Please help. "That" as a possessive?

How about this one?

"Jim and Bob went out to the cabana, officialy beginning the night; the only certainty was they wouldn't be sober."

Iain

Howdy, dduck! Thanks for your suggestion.

Do you agree that "that" cannot be put in the possissive? I can't think of one case where that would work.

Welcome to able2know!!!!!

Hi dupre,

This is a great site, I think I'm going to have a good time round these parts!

I have to say, I've never seen used that used in this way before. Seems very odd to me.

Iain

Thanks for the confirmation. My mind was definitely swimming, and I just couldn't get a perspective on it.

I do hope you enjoy it here.

So ... are you a grammar buff? Or just real neighborly?

Similar suggestion to dduck's:

"Jim and Bob went out to the cabana, officially beginning a night that had only one certainty; we wouldn't be sober."

(Typo in "officially", too.)

Weird sentence.

I'm a TEFL teacher, that is, I teach English as a foreign language. I've also studied French, Dutch, German, Spanish, before finally getting round to English grammar.

Iain

sozobe, thanks. Great rewrite!

I'm not a very good typist, I hope that error was MINE and not in the MS I just sent back. LOL!

dduck, What's TEFL? Anything like ESL?

Yes, my appreciation of English came through studying other languages, too. Is it true that German is our sister language? Why is that?

I just realized that "Jim and Bob" and "we" don't agree -- it should be "Jim and Bob" and "they" or "Bob and I" and "we". (Or "me and Bob".)

As in:

"Jim and Bob went out to the cabana, officially beginning a night that had only one certainty; they wouldn't be sober."

That in this case refers to the night. So yes, that's correct, since you could say "the night's only certainty". It's just not stylistically recommended.

According to Bartleby, absolute possessive pronouns do not have an apostrophe:

http://www.bartleby.com/68/40/40.html

I = mine
you = yours
he = his
she = hers
it = its
they = theirs
us = ours

Also, Bartleby, doesn't list thats as an alternative. It's just plain wrong.
Iain

Yes, but the example given uses an apostrophe, which is correct.

ESL stands for English as a Second Language. It very similar to EFL, English as a Foreign Language. The distinction is that ESL takes place in an English speaking country, and EFL doesn't. The needs of the students will differ depending on which environment they find themselves in. For example, if you went to live in Italy, you'd have to deal with immigration, tax officials, utility bills, etc. Students learning English in Italy wouldn't have to suffer all the day-to-day contact with officialdom.

To answer your second question: English evolved in England, when the German speaking Anglo-Saxons became subjects of the conquering, French speaking, Normans. For example, some English comparatives are similar to some German ones:

good = gut
better = besser
cold = kalt
colder = kalter

Whereas, other comparatives use the French system, whereby the word "plus" (or more) is added to the adjective to form the comparative:

fun = amusant
more fun = plus amusant

German never forms comparatives by using mehr or more, and French never appends "-er" to adjectives. English being the offspring of German and French, uses both methods.

Iain

Why is the example correct? I don't understand your reasoning.
Iain

In this context, "that" is a relative pronoun; it can't take any possessive -- apostrophe or not.

I would go with sozobe's second suggestion, although I think the sentence, in whatever form, is rather clunky. Given the chance to rewrite the entire sentence, I'd say: "Jim and Bob went out to the cabana, beginning the night certain of only one thing: that they wouldn't end it sober."

Hi. dduck: Thanks for the background on English's heritage. Very interesting. What about the syntax in German and, well, the order of the sentences. Any simalarities there?

joefromchicago and rufio: I just cannot think of any example or way to use "that" in the possessive. I've never seen it on any list of possessive pronouns either. Are we still debating that?

"That" is an indefinite noun and can be used to substitute for other nouns (such as "the night") in a sentence. A noun doesn't have to be a pronoun to "possess" something. Are you debating that?

If you need an example, you can look at the sentence at the start of this thread. It's awkward, but grammatically correct. Also, "who" is exactly the same as "that" except that it's used when talking about a person rather than a non-sentient thing. You're familiar with the word "whose" aren't you?

Is not "that" the same as "which" except that "which" is used when referrering to a group?

Hi! An answer from Webster's. Yea!!!

"Because 'that' has no genitive form or construction, 'of which' or 'whose' must be substituted for it in contexts that call for the genitive."

whatis1029: Also according to Webster's--and thanks for leading me to the answer!--" 'That,' 'which,' 'who': In currrent usage 'that' refers to persons or things, 'which' chiefly to things and rarely to subhuman entities, 'who' chiefly to persons and sometimes to animals. The notion that 'that' should not be used to refer to persons is without foundation; such use is entirely standard."