|
Title: Look at all the fucks THAT I give Post by: Pitchpatch on May 03, 2016, 05:00 PM UPDATE: Go here (http://10ptt.com/smf/index.php?topic=330.0) to witness the first time I told THAT to get off my lawn.
----- My problem with "that" is that it's overused. My problem with "that" is it's overused. ----- Seeing them side by side, it's obvious, right? Why do we allow "that" to stink up our sentences? Most of the time it does nothing helpful. Most of the time it sits there thumbing its nose at readability. Every day I see "that" littering every form of writing. I expect nobody gives it any thought. Just one of those forgettable words No. It's time to wake up to "that." Today we take the red pill. I'm here to make you give a damn. Because I do. That [correct use] I seriously do. (https://10ptt.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/tumblr_lzq2ditaon1r066zfo1_500.gif) Pocahontas needs no "that" to make her point and neither do you. So, what is "that"? This (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/that?s=t) is "that." Take a look at the examples listed on that [correct use] dictionary page. They're printed in grey italics. In almost every case you cannot remove "that" because the word is functional. Remove it and the sentence meaning shifts perceptibly or falls apart entirely. I see only one opportunity to remove "that" and claim no harm done: ----- 4. (used as the subject or object of a relative clause, especially one defining or restricting the antecedent, sometimes replaceable by who, whom, or which): the horse that he bought. ----- We don't know the context. Are we discussing the horse and the goat and the cow that he bought? Are we dealing with two horses: the horse he bought and the horse he got for free? Are we talking about the horse that HE bought and not the horse that the other guy bought? (Rephrasing: Are we talking about the horse HE bought and not the horse the other guy bought?) If we need to "define or restrict the antecedent," if we need specificity and clarification then, okay, it's "the horse that he bought." Otherwise there's no reason we can't use "the horse he bought." There is no confusion in that context. Particularly irksome to me is the proliferation of "that" in TV and movie dialogue. It might look okay on the page, and it might sound okay out of the mouth of a good actor -- they know how to hide bad dialogue. Mostly it sounds like what it is: an actor speaking a line from a script by a writer oblivious to how people talk. Listen carefully to the next movie trailer on Youtube. Replay the spoken lines containing "that" but now omit the word. Does it sound more natural or less? Here's what got me mad enough to post on the subject. (https://10ptt.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/screenshot-030516-233458-that.png) That last one -- "My superpower is that I move through the world without skin" -- is arguably correct usage. But it still works just fine without "that." If not replacing "that" with punctuation scares you, no problem: "My superpower is: I move through the world without skin." "My superpower: I move through the world without skin." "My superpower is, I move through the world without skin." While I'm focused on this "superpower" example, I'll prissily point out some accidental ambiguity. The author intends to say (I assume) "My superpower is I move without skin through the world" -- i.e. the author has no skin. But you can read it as saying the world is the thing without skin, that the world has no barrier (skin). That's right, folks. I'm THAT obsessed with language. Next time I offer, TAKE THE DAMN BLUE PILL. |