, "However I came to live in the US is a story of high adventure" has the "however . . . US" as a substantive subordinate clause, which acts as the subject of "is." But "John makes a living however he can" has the "however he can" as an adverb modifying "makes." Like I said, though, most subordinating conjunctions are adverbial--because, although, if, where, when, and so on.

So here's your sentence: "When I heard that it was done by the same two that did The Wire I figured that it would be worth it." The 1st "that" here is a substantive subordinating conjunction and "that . . . Wire" acts as if it were a single noun, the direct object of "heard." Inside of that clause, then, the 2nd "that" should really be "who" since the "two" is really "two guys," and for people (and for those of us who live them, animals) the "correct" relative pronoun is "who," not "that." But at any rate, that 2nd "that" is indeed a relative pronoun, and the clause "that . . .Wire" is a restrictive relative clause modifying "two." The 3rd "that" is of the same variety as the 1st one, a substantive subordinating conjunction, and the clause it introduces, "that . . . worth it," acts like a noun, the direct object of "figured."

Now, aren't you sorry you asked?

And here's a real response to carp. Grammar is not all that important if all you want to do is communicate in a broad and not very specific way. But grammar is the medium of nuance and specificity. So sure, even Twitterese communicates, and can be effective in conveying an idea. But what it can't communicate is a whole universe of signification. For that, you need good grammar, good diction, good syntax, good rhetoric. The same principle applies to buildings. I could live in a shack built pretty roughly and not very elegantly. I prefer not to.
Posted by: Pirate

Re: Perfessers, writin', conjunctions and stuff. that - 01/27/13 06:34 PM

Know what drives me up the wall....your...you're...
in these parts they are interchangeable ....as in
your in for a big surprise.....or dont forget to get
you're mail....not only do I hear it I see it in print..
news stories, ads and professionally done signs..etc...tp
me your is something you poses and you're is short for you are
could be wrong
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Perfessers, writin', conjunctions and stuff. that - 01/27/13 06:47 PM

As I always say, if you don't know your sh!t, then surely you're sh!t.
Posted by: Acumowchek

Re: Perfessers, writin', conjunctions and stuff. that - 01/27/13 06:49 PM

I luv this place! wink
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Perfessers, writin', conjunctions and stuff. that - 01/27/13 08:21 PM

And six is absolutely right. You can definitely drop the 1st and 3rd "that" because they'd be understood.
Posted by: MrB

Re: Perfessers, writin', conjunctions and stuff. that - 01/27/13 10:29 PM

Great stuff. I'm sure that I make mistakes but I try not to. Your explanation was helpful.

Dave
Posted by: MrB

Re: Perfessers, writin', conjunctions and stuff. that - 01/27/13 10:32 PM

Same here. I cringe when I see "your" and "you're" mixed up. What really digs me are the times I write "your" when I shouldn't have.

I also cringe withe the mixup of "to"and "too".

Dave
Posted by: steveg

Re: Perfessers, writin', conjunctions and stuff. that - 01/28/13 03:58 AM

Watch that first step. It's a doozy! eek grin
Posted by: steveg

Re: Perfessers, writin', conjunctions and stuff. that - 01/28/13 03:59 AM

And that's that! cool
Posted by: steveg

Re: Perfessers, writin', conjunctions and stuff. that - 01/28/13 04:04 AM

Yup. I think I've posted a/b this before, but the one thing that drives me kuhrazee in this area are phrases like: "It needs fixed"; "It needs painted"; "They need washed". WTF can't anyone say, "It needs to be fixed"; or "They need washing". Uhg! mad
Posted by: steveg

Re: Perfessers, writin', conjunctions and stuff. that - 01/28/13 04:07 AM

Is that so? wink
Posted by: MrB

Re: Perfessers, writin', conjunctions and stuff. that - 01/28/13 07:45 AM

Originally Posted By: steveg
Yup. I think I've posted a/b this before, but the one thing that drives me kuhrazee in this area are phrases like: "It needs fixed"; "It needs painted"; "They need washed". WTF can't anyone say, "It needs to be fixed"; or "They need washing". Uhg! mad


So, I bet you're not too pleased with "they be fixed" smile

Dave
Posted by: steveg

Re: Perfessers, writin', conjunctions and stuff. that - 01/28/13 08:18 AM

Well, the *cough* correct *sniff* phrase would be "They's done been fixed." shocked
Posted by: MacGizmo

Re: Perfessers, writin', conjunctions and stuff. that - 01/28/13 08:44 AM

On one side we have the OMG, WTF, I'm ROTFLMAO crowd. On the other side, we have the grammar-Nazi group, who care not what people are discussing—just the fact that a simple typo or grammar error was made.

