...has/is changed...

Question

Here's a commercial for iPhone 6S titled "The Only Thing That's Changed Is…"

It starts with:
This is iPhone 6s.
Not much has changed. (Although this is what the subtitle says, it's not clear whether it's "has changed" or "is changed" just from the pronunciation.)
Except...

And ends with:
So yeah, that's what's changed.

Now, in this last line and also in the title is this contraction 'that's', which could generally mean either 'that is' or 'that has'. In this case, which does it mean? And why?

CalifJim · Accepted Answer

listeneverThe Only Thing That's Changed Is… [ That has Changed ]

listeneverSo yeah, that's what's changed. [ that is what has changed ]

Those are the words that make the sentences grammatical.

That's a dog and that's a cat is not going to mean That has a dog and that has a cat. That makes no sense.
That's been known for years is not going to mean That is been known for years. That makes no sense.

Substitute "is" or "has" depending on which word makes sense of the sentence as a whole.

CJ

Listenever · Answer

CalifJimSubstitute "is" or "has" depending on which word makes sense of the sentence as a whole.

Thanks. Let me ask you this.

There's two things here, I think, to consider when deciding which makes the whole sentence grammatical and which does not.

(1) Is the active voice (has changed) or the passive voice (is changed) is more appropriate in context?

(2) Is the perfect tense or present simple tense more appropriate?

So you're saying it's the active voice/perfect tense combination that's appropriate here. But I'm asking why not the other combination (passive voice/present simple tense)?

At the very least, this is not as clear as your own examples, is it?

CalifJim · Answer

Ah! You're right. "changed" is one of those past participles that can be used like an adjective.

Everything is changed ~ Everything is different.

So 's can be either "has" or "is" in that case. I arbitrarily picked "has" because it sounded better to me.

CJ

Listenever · Answer

Let me ask you another question.

The video continues like this:

,,,except it responds to the pressure of your finger
so you can peek into stuff and pop stuff open,
which changes how you play a song, read an email, read the news.

Does the second line here express a purpose or a result?

Also, can you add "that" after "so" in this context?

CalifJim · Answer

listeneverDoes the second line here express a purpose or a result?

It can be read either way. "It" was designed for a certain purpose. The purpose was to be able to peek into stuff and pop stuff open. "It', as a result, allows you to peek into stuff and pop stuff open. I don't think it matters much how you interpret it.

listeneverAlso, can you add "that" after "so" in this context?

You can if you want to, but I don't know why you would want to change the text of an advertisement that is already published.

CJ

Listenever · Answer

Thanks a lot.

CalifJimYou can if you want to, but I don't know why you would want to change the text of an advertisement that is already published.

Thing is, if you can put "that" there, the "so" is a subordinate conjunction; if not, it's a coordinate conjunction. So, basically, I was trying to figure out whether the "so" leads a main or subordinate clause.

And considering the first part of your answer, I guess that the "so" is not a coordinate but a subordinate conjunction, right?

CalifJim · Answer

listeneverI guess that the "so" is not a coordinate but a subordinate conjunction, right?

My instinct is to say it's coordinating. As written, I take it as "therefore". I think that's considered coordinating, isn't it? I lose track of some of the terminology sometimes.

CJ

Listenever · Answer

CalifJimMy instinct is to say it's coordinating. As written, I take it as "therefore".

But you said earlier that you could construe the "so" clause as indicating a purpose as well as a result, didn't you?

CalifJimI think that's considered coordinating, isn't it? I lose track of some of the terminology sometimes.

If it's coordinating, then you shouldn't be able to put "that" after "so", because "that" in and of itself indicates subordination.

CalifJim · Answer

listeneverBut you said earlier that you could construe the "so" clause as indicating a purpose as well as a result, didn't you?

Yes, but I don't see the connection that it seems you do between the pair 'purpose and result' and the pair 'coordinate and subordinate'.

listeneverIf it's coordinating, then you shouldn't be able to put "that" after "so", because "that" in and of itself indicates subordination.

Then I suppose it's coordination with "so" and subordination with "so that". But people sometimes leave out "that" when they mean it, so I think we're stuck, because in that case even "so" would be subordination.

CJ

Listenever · Answer

CalifJimI don't see the connection that it seems you do between the pair 'purpose and result' and the pair 'coordinate and subordinate'.

What I'm saying is, if a clause indicates "purpose", it cannot be a coordinate clause, because a "purpose" clause has to be subordinate to a main clause. I mean, can you think of any coordination of clauses where one indicates the purpose of another?

But if a clause indicates "result", it can be a coordinate or subordinate clause.

CalifJimThen I suppose it's coordination with "so" and subordination with "so that". But people sometimes leave out "that" when they mean it, so I think we're stuck, because in that case even "so" would be subordination.

Exactly. That's why I had asked if you could put "that" after "so". And you had answered that you could if you wanted to, so I had figured that it was the subordinate "so that" construction where the "that" was merely left out. But then, you said you took "so" to mean "therefore" (i.e., result), which answer contradicts your earlier answer that it can be interpreted as "purpose" as well as "result".

...has/is changed...

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions