bmwhype Posted September 5, 2007 Share Posted September 5, 2007 Can someone shed more light on the omission of THAT? But "that" is not always needed after predicted Ex:Nostradamas predicted the fall of the Roman Empire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krusta80 Posted September 5, 2007 Share Posted September 5, 2007 Can someone shed more light on the omission of THAT? But "that" is not always needed after predicted Ex:Nostradamas predicted the fall of the Roman Empire. "That" can be omitted when used to begin a noun subordinate clause (if you can substitute the clause with a pronoun like it, he, she, or they). In your example, there are no verbs after "predicted", so there is no way to have a subordinate clause. Therefore, there is no way to squeeze in "that". However, if you reworded it: "Nostradamas predicted the fall of the Roman Empire would be the result of its own corruption. " Here you can substitute "the fall of the Roman Empire would be the result of its own corruption" with "it: "Nostradamas predicted it." Therefore, it is a nominative clause and "that" is understood. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LegoLife Posted September 6, 2007 Share Posted September 6, 2007 "that" is used as a relative pronoun to connect the main clause with a subordinate clause, mostly a restrictive clause. In sentences such as the above, X predicted Y, "Y" is just a noun phrase as mentioned by krusta80.When a sentence has only a main clause, there is no need for a relative pronoun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erin Posted September 6, 2007 Share Posted September 6, 2007 Ah, that's very perceptive if you've noticed something different about 'thinking verbs'. There are other important things to learn about them as well. But I think that your question may be simpler--transitive verbs can take a noun clause as an object. And when the noun clause is an object, that can be used as a relative pronoun. Does that help? If you have a more specific question, I can try to answer. Also, be sure to check the English Forum for discussions of grammar. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmwhype Posted September 9, 2007 Author Share Posted September 9, 2007 :tup: thanks. very helpful. He predicted that the fall of the Roman Empire was inevitable. He predicted that + (subordinated clause) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
josh_nsit Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 In sentence fragment mentioned, Can fragment "the fall of the Roman Empire would be the result of its own corruption" take form of IT as object? I think this fragment cant take place of an object, though it could take place of a clause. In that scenario, we cant take THAT out of it and sentence should be "Nostradamas predicted that the fall of the Roman Empire would be the result of its own corruption. " and not "Nostradamas predicted the fall of the Roman Empire would be the result of its own corruption. " In general, "SUbject predicted THAT CLAUSE" should be structure. Though, "Nostradamas predicted the fall of the Roman Empire." can avoid THAT as it does not involve a clause at all. It is as simple as "Subject predict Object", so no THAT needed. Please let me know if there are any gaps that should be filled in this understanding. "That" can be omitted when used to begin a noun subordinate clause (if you can substitute the clause with a pronoun like it, he, she, or they). In your example, there are no verbs after "predicted", so there is no way to have a subordinate clause. Therefore, there is no way to squeeze in "that". However, if you reworded it: "Nostradamas predicted the fall of the Roman Empire would be the result of its own corruption. " Here you can substitute "the fall of the Roman Empire would be the result of its own corruption" with "it: "Nostradamas predicted it." Therefore, it is a nominative clause and "that" is understood. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krusta80 Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 Wow...it's nice to see that some of my old posts still see the light of day. :) With regard to your first observation, "the fall of the Roman Empire would be the result of its own corruption" could indeed stand on its own as an independent clause (and hence its own sentence). In fact, this is the way to tell the difference between a clause and a phrase. A clause contains a subject and a verb (and in most cases an object as well). It's like a sentence within a sentence. You are correct in noting that adding "that" is correct here, but it is NOT because of any well-defined rule. Rather, it is correct here because of the potential confusion introduced by leaving "that" out. The subordinate clause is a bit wordy as is, so it would be a mistake to omit the "that". Now, if the clause were something like "that Rome would be sacked", we can omit "that" while retaining clarity: "Nostradamus predicted Rome would be sacked." Now, let me address your second example: "Nostradamas predicted the fall of the Roman Empire." In this case, it is important to realize that inserting "that" would make no sense here! So, you are incorrect in saying that adding "that" is unnecessary: in fact, it would be WRONG to do so and would invalidate a previously acceptable sentence. Also, note that a subordinate clause can also be used as a subject: "That Rome would eventually be overcome by outsiders was one of Nostradamus's key predictions." When used as a subject, however, the "that" can never be omitted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.