such X that Y

[Taka]

The grammar books I have say 'that' in ' such ...that' like this one below is a conjunction:

(1)This book is written in such easy English that beginners can understand it.

But I've come across this:

(2)You should stop evaluating yourself in such ways that do injury to your emotional or physical state.

It seems that this 'that' is a relative pronoun. So does it mean that what the books say is not necessarily true? And is this one grammatically correct and semantically the same as (1)?

(1)This book is written in such easy English that beginners can understand.

[5jj]

Which grammar books are these?

[Verona_82]

5jj, correct me if I'm wrong.

'Such' has several usages. In (2) it means "of this kind" and therefore 'that' acts as a relative pronoun. One more example:

If you look at our strategic location, we are in such a position that makes us a natural hub of West Africa and Central Africa

In (1) "such" is used to emphasize the high degree of being easy. "That' is conjunction here and introduces a clause that describes the result.

So, the book's not wrong. It seems to me it gives only the examples where 'that' acts as a conjunction.

[5jj]

My apologies to you both. I misread Taka's original question.

@Taka. I agree with Verona's clear response.

[Taka]

So are you saying that 'such' in (2) is a reference term and refers to something mentioned in front?

If so and 'that' in (2) a relative pronoun, why is it the restrictive relative pronoun? If 'such' refers to something specific described in front, it doesn't have to be further restricted by the relative pronoun, does it?

(e.g)

This is fivejedjon. This man, who is a VIP member of UsingEnglish.com, gives you a lot of valuable information at the site.

(NOT: This is fivejedjon. This man who is a VIP member of UsingEnglish.com gives you a lot of valuable information at the site.)

[Tdol]

I am not taken with this sentence:

(2)You should stop evaluating yourself in such ways that do injury to your emotional or physical state.

It works better without such. To me, it's stilted.

[Taka]

I am not taken with this sentence:


It works better without such. To me, it's stilted.

What do you mean by 'not taken with this sentence', tdol?

[Tdol]

I don't think it's a good example of anything- trying to make an argument for something based on a careless or unnatural sentences seems forced. I don't doubt that it could exist, or even that I could not have written it, but it's not worth trying to make a case for anything IMO. Take such out and it's a perfectly acceptable sentence.

An occurrence of a clumsy sentence just proves that people write clumsy sentences.

[Taka]

I understand your message, tdol. My question was simply about the expression 'be taken with ...' I just wondered what that phrase itself meant.

[5jj]

If you are 'not taken' with something, you don't like it very much.