Last Tuesday’s post was on that as a conjunction joining a clause to a verb—more specifically to a transitive verb, which demands an object. I began to identify when using that (rather than omitting it) is usual, unusual, or contextual.

Today I look at using that to join a clause to linking verbs (is, was, will be, and so on), to complement the sentence’s subject.

Here are two examples from “The Moral Instinct,” by Stephen Pinker, in last Sunday’s New York Times Magazine.

The first hallmark of moralization is that the rules it invokes are felt to be universal.

The convention seems to be to use that to connect the complement in all such instances.

(Note that Pinker omitted that between rules and it, but this missing that is a pronoun, not a conjunction. To distinguish the conjunction from the pronoun, see whether which could work in that’s place. If it can, then that is a pronoun and can often be omitted. More in a few weeks on that as a pronoun.)

The other hallmark is that people feel that those who commit immoral acts deserve to be punished.

Again, the first that connects the complement (people feel that those who commit immoral acts deserve to be punished) to the linking verb is. Pinker could not omit it.

But what about the second that connecting its clause (those who commit immoral acts deserve to be punished) as the object of the transitive verb feel? Its use is contextual, and in this context it would not be omitted because of the awkward and ambiguous people feel those and because of the clause (who commit immoral acts) separating the subject (those) from its verb (deserve).

Is using that with linking verbs invariable? Or are there instances when it could be omitted?

I’m looking for some of those instances. If you find one, please send it along.

Note

Some linking verbs (seem, appear) can also be transitive, as in the example above. To distinguish the linking from the transitive, see whether is, are, or am could work in its place. If it can, then the verb is linking. If it can't, the verb is transitive, so you would follow the conventions for that with such a verb.

Much of writing is connecting words and phrases doing the same work—multiple subjects, verbs, modifiers, objects. And most writers connect them with conjunctions and commas in common ways. We’re going to show you some uncommon connections—what we call deft connections.

A simple tip is to order pairs and series from short to long. Most of us spit out compound subjects and predicates and the elements of pairs or series as they come out of our mind—haphazardly. You can make your writing clearer by rearranging those elements from short to long and from simple to compound. Start by counting the words of each phrase, and arrange them from short to long.

Here’s a nice example from Andrew Sullivan’s Atlantic Monthly feature on Barack Obama:

Obama, moreover, is no saint. He has flaws and tics: Often tired, sometimes crabby, intermittently solipsistic, he’s a surprisingly uneven campaigner.

The series goes from short to long, both in words and complexity, drawing the reader into the more difficult “intermittently solipsistic” rather than leading with such a mouthful.

Another example:

In 2007 I traveled to Washington, D.C., Miami, and New York.

That’s okay, but notice how the eye pauses on Washington, then D.C., then Miami and New York. Another ordering, perhaps easier on the reader, would have been:

In 2007 I traveled to Miami, New York, and Washington, D.C.

Notice how readers can see all three cities without pausing. So the next time you write, try ordering your pairs and series to ease your readers’ work. But there are some exceptions: groups of words or phases listed chronologically (breakfast, lunch, dinner) or alphabetically to avoid bias (New Zealand, Russia, Tuvalu).