I always appreciate the clarification of proper use of grammar, but when it appears in article comments and forum discussions, I've always found it to be more offensive than the error itself. This is mostly due to the "I'm smarter than you" attitude used to convey the message.

I must admit, it's difficult to overlook the 'basics' such as You're vs. Your, and such. And it drives me batsh¡t crazy when I see people spell something wrong not because they made a simple typo, but because they truly don't know how to spell the word.

And finally, I would like to point out (if it isn't obvious already), that I have no frigging idea where I was going with this post. I simply had 5 minutes before a meeting and wanted to warm the fingers up for a day of what I'm sure will be terribly boring emails, reports and whatnot, where I will surely make at least three typos and/or grammatical errors.
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Perfessers, writin', conjunctions and stuff. that - 01/28/13 10:09 AM

"That" has been one of my pet peeves for a long time. It is often used unnecessarily.
Of course the your and your'e etc. is also disturbing to see misused. It's really not that difficult to speak (write) properly.

This one also floored me

youse (yz)
pron. Chiefly Northern U.S.
You. Used in addressing two or more people or referring to two or more people, one of whom is addressed.
Posted by: KateSorensen

Re: Perfessers, writin', conjunctions and stuff. that - 01/28/13 10:11 AM

,
I enjoy this conversation allot!

wink


.
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Perfessers, writin', conjunctions and stuff. that - 01/28/13 10:11 AM

Notice how the "that" is not necessary.
Posted by: KateSorensen

Re: Perfessers, writin', conjunctions and stuff. that - 01/28/13 10:18 AM

.

You. Used in addressing two or more people or referring to two or more people, one of whom is addressed.

But of course y'all is correct.

.2. y'all 659 up, 158 down
Southern 2nd person plural pronoun. Most concise and easily distinguished. Despite the assurance of some emails that have been passing around, "y'all" is plural. Only an absolute idiot would use it as a singular pronoun.

Ha!

.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Perfessers, writin', conjunctions and stuff. that - 01/28/13 10:42 AM

Dood, I have a Third Degree Black Belt in Typo-Do! Top that. grin

Thank gawd I have a terrific proofreader who sees every line of client copy before it goes live.
Posted by: MrB

Re: Perfessers, writin', conjunctions and stuff. that - 01/28/13 12:35 PM

I do too, Kate. It lets the fun filled personalities of our crew come to the surface.

Dave
Posted by: MrB

Re: Perfessers, writin', conjunctions and stuff. that - 01/28/13 12:41 PM

I have always deliberately use wrong form of words or other off grammar in order to create attention.

I have used the word(?) "youse guys" for just such a reason. It is not in my regular lexicon.

Rather like Norm Crosby

Dave
Posted by: NucleusG4

Re: Perfessers, writin', conjunctions and stuff. that - 01/28/13 12:51 PM

Aren't there more reasonable ways to get attention than dumbing down conversation?
It seems like more and more it's becoming more difficult to understand what anyone is really saying. It only takes one word to change the whole meaning of a sentence.
Posted by: MacGizmo

Re: Perfessers, writin', conjunctions and stuff. that - 01/28/13 12:57 PM

Originally Posted By: NucleusG4
Aren't there more reasonable ways to get attention than dumbing down conversation?
It seems like more and more it's becoming more difficult to understand what anyone is really saying. It only takes one word to change the whole meaning of a sentence.
That's all true. But I would make the argument that WE typically don't have conversations with people for which basic sentence structure is beyond grasp. No?

THOSE people tend to hang out in the dark recesses of the Internet, or spare us the confusion by text messaging other teenagers people.
Posted by: NucleusG4

Re: Perfessers, writin', conjunctions and stuff. that - 01/28/13 01:31 PM

?
Me no Grok.

I'm referring to Daves statement that he intentionally uses incorrect grammar to get attention.
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Perfessers, writin', conjunctions and stuff. that - 01/28/13 01:39 PM

Quote:
I always appreciate the clarification of proper use of grammar, but when it appears in article comments and forum discussions, I've always found it to be more offensive than the error itself. This is mostly due to the "I'm smarter than you" attitude used to convey the message.


