Tuesday Thought: Where have all the that’s gone? 3

Today’s post is on using or omitting that when connecting a clause to a noun. Writers seem to use it when they’ve omitted it in another part of the same sentence—and to omit it when the connection is clear or when there are other that’s in the sentence.

Consider these sentences, from Roger Lowenstein’s “The Education of Ben Bernanke,” in last Sunday’s New York Times Magazine.

By the time [that] President Bush nominated him to run the Federal Reserve, at the end of 2005, Bernanke knew more about central banking than any economist alive.

So, no that after time. Note that time is followed by the clause’s subject and verb. Also note the t in time.

Later in the same piece:

None other than Alan Greenspan has said [that] that constellation of problems facing Bernanke is tougher than anything [that] he experienced in the 18 years that he held the job.

The that after years could have been omitted, but Lowenstein (or his editor) might have felt that to be excessive, because he had already omitted that after anything—and after said, where it should have been kept for clarity, instead switching the adjective that to the (…said that the constellation of problems…).

In the rest of the piece most other sentences attaching clauses to nouns retained that:

…the clearest signal that the…

…more than twice the inflation rate that Bernanke has delineated as… (omit that?)

…general notion that the Fed has vast powers…

…an indication that the Fed has added liquidity…

…the dictum that inflation would lead to jobs…

…the fact that the Fed relies on…

…the committee members that I talked to…

…the idea that he could be replaced by a computer…

…the risk that the troubles in housing would leach into the general economy…

 
But not in this sentence:

… of the sort [that] he had so often written about…

No that after sort, with its final t and the pronoun he that follows.

What’s at play here beyond formal usage and caprice?

It’s not easy to identify anything more than the seeming conventions mentioned at the opening of this post. Here’s a first stab:

Generally use that to connect a clause to a noun:

• When there are no other that’s in the sentence.
• When a phrase interrupts the flow from the noun to the subject of the clause.
• When a clause or string of phrases separates the subject of the clause and its verb.

Possibly omit that:

• When there are other that’s in the sentence (or even when there are none).
• When the preceding noun or the clause’s first word has a t.
• When the subject of the clause is a pronoun followed by its verb.

Always omit that when what remains is clear and elegant.

(I’m compiling examples of each convention and will update this post when I have something useful for you.)

Consider this translation from Marquez’s One Hundred Years of Solitude:

That was the way [that] he always was alien to the existence of his sons….

Note that the translator omitted that between the way and he. Then, three sentences later:

It was in that way that the boys ended up learning that in the southern extremes of Africa there were men so intelligent and peaceful that their only pastime was to sit and think….

Here the translator used that between way and boys, even with two other that’s in the sentence. Perhaps it would have been omitted if the boys were a pronoun: they.

Learning that brings me to gerunds (verb forms acting as nouns). With the intervening prepositional phrases in the southern extremes of Africa, that cannot be omitted. With that phrase omitted or moved later, that could be omitted:

…the boys ended up learning [that] there were men so intelligent and peaceful….

Using that with clauses connected to gerunds appears to follow its use following the conventions for transitive verbs.

Usual                          Unusual                            Contextual

Know                           believe                               learn

Knowing                       believing                            learning

See our preliminary list for transitive verbs.