The 'that that' prescription

The discussion surrounding this prescription started in another thread;

http://able2know.org/topic/167119-173

It started as the main language issue but was quickly shucked by its originator for another equally nonsensical prescription when that person, Ionus, realized that he had taken an indefensible position.

Spendius wrote in a reply there:

It was predictable that that is what Gadaffi would do.

Ionus responded with:

that that ??? We dont double words....one is always sufficient . It means the same thing .

jtt responded to Ionus:

Who's we? It's certainly not native speakers of English. One is so very often not sufficient. Speakers and writers use two quite frequently.

A Google exact phrase 'that that' yields About 147,000,000 results

A Google exact phrase 'that that' limited to the New York Times website yields About 42,900 results

Many times, it's absolutely essential to meaning. Here's a sentence, marked 1), from the NY Times.

1) “There's no requirement that that trade results in a gain to the defendant."

2) “There's no requirement that trade results in a gain to the defendant."

When you remove a 'that' you have a different meaning.

Don't get caught up in nonsensical prescriptions. Spendius, like every native speaker, knows how to use his language.

Spendius: My second "that" Io was shorthand for "firing weapons from tanks and snipers on them for protesting." Which was the last part of the post I was replying to.

I could have written "It was predictable that firing weapons from tanks and snipers on them for protesting is what Gadaffi would do". I simply forced the reader to look at the previous post to find out what the that that Gadaffi would do actually was. I chose the formulation deliberately. It wasn't mere sloppiness. It was an emphasis. Pedantically I take your point in this instance but, as JTT has demonstrated, there is no general rule as you imply.

What I was meaning was that that predictability in Gadaffi's response to rebellious citizens seeking to overthrow him leaves those who encouraged the uprising with an amount of responsibility for the fate of the rebels in proportion to the accuracy of the predictability which has now been shown, admittedly with hindsight, to be 100%. And that that encouragement has talked us into a corner from which I think we might have some difficulty extricating ourselves with the degree of dignity to which we are accustomed to expect in our leaders and their lickspittals and lackeys.

Ionus: replied, not to Spendius, who had explained how Ionus had advanced a rule that has nothing to do with English, but to me. I really hadn't realized just how quickly Ionus falls into his diversionary tangents.

[I've included Ionus's complete post which includes my remarks from my post already posted above. I've done this so that the reader doesn't have to scroll up to see what Ionus is addressing.]





jtt replied:

You seem to have trouble with reading comprehension, but I've suspected that for some time.

I didn't say that in Spendy's sentence there was a difference. Here is what I said:

[quote]
Many times, it's absolutely essential to meaning. Here's a sentence, marked 1), from the NY Times.

1) “There's no requirement that that trade results in a gain to the defendant."

2) “There's no requirement that trade results in a gain to the defendant."

When you remove a 'that' you have a different meaning.[/quote]

And you do, have two different meanings. Anyone that doesn't have a reading comprehension problem knows that.

And that, right there, refutes your 'rule'.

Ionus responded:
Many times ??? Absolutely essential ??? So it cant be said better ? Not by you anyway, that that is obvious .

Notable in his response is that Ionus headed off on one of his usual tangents to avoid having to face the facts that had just been presented.

For anyone who wants to read the remainder, the link is to be found above. The last post before I started this thread and moved the discussion here was the following from Spendius;

http://able2know.org/topic/167119-182#post-4576375

Spendius: A sentence posted last night on page 172 of the "Don't tell me there's no proof of evolution" thread.



Using 'that that', as Spendi used it, is fully grammatical and it's also exceedingly common in English. The Ionus "rule" that we don't double words is fatuous. There are many instances in English where we double words, not just 'that', out of grammatical necessity and for semantic reasons, eg. emphasis, which was also noted by Spendi.

1) Not that that has anything to do with evolution, because atheism and evolution are not related.

2) ??Not that has anything to do with evolution, because atheism and evolution are not related.

Sentence 1) and 2) have the same meaning?