heuristically_alone wrote:Every time a circumstance arises for an inclusion of "that", I spens several minutes contemplating whether to omit it or not.
Contemplating whether that "that" is superfluous, or not?
Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates
heuristically_alone wrote:Every time a circumstance arises for an inclusion of "that", I spens several minutes contemplating whether to omit it or not.
Keyman wrote:Pfhorrest wrote:I never encounter that "the reason being is" construction, and I really don't see why anyone would use it when they could just leave the "is" out and have something grammatically correct and shorter. E.g. "Unlike most people around here, Alice goes shopping every single day, the reason being that she doesn't have a car and so can only carry one small bag of groceries per trip." It's true that you could just substitute "because" for "the reason being that", but I don't see why anyone would ever put an "is" in there, and I don't think I ever really see that done either.
Does one need the "that" here? My wife and I have this disagreement about 'that' often. She's gone so far as to pull articles from magazines, cross out the extraneous ones, and mail the article to the author/publisher/editor.
We do both agree about "where we're/you're at", though.
Showsni wrote:Keyman wrote:...
So your wife thinks that that "that" that that poster used was superfluous?
Pfhorrest wrote:I never encounter that "the reason being is" construction, and I really don't see why anyone would use it when they could just leave the "is" out and have something grammatically correct and shorter. E.g. "Unlike most people around here, Alice goes shopping every single day, the reason being that she doesn't have a car and so can only carry one small bag of groceries per trip." It's true that you could just substitute "because" for "the reason being that", but I don't see why anyone would ever put an "is" in there, and I don't think I ever really see that done either.
tibfulv wrote:I have the same attention span problem. And I think I've been afflicted by it since I was 17, though it only became obvious as a problem when I found I couldn't finish books any more ten years ago. Went to a psychologist to get it fixed, and she told me I was so out of shape reading exhausted me. Told me to get some exercise. She didn't tell me which exercise though, so I had to do some testing. Turned out 30 minutes a day of 60-70% of maximum pulse rate for three months fixes it. Though you'll want more if you don't want to slip right back in. By the way, that will also fix suicidal urges, but don't ask how I know that, lol.
Edit: By the way, consistent exercise is better than variable. So get an exercise bike if you can.
PM 2Ring wrote:Pfhorrest wrote:I never encounter that "the reason being is" construction, and I really don't see why anyone would use it when they could just leave the "is" out and have something grammatically correct and shorter. E.g. "Unlike most people around here, Alice goes shopping every single day, the reason being that she doesn't have a car and so can only carry one small bag of groceries per trip." It's true that you could just substitute "because" for "the reason being that", but I don't see why anyone would ever put an "is" in there, and I don't think I ever really see that done either.
I'm not familiar with that "the reason being is" construction either, it sounds rather odd to me. Perhaps it's a hypercorrection. Rather than dropping the "is" you could simply drop the "being", although I suppose there's some value in keeping the authoritative connotation of the "the reason being" idiom.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.
colonel_hack wrote:Nobody's said ``novels only'' yet so
Handbook of chemistry & Physics (CRC) 29th edition (1945) 73mm x 123mm x 170mm, .59 times thick as it is wide.
Showsni wrote:Keyman wrote:Pfhorrest wrote:I never encounter that "the reason being is" construction, and I really don't see why anyone would use it when they could just leave the "is" out and have something grammatically correct and shorter. E.g. "Unlike most people around here, Alice goes shopping every single day, the reason being that she doesn't have a car and so can only carry one small bag of groceries per trip." It's true that you could just substitute "because" for "the reason being that", but I don't see why anyone would ever put an "is" in there, and I don't think I ever really see that done either.
Does one need the "that" here? My wife and I have this disagreement about 'that' often. She's gone so far as to pull articles from magazines, cross out the extraneous ones, and mail the article to the author/publisher/editor.
We do both agree about "where we're/you're at", though.
So your wife thinks that that "that" that that poster used was superfluous?
Keyman wrote:Showsni wrote:Keyman wrote:Pfhorrest wrote:I never encounter that "the reason being is" construction, and I really don't see why anyone would use it when they could just leave the "is" out and have something grammatically correct and shorter. E.g. "Unlike most people around here, Alice goes shopping every single day, the reason being that she doesn't have a car and so can only carry one small bag of groceries per trip." It's true that you could just substitute "because" for "the reason being that", but I don't see why anyone would ever put an "is" in there, and I don't think I ever really see that done either.
Does one need the "that" here? My wife and I have this disagreement about 'that' often. She's gone so far as to pull articles from magazines, cross out the extraneous ones, and mail the article to the author/publisher/editor.
We do both agree about "where we're/you're at", though.
So your wife thinks that that "that" that that poster used was superfluous?
Yep. That.
To me they are as legitimate as any other contraction. And like any other word (do they count as one "word"?), they gain or lose currency through usage, and the (dis)approval of school marms (see "ain't"). In print, using such a contraction would make a point of casualness. Through use single contractions have gained more currency, so though the same is true for them, it's true to a much lesser extent.Archgeek wrote:what's the take on compound contractions, like "couldn't've"...
Soupspoon wrote:I wont¹ complain.
But I'm just a passenger on this ship, more likely in the f'o'csle than at the wheel.
¹ Or "won't", but I was always advised that, as that isn't a proper contraction of "will not", it cannot be anything other than a separate word, or at best an irregular one so that its phantom apostrophe is unnecessary.
HES wrote:No issue with compound contractions. I do have issue with overzealous spellcheckers that fail to recognise non-contracted "cant" as a perfectly valid word - and I'm sure that's not the only one.
