A fact from That appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 8 December 2021 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Index
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
is it grammatically allowed to have two that's?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bud0011 ( talk • contribs) .
if you are talking about the word 'that', then cant you say 'That that'
If you are talking about a thing called 'That' that said the word 'that' then cant you say: That 'that', that that That said was 'that'.
There is more than one meaning of "that" - as a pronoun or to join two clauses together (eg. "I see that it's raining"). You don't need to quote "that" in order to have a grammatically correct sentence with two "thats" next to each other. Eg. I hope that that chicken is edible. If you think about the two "thats" in that sentence, you'll see they don't have exactly the same meaning as each other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.109.27.34 ( talk) 00:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Like I said before, "that" is a very common word in the English language. Does anybody knows the question, "Is "that" a very common word?" ExpandD2003 ( talk) 10:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
Schwede66 (
talk)
19:28, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
5x expanded by Urve ( talk). Self-nominated at 12:35, 26 November 2021 (UTC).
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook eligibility:
QPQ: Done. |
Overall: @ Urve: I just had to review this one because its such a creative and a bit wacky of a hook idea, and I totally agree with Schwede66 that it is really good. I was talking with my friend and then just thought, screw it, I have to give it a shot. Assuming good faith on the offline sources cited within the article proper with no discernible issues, of proper length and submission date. The sole major concern I have is that the hook isn't cited, which is difficult when the hook is a single word in itself, and thus would be nearly impossible to cite. Apart from that I think it should be totally set. I'm a bit of a new reviewer so I can't really say for sure if there's a policy which addresses this in special circumstances, which is why I want to get a second opinion on this. Perhaps @ Theleekycauldron: can give it a glance if they're able to? Ornithoptera ( talk) 08:19, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
The opening paragraph states: "it has proximal distance from the speaker", which seems mistaken to me. Later under Modern Usage, "the word is a distal demonstrative pronoun, as opposed to proximal" Shouldn't the first phrase read distal, if anything? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsawangdorje ( talk • contribs) 03:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
This article currently says in Wikipedia's voice: "That can be used as a demonstrative pronoun, demonstrative adjective, conjunction, relative word, and an intensifier", attributing this syntactic gobbledigook to a paper whose relevant part actually reads:
Blithely ignoring the fact that it's citing as some sort of linguistics insight what was apparently written in an unidentified issue of the TLS by one Arthur Sefton (who he?) and debunked in the very paper it cites, our Wikipedia article takes seriously Sefton's analysis for its section "Modern usage".
When I write above of syntactic gobbledigook, I mean that the analysis is to what is argued for (and not just proclaimed) in a good reference grammar (such as The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language) rather as a phrenological account of some psychological tendency is to what you'd find about the matter in a recent psychology text.
I propose not to improve the "Modern usage" section of this article but to delete it and start it again from scratch. OK? -- Hoary ( talk) 00:22, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
A fact from That appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 8 December 2021 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Index
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
is it grammatically allowed to have two that's?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bud0011 ( talk • contribs) .
if you are talking about the word 'that', then cant you say 'That that'
If you are talking about a thing called 'That' that said the word 'that' then cant you say: That 'that', that that That said was 'that'.
There is more than one meaning of "that" - as a pronoun or to join two clauses together (eg. "I see that it's raining"). You don't need to quote "that" in order to have a grammatically correct sentence with two "thats" next to each other. Eg. I hope that that chicken is edible. If you think about the two "thats" in that sentence, you'll see they don't have exactly the same meaning as each other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.109.27.34 ( talk) 00:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Like I said before, "that" is a very common word in the English language. Does anybody knows the question, "Is "that" a very common word?" ExpandD2003 ( talk) 10:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
Schwede66 (
talk)
19:28, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
5x expanded by Urve ( talk). Self-nominated at 12:35, 26 November 2021 (UTC).
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook eligibility:
QPQ: Done. |
Overall: @ Urve: I just had to review this one because its such a creative and a bit wacky of a hook idea, and I totally agree with Schwede66 that it is really good. I was talking with my friend and then just thought, screw it, I have to give it a shot. Assuming good faith on the offline sources cited within the article proper with no discernible issues, of proper length and submission date. The sole major concern I have is that the hook isn't cited, which is difficult when the hook is a single word in itself, and thus would be nearly impossible to cite. Apart from that I think it should be totally set. I'm a bit of a new reviewer so I can't really say for sure if there's a policy which addresses this in special circumstances, which is why I want to get a second opinion on this. Perhaps @ Theleekycauldron: can give it a glance if they're able to? Ornithoptera ( talk) 08:19, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
The opening paragraph states: "it has proximal distance from the speaker", which seems mistaken to me. Later under Modern Usage, "the word is a distal demonstrative pronoun, as opposed to proximal" Shouldn't the first phrase read distal, if anything? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsawangdorje ( talk • contribs) 03:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
This article currently says in Wikipedia's voice: "That can be used as a demonstrative pronoun, demonstrative adjective, conjunction, relative word, and an intensifier", attributing this syntactic gobbledigook to a paper whose relevant part actually reads:
Blithely ignoring the fact that it's citing as some sort of linguistics insight what was apparently written in an unidentified issue of the TLS by one Arthur Sefton (who he?) and debunked in the very paper it cites, our Wikipedia article takes seriously Sefton's analysis for its section "Modern usage".
When I write above of syntactic gobbledigook, I mean that the analysis is to what is argued for (and not just proclaimed) in a good reference grammar (such as The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language) rather as a phrenological account of some psychological tendency is to what you'd find about the matter in a recent psychology text.
I propose not to improve the "Modern usage" section of this article but to delete it and start it again from scratch. OK? -- Hoary ( talk) 00:22, 23 December 2023 (UTC)