Grammar question re: “that”

[Anonymous]

American English has become so bastardized that, nowadays, anything goes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unfortunately, there's no hard and fast rule. Sometimes it's required, sometimes it's optional. Context matters.

In your example, it's optional, but I would keep it in.

If you are editing something with a group, it's probably in a work context, so I'd err on the side of being more formal and leaving it in.


Detailed explanation here: https://www.quickanddirtytips.com/articles/when-to-delete-that/

Understood.

Fwiw, I’ve been listening to people debate this so much that I can’t decide where I land on the matter.

Honestly, the inclusion of “that” when it’s optional rather than required almost seems less formal/less polished when reading aloud. It sounds more technical than refined.

NP. Including “that” is completely fine. I honestly want to know what you do for a living where multiple people are sitting around wringing their hands about this issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If it sounds right without it, I think it's best to not use too many. I take it on a sentence by sentence basis. It does bother me when people use "that" instead of "who" when a person is involved. Ex: Susan is a mom who (not "that") spends a lot of time with her kids.

^

This is right

Delete when you can - if it doesn't mess up meaning or rhythm - but if people feel strongly and it doesn't mess anything up, just leave it - def not worth dying on this hill (or that one)

[Anonymous]

Are the people you are arguing with lawyers? I find they want to unnecessarily insert "that" everywhere. I fight this battle daily.

The overall trend in style is to delete it when not absolutely necessary.

[Anonymous]

Stylistic but in your examples, “ I recognize you” starts to point meaning in one direction (I recognize you as an person) and then the mind has to change course as you read the following words. If you put the word “that” in the sentence before “you,” it signals in advance what’s coming and the direction your brain should be going.

[Anonymous]

I don’t like adding extra words, so I prefer without “that”.

Something else that annoys me:
In order to instead of just to
We need to hire 100 people in order to meet our quota
We need to hire 100 people to meet our quota
Why add the extra words? So unnecessary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are the people you are arguing with lawyers? I find they want to unnecessarily insert "that" everywhere. I fight this battle daily.

The overall trend in style is to delete it when not absolutely necessary.

Ooh I am a former lawyer now in a legal-adjacent higher ed role, and I am always getting my "thats" deleted when I draft reports lol.

[Anonymous]

It should have "that." "That" would make it a noun clause.

[Anonymous]

The second option is just recognizing "you" as the direct object. That is wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are the people you are arguing with lawyers? I find they want to unnecessarily insert "that" everywhere. I fight this battle daily.

The overall trend in style is to delete it when not absolutely necessary.

Ooh I am a former lawyer now in a legal-adjacent higher ed role, and I am always getting my "thats" deleted when I draft reports lol.

Do they also replace your nouns with pronouns when the antecedent is clear? I find the lawyers I work with really don't like pronouns and are always replacing them with the antecedent noun. So clunky!

[Anonymous]

The word can be removed 90% of the time.

[Anonymous]

"that" peforms a grammatical function, but can be dropped when unambiguous. This rule applies to most words.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t like adding extra words, so I prefer without “that”.

Something else that annoys me:
In order to instead of just to
We need to hire 100 people in order to meet our quota
We need to hire 100 people to meet our quota
Why add the extra words? So unnecessary.

Because you are hiring the people to make widgets, in order to meet quota, not hiring people to meet quota.


"to" has many meanings, so "in order" specifies which meaning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If it sounds right without it, I think it's best to not use too many. I take it on a sentence by sentence basis. It does bother me when people use "that" instead of "who" when a person is involved. Ex: Susan is a mom who (not "that") spends a lot of time with her kids.

So funny, I hate when people use “who” or “they” for businesses or other organizations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t like adding extra words, so I prefer without “that”.

Something else that annoys me:
In order to instead of just to
We need to hire 100 people in order to meet our quota
We need to hire 100 people to meet our quota
Why add the extra words? So unnecessary.

I think both are unclear. Is the quota a certain number (i.e., 100) of people? Or do you need a 100 people to do something to meet a different quota?