Keyman wrote:To go farther down the rabbit hole... An old boss of mine would often say "What you might could do is..."
Pfhorrest wrote:Keyman wrote:To go farther down the rabbit hole... An old boss of mine would often say "What you might could do is..."
That's a Texan construction, called a "double modal", and it sounds really weird to my ear, but I really have no reason to complain because I'd gladly use "could maybe" instead of "might could" in the same context, and I don't know why mine should be seen as any better.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.
Pfhorrest wrote:My girlfriend has told me a story about a language teacher, either French or German or Japanese since those are the languages she's studied but I don't remember which it was, who told her that a verb in that language translated into English as "to must".
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.
Pfhorrest wrote:My girlfriend has told me a story about a language teacher, either French or German or Japanese since those are the languages she's studied but I don't remember which it was, who told her that a verb in that language translated into English as "to must".
Yes, but it also means "to owe". So, it's not as pure as the English "to must", which doesn't exist.heuristically_alone wrote:Spanish has one. "Deber"
heuristically_alone wrote:Can something be pure if it doesn't exist?
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.
orthogon wrote:heuristically_alone wrote:Can something be pure if it doesn't exist?
You are René Descartes and I claim my 5 francs.
rmsgrey wrote:orthogon wrote:heuristically_alone wrote:Can something be pure if it doesn't exist?
You are René Descartes and I claim my 5 francs.
Are you sure he's not Plato?
Vim's spell check has a feature where it can highlight rare words in a different color from misspelled ones, which seems like it would be useful for words like "cant", but it looks like the only word marked as rare by default is uncapitalized "vim".HES wrote:No issue with compound contractions. I do have issue with overzealous spellcheckers that fail to recognise non-contracted "cant" as a perfectly valid word - and I'm sure that's not the only one.
"Of" and "'ve" are homophones, so this is only an issue in writing. You can't say "couldn't of" instead of "couldn't've" any more than you can say "meet" instead of "meat".Archgeek wrote:(if you've ever heard someone in the states say -- or worse, write -- "couldn't of", the compound contraction is closer to what they're actually going for)
mittfh wrote:I wish this post was very quotable...
chridd (on Discord) wrote:SYG'DDummy wrote:Sorry You're Gay Dads
marionic (on Discord) wrote:sleep in grave
chridd wrote:"Of" and "'ve" are homophones, so this is only an issue in writing. You can't say "couldn't of" instead of "couldn't've" any more than you can say "meet" instead of "meat".Archgeek wrote:(if you've ever heard someone in the states say -- or worse, write -- "couldn't of", the compound contraction is closer to what they're actually going for)
Archgeek wrote:chridd wrote:"Of" and "'ve" are homophones, so this is only an issue in writing. You can't say "couldn't of" instead of "couldn't've" any more than you can say "meet" instead of "meat".Archgeek wrote:(if you've ever heard someone in the states say -- or worse, write -- "couldn't of", the compound contraction is closer to what they're actually going for)
Believe it or not, I for one very much can. It's the difference 'twixt "coodn't uhv" and "coodn't'v", roughly. One clearly ends the word and starts a new one, and the other just slams a voiced labio-dental fricative onto the end of it.
cephalopod9 wrote:Only on Xkcd can you start a topic involving Hitler and people spend the better part of half a dozen pages arguing about the quality of Operating Systems.
In (some of the many) British accents, the word "of" is clearly pronounced as "ov" with a far opener vowel, or however you'd describe it, in both correct and incorrect situations. This suggests that they'd write "of" and thus say "of". Alternately, "'ve" is uniquely pronounced that way, compared with what you'd expect, but it's more believable to be the wrong thing being voiced than (in amongst the glottlestopping and other 'street slurs' of pronunciations) some counterintuitive transform of the fricative/whatever in the contraction against the tide. (It could be put on. Like "aks" for "ask". If that isn't naturally learnt incorrectly and not deliberately affected)Archgeek wrote:It's the difference 'twixt "coodn't uhv" and "coodn't'v", roughly.
Soupspoon wrote:In (some of the many) British accents, the word "of" is clearly pronounced as "ov" with a far opener vowel, or however you'd describe it, in both correct and incorrect situations. This suggests that they'd write "of" and thus say "of". Alternately, "'ve" is uniquely pronounced that way, compared with what you'd expect, but it's more believable to be the wrong thing being voiced than (in amongst the glottlestopping and other 'street slurs' of pronunciations) some counterintuitive transform of the fricative/whatever in the contraction against the tide. (It could be put on. Like "aks" for "ask". If that isn't naturally learnt incorrectly and not deliberately affected)Archgeek wrote:It's the difference 'twixt "coodn't uhv" and "coodn't'v", roughly.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.
FriendOfFred wrote:The most dramatic example of "thicker than it is wide":Spoiler:
Yes, that is apparently a real book, though I assumed it was a photoshop job when I first saw it. I don't know what kind of binding it has, but I'd guess it's literally impossible to read.
orthogon wrote:[...]I once had a roofer who was apparently London born-and-bred, who couldn't pronounce "joists": it came out more like "joisties".[...]
Archgeek wrote:orthogon wrote:[...]I once had a roofer who was apparently London born-and-bred, who couldn't pronounce "joists": it came out more like "joisties".[...]
"Joisties" sounds like a school-yard game at a construction yard.
Soupspoon wrote:rmsgrey wrote:orthogon wrote:heuristically_alone wrote:Can something be pure if it doesn't exist?
You are René Descartes and I claim my 5 francs.
Are you sure he's not Plato?
I was thinking more Quintus Horatius Flaccus, personally, but I'd understand if Orthogon wants to try to put Descartes before the Horace.