Reply
Wed 21 Aug, 2013 06:42 pm
In the following sentence, if the second "that" was written instead with "so that," it will be easy to understand for me. Are the two "that" clauses parallel in grammar?
Well, see, I don't know how to express my question clearly.
Context:
We villagers are simple honest folk who eat according to the size of our bowl. Your trouble is that your father gave you such a soft time of it when you were young that you're a bad manager.
@oristarA,
So that not a good idea. You can drop the first that with no loss of meaning.
@oristarA,
oristarA wrote:
In the following sentence, if the second "that" was written instead with "so that," it will be easy to understand for me. Are the two "that" clauses parallel in grammar?
Well, see, I don't know how to express my question clearly.
Context:
We villagers are simple honest folk who eat according to the size of our bowl. Your trouble is that your father gave you such a soft time of it when you were young that you're a bad manager.
The first "that" is used to introduce a reason, or explanation. The second one is used to introduce a result, or consequence.
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
oristarA wrote:
In the following sentence, if the second "that" was written instead with "so that," it will be easy to understand for me. Are the two "that" clauses parallel in grammar?
Well, see, I don't know how to express my question clearly.
Context:
We villagers are simple honest folk who eat according to the size of our bowl. Your trouble is that your father gave you such a soft time of it when you were young that you're a bad manager.
The first "that" is used to introduce a reason, or explanation. The second one is used to introduce a result, or consequence.
Your trouble is that there's the reason
so that there's the consequence.
The grammar allows us to omit the "so" above and its meaning remains intact?
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace