About "a that clause"

Question

The career counselors you consulted should have given you enough direction that it stimulated your thinking about ways to apply the knowledge you have worked so hard to earn.

This article is from "Dear abby".

Could you explain what function "That" over the line perform?
I feel it doesn't introduce a relative clause.

I guess "the that clause" expresses the speaker's wish which is not true or possible.

Am I correct about it?
I need your help.

Avangi · Accepted Answer

should have given you enough direction that it stimulated your thinking

I think "so big that it burst," and "big enough that it burst" are basically the same grammar.

If I say, "He gave you so much direction that it stimulated your thinking," wouldn't "that" introduce a relative clause?

I'll agree that with "should have," it would be more natural to say, "should have given you enough direction to stimulate your thinking," but the original isn't incorrect, in my opinion.

Cool Breeze · Answer

IcadiaI feel it doesn't introduce a relative clause.

Right! That is a conjunction in your sentence. My ear doesn't particularly like the subordinate that clause at all. I would say:

The career counselors you consulted should have given you enough direction to stimulate your thinking about ways to apply the knowledge you have worked so hard to earn.

CB

Avangi · Answer

Cool Breeze
IcadiaI feel it doesn't introduce a relative clause.
Right! That is a conjunction in your sentence. My ear doesn't particularly like the subordinate that clause

Hi, CB
So "that" introduces a subordinate clause which is not relative?
I'm still working on why it's not relative. I understand that "that" is not the subject of the clause, but that's not a requirement, is it?

Anyway, I agree with your replacement sentence. I was probably typing mine as an edit while you were typing yours.

Cheers! - A.

Avangi · Answer

IcadiaCould you explain what function "That" over the line perform?

I meant to ask what you mean by "over the line," but it slipped my mind. I thought perhaps you had underscored it, but the formatting had failed to transfer, per usual.

I guess "the that clause" expresses the speaker's wish which is not true or possible.

I take the clause as modifying "enough." (How much would "enough" have been?)

Icadia · Answer

Thanks. Yes. I am sorry for missing out "the line" by mistake.

If the sentence was written with To infinitive, I would have no problem in understanding in it as you all said.

What I am really curious about is whether the sentence is right or not.

I've looked into the sentence several times, and felt it's uncomfortable to me for some reason.

I don't know why "Abby" expressed the sentence that way, and wonder if it can be correct.

If so, the "that clause" may be a subordinate clause, which I am not used to.

I've never seen the use of the "that clause" over , and my grammar books don't explain why it can be used that way or provide good examples for the use.

I've referred to my dictionaries and grammar books including "Practical English usage", but I didn't find any information on whether a that clause can be used after "enough".

Avangi · Answer

[They] should have given you enough direction that it stimulated your thinking.

I have no doubt that the sentence is correct.

Usually the big issue is whether or not a relative clause is restrictive or non-restrictive (with a comma). Many are introduced by relative pronouns (includiing "that") which serve as the subject of the relative clause, and refer back to some "antecedent." ALL of them are subordinate clauses.
As CB pointed out, "that" is a conjunction in your example. It's not a relative pronoun. The subject of the subordinate clause is "the." My first sentence in this post is an example of this structure.
Both clauses are capable of standing alone. If I substitute "and" for "that," the clauses are now equal - two main clauses: "I have no doubt, and the sentence is correct." It's the conjunction "that" which makes the second clause subordinate.
I don't know if CB would consider the subordinate clause "relative" or not. I tend to think it is.

What if I say, "I'm sure enough that the sentence is correct." Does this sound acceptable to you?

Cool Breeze · Answer

AvangiI don't know if CB would consider the subordinate clause "relative" or not. I tend to think it is.

The clause isn't a relative clause, in my grammar anyway, for the simple reason that there is no antecedent for that. Of course all reletive clauses are subordinate. My apologies for the confusion I created by using the word "subordinate" needlessly in a previous post. As one writes, one doesn't always think of every detail and get everything right. At least I don't!

I have another way of figuring out instantly whether that is a relative pronoun or a conjunction. In the other languages I am familiar with to some extent, the relative pronoun and the conjunction are never the same word. So even Finnish helps me determine that. Swedish shares the same characteristic: always a different word for a conjunction and a relative.

CB

Avangi · Answer

Ah, that's very convenient.

As I mentioned to the OP, we often get embroiled in the restrictive/non-restrictive issue and the ****** comma, and don't pay a lot of attention to whether "that" is a pronoun or a conjunction.

I'm wondering your opinion on whether a "that clause" must be relative in order to be restrictive.
(Perhaps it depends to some extent on your definition of an antecedent.)

I won't clutter up the page with examples, unless you wish.

- A.

Cool Breeze · Answer

AvangiI'm wondering your opinion on whether a "that clause" must be relative in order to be restrictive.

I find this comment puzzling. Where did I say that? I don't think I have ever thought of that clauses in that way. In my grammar relative clauses are either restrictive (defining, BrE) or non-restrictive (non-defining, BrE), exactly as you think of them. I never thought that the conjunction that begins either a restrictive clause or a non-restrictive one. We just say it begins a that clause (very imaginative!), which often acts as an object: I know that he is rich. Not all such clauses are objects, though: It is better that you leave now.

"That is a conjunction in your sentence. My ear doesn't particularly like the ~~subordinate~~ that clause at all."

I should simply have omitted subordinate. I don't know what made me use the word in the first place as all clauses beginning with the conjunction that or the relative that are indeed subordinate!

CB

Avangi · Answer

Hi, CB,
Different people use terms in different ways, I find.
The English "that" doesn't wear its heart upon its coatsleave, as you have pointed out.
You speak of "the conjunction that" and "the relative that." I'm still working on the fine discriminations in terminology, so I hadn't noticed that a clause beginning with the relative "that" wasn't also sometimes referred to as "a that clause."
But I now realize that when you use the expression "a that clause," you speak of one which is "introduced" by the conjunction that.

You answered Icadia's question, which I had failed to do:

Could you explain what function "That" over the line perform?
I feel it doesn't introduce a relative clause.

I'm starting to realize that the word "introduce" is key to the two "that's." It would be incorrect to say that the relative that "introduces" the clause. Perhaps it would also be incorrect to call it "a that clause," just as it would be incorrect to say that your "that clause" begins with "that." I think we're sometimes careless about these details on EF. (But certainly not all details!)

Anyway, my question which puzzled you was assuming that both types could be called "that clauses."

About "a that clause"

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions