|
Title: The hand that feeds: when to omit "that" Post by: Pitchpatch on February 23, 2013, 08:20 AM Heidi Stevens at the Chicago Tribune discusses (http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/life/ct-tribu-words-work-that-20130220,0,4792270.story) the fors and againsts of "that."
I like to kill 'em everywhere and resurrect them only where the removal harms clarity and comprehension. Strip the slacker words from your sentences. On the page, every word has a job. Every word contributes or goes home. The Associated Press Style book advises: Quote There are no hard-and-fast rules, but in general: - That usually may be omitted when a dependent clause immediately follows a form of the verb to say: The president said he had signed the bill. - That should be used when a time element intervenes between the verb and the dependent clause: The president said Monday that he had signed the bill. - That usually is necessary after some verbs. They include: advocate, assert, contend, declare, estimate, make clear, point out, propose and state. - That is required before subordinate clauses beginning with conjunctions such as after, although, because, before, in addition to, until and while: Haldeman said that after he learned of Nixon's intention to resign, he sought pardons for all connected with Watergate. When in doubt, include 'that.' Omission can hurt. Inclusion never does. Here's a clear example from a 10PTT I hope to publish, unless the writer sells his spec before I get the go-ahead. "Brennan notices that HIS GUN IS POINTED AT HER." Do we lose anything by removing "that"? "Brennan notices HIS GUN IS POINTED AT HER." No. Same meaning. And now the sentence reads subtly faster. To test for validity, take the independent clause and shunt it to the front: "HIS GUN IS POINTED AT HER, Brennan notices." Yep, still makes sense. We can speed comprehension further, if you care to step into the nit-picky world I live in. I don't just look for words to erase; I look for multi-syllabic words I can pound down to one or two syllables. Crazy, right? No it isn't, not here in Grammarnia, where a simple run-on sentence earns you a day's "reeducation" in the gulag. "Brennan notices HIS GUN POINTED AT HER." Boom. One word gone. Is there a difference between that and: "Brennan notices HIS GUN POINTS AT HER." I considered this because it knocks off one syllable, and it feels more immediate, more present tense. Yes, there's a small difference. "HIS GUN POINTS AT HER" could be an action taking place RIGHT NOW instead of a completed action. In other words, it introduces ambiguity. Unlikely, sure, but you can't entirely dispute that possible interpretation of the text. So we keep "POINTED AT HER." "Notices" is a three-syllable cost, but I can't think of a shorter word with the same connotation of realization. "Sees" doesn't quite do it. Reviewing: "Brennan notices that HIS GUN IS POINTED AT HER." "Brennan notices HIS GUN POINTED AT HER." We can strip another syllable with: "Brennan notices HIS GUN AIMED AT HER." Note the independent clause shift from "HIS GUN IS POINTED AT HER" to "Brennan notices HIS GUN." That's due to omitting "IS." Also note, we can take the original "Brennan notices that HIS GUN IS POINTED AT HER" and slice it neatly into two sentences: "HIS GUN IS POINTED AT HER. Brennan notices." See how "that" falls away naturally. And it suggests a reverse order of shots: CLOSE ON THE GUN; CLOSE ON BRENNAN NOTICING. Final review: "Brennan notices that HIS GUN IS POINTED AT HER." "Brennan notices HIS GUN AIMED AT HER." Nutty. Just freakin' nutty. No sane writer will agonize this much over an innocuous, short sentence. But we can agree about the small improvement from losing "that." Apply this kind of analysis to your longer sentences and that's where you'll find the real benefits. UPDATE: Ready for round 2? Of course you are (http://10ptt.com/smf/index.php?topic=398.0). |