I very much appreciate anybody, anytime pointing out my grammatical errors. How else will I learn?

The "smarter than you attitude", imho, is usually self-inflicted because we feel silly knowing we should know better.
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Perfessers, writin', conjunctions and stuff. that - 01/28/13 02:20 PM

I used to do joking kinds of corrections, but have stopped doing even that for exactly the reason Giz states. I do, on the other hand, say a couple of Our Fathers and a Hail Mary or two on behalf of the writer. wink
Posted by: NucleusG4

Re: Perfessers, writin', conjunctions and stuff. that - 01/28/13 02:53 PM

I try to ignore it except when it begins to impede a discussion/debate/argument. Then clarification is needed.
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Perfessers, writin', conjunctions and stuff. that - 01/28/13 02:58 PM

Quote:
I do, on the other hand, say a couple of Our Fathers and a Hail Mary or two on behalf of the writer.

grin

Feel free to "our fathers" and "hail mary" me verbally.
Posted by: Pirate

Re: Perfessers, writin', conjunctions and stuff. that - 01/28/13 04:04 PM

Youse guys or Youse, even Y'all I understand...the one that I don't get is youens...is youens going to the store....only hear it in southern MO and southern IL.

or Ill...not a medical condition but a state of manors...as in
my child is ill today, something to do with how the child is
behaving in public
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Perfessers, writin', conjunctions and stuff. that - 01/28/13 04:37 PM

I suspect it comes from the Irish versions, "yins." Wikipedia has an article on it, if you're curious. It's pretty common in parts of PA, so it doesn't sound so weird to me.

You know, ever since English got rid of "thou," which was singular 2nd person (like "tu" in Spanish and French, or "du" in German), we've tried to reinvent a distinct form of the plural, making "you," which originally was the plural (or formal singular, as is the case with German, Spanish, and French, where the plural second person is also the formal first person).

So I vote for going back to "thou/you."

As if!
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: Perfessers, writin', conjunctions and stuff. that - 01/28/13 04:51 PM

I was going to mention the "who" part being used in reference to people. Since you stated that your statement was referring to The Wire and Treme, the first and third "that" are really superfluous in the meaning being conveyed. Capiche?
Posted by: NucleusG4

Re: Perfessers, writin', conjunctions and stuff. that - 01/28/13 06:08 PM

Y'all doesn't seem far fetched to me. Incorrect, or local, yes.
Probably is a contraction of "you all".... which somehow was derived from "all of you"?
Posted by: MacGizmo

Re: Perfessers, writin', conjunctions and stuff. that - 01/28/13 08:39 PM

I'm not a teacher, or a writer. In fact, I was horrible in English and Spelling classes in school. But I fall under the "I'll know if it's not right when I see it" category.

The only place I make a decided effort to be obnoxious about correcting a writers grammar is on Cultofmac.com and 9to5mac.com. I do so because both sites feature the most ignorant jackasses on the entire web—and appear to be having a competition to see which site can make the most blatantly obvious typos, grammar, and factual errors in their articles.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Perfessers, writin', conjunctions and stuff. that - 01/29/13 03:55 AM

And what about "thee" and "thee-all"? grin
Posted by: lanovami

Re: Perfessers, writin', conjunctions and stuff. that - 01/29/13 04:40 AM

The midwest certainly has it's own plural 2nd person: you guys, with the possessive being you guyses'. I hear it in my office among other American teachers. Drive me batty, but I kind of like to hear how people find a way around the limitations of English (such as not having a plural 2nd person).
Posted by: steveg

Re: Perfessers, writin', conjunctions and stuff. that - 01/29/13 04:56 AM

I miss the good ol' Boston townie-speak, But Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC sometimes lapses into it for effect. Like using wicked as a synonym for extremely. Although he's never used the full phrase for extremely great, which is wicked pissah! laugh
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Perfessers, writin', conjunctions and stuff. that - 01/29/13 05:14 AM

Quote:
The midwest certainly has it's own plural 2nd person: you guys, with the possessive being you guyses'. I hear it in my office among other American teachers.

And there's the southern "Y'all," which interestingly is often used for the 2nd person singular as well as plural. Possessive would be "Y'all's" ...