A question about using "that" in a sentence

[Unregistered]

Hello,

I would really appreciated it if someone could help me with this.

I was trying to explain to a friend why the following sentences require or do not require the word "that" in the sentence.

- Any company whose logo or symbol that consumers easily recognize has a better chance of success.

- Any company whose logo or symbol that can be easily recognizable by consumers has a better chance of success.

This came up when we were going over some practices for adjective clause. My friend wanted an explanation why "that" in those sentences are correct. While trying to explain the sentence, even I was getting if it is a correct sentence or not.

Here are my questions about it:

1. Are those sentences correct? The first sentence, I believe, doesn't need "that" in the sentence, but I think it can still work with "that" in it. The second sentence, on the other hand, require "that" to be a correct sentence.

2. How would I explain why the above sentences are wrong, using terms like, adjective clause, verb, noun.. etc. We know that "whose logo or symbol that consumers easily recognize " is an adjective clause. But, my friend's question was this:because of the word "that", it makes the phrase "consumers easily recognize" an adjective clause within an adjective clause; then only "whose logo or symbol" is left for the original adjective clause; a clause has a subject and a verb; "whose logo or symbol" is not a clause; and, therefore, this is an incorrect sentence.

I know it seems like a long stupid discussion for two sentences, but I am so frustrated that I can't explain it like an ESL english teachers.

Please, I would very much appreciate it even it means saying that those sentences are correct or not.

Thank you very much.

[naomimalan]

Hello,

I would really appreciated it if someone could help me with this.

I was trying to explain to a friend why the following sentences require or do not require the word "that" in the sentence.

- Any company whose logo or symbol that consumers easily recognize has a better chance of success.

- Any company whose logo or symbol that can be easily recognizable by consumers has a better chance of success.

This came up when we were going over some practices for adjective clause. My friend wanted an explanation why "that" in those sentences are correct. While trying to explain the sentence, even I was getting if it is a correct sentence or not.

Here are my questions about it:

1. Are those sentences correct? The first sentence, I believe, doesn't need "that" in the sentence, but I think it can still work with "that" in it. The second sentence, on the other hand, require "that" to be a correct sentence.

2. How would I explain why the above sentences are wrong, using terms like, adjective clause, verb, noun.. etc. We know that "whose logo or symbol that consumers easily recognize " is an adjective clause. But, my friend's question was this:because of the word "that", it makes the phrase "consumers easily recognize" an adjective clause within an adjective clause; then only "whose logo or symbol" is left for the original adjective clause; a clause has a subject and a verb; "whose logo or symbol" is not a clause; and, therefore, this is an incorrect sentence.

I know it seems like a long stupid discussion for two sentences, but I am so frustrated that I can't explain it like an ESL english teachers.

Please, I would very much appreciate it even it means saying that those sentences are correct or not.

Thank you very much.

The problem with the two sentences is that the word that should not be there. If you stick in the word that then your adjective clause (= relative clause) doesn't make sense and your sentence becomes incomprehensible. Remove "that" and you have a perfectly correct sentence in both cases:

Any company whose logo or symbol consumers easily recognize has a better chance of success.

- Any company whose logo or symbol can be easily recognizable by consumers has a better chance of success.

Here, the underlined parts are your relative (=adjective) clauses and the rest are your main clauses.

What ever prompted you to grab hold of the word that and stick it in?

[ATG]

The second sentence is a bit troublesome in that the word "recognizable" refers to the state of the logo or symbol.

"The damage to the logo is so severe that it is no longer recognizable."

A consumer's ability to recognize the symbol or logo easily is what this sentence intended to communicate; therefore, it should read,

- Any company whose logo or symbol can be easily recognized by consumers has a better chance of success.

[BobK]

...

What ever prompted you to grab hold of the word that and stick it in?

I think the original poster was thinking of a similar pattern, but in sentences without 'whose':

- A company with a logo or symbol that consumers easily recognize has a better chance of success.

- A company with a logo or symbol consumers easily recognize has a better chance of success. (unclear but OK grammatically)

- A company with a logo or symbol that can be easily recognized by consumers has a better chance of success.

- A company with a logo or symbol can be easily recognized by consumers has a better chance of success.

b