Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 23
  1. #1
    philipwei is offline Newbie
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • Interested in Language
      • Native Language:
      • Chinese
      • Home Country:
      • China
      • Current Location:
      • China
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    26
    Post Thanks / Like

    Can we use a that-clause after a preposition?

    I saw this on a book:

    'In most cases, we cannot use that to begin a noun clause after a preposition. However, we can use that to begin a noun clause after in or except.
    The problem lies in that the mist may become a thick fog.'

    However, in John Eastwood's Oxford Guide to English Grammar, he says 'we cannot use a that-clause after a preposition.'

    The explanation is wrong in saying that 'except' is a preposition when it is followed by a that-clause, as it is in fact a conjunction. But how about the cited example? I know it is all right to use a wh-clause or how-clause after a preposition, but can we use a that-clause after a preposition?

    Thank you very much.
    Last edited by philipwei; 21-Jul-2009 at 14:54. Reason: typo

  2. #2
    svartnik is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,890
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Can we use a that-clause after a preposition?

    Quote Originally Posted by philipwei View Post
    The problem lie in that the mist may become a thick fog.'
    '(L)ie' should be 'lies', otherwise fine. Forget Oxford.

  3. #3
    philipwei is offline Newbie
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • Interested in Language
      • Native Language:
      • Chinese
      • Home Country:
      • China
      • Current Location:
      • China
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    26
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Can we use a that-clause after a preposition?

    Thanks for your reply, svartnik. The 's' after 'lie' is a missed typo. However, I'm not sure whether we should forget Oxford. As we know, the same sentence could be:

    The problem lies in the fact that the mist may become a thick fog.

    And this is a more common structure than 'lies in that-clause', as there are 93 entries of 'lies in the fact that' but only two entries of 'lies in that-clause' according to the British National Corpus. So, if the original sentence is acceptable, what's the difference?

  4. #4
    Raymott's Avatar
    Raymott is offline VIP Member
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • Academic
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • Australia
      • Current Location:
      • Australia
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    20,219
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Can we use a that-clause after a preposition?

    Quote Originally Posted by philipwei View Post
    I saw this on a book:

    'I most cases, we cannot use that to begin a noun clause after a preposition. However, we can use that to begin a noun clause after in or except.
    The problem lies in that the mist may become a thick fog.'

    However, in John Eastwood's Oxford Guide to English Grammar, he says 'we cannot use a that-clause after a preposition.'

    The explanation is wrong in saying that 'except' is a preposition when it is followed by a that-clause, as it is in fact a conjunction. But how about the cited example? I know it is all right to use a wh-clause or how-clause after a preposition, but can we use a that-clause after a preposition?

    Thank you very much.
    I don't see why we cannot do that.
    Here are some examples:
    It was the first girl I went out with that I ended up marrying. (I ended up marrying the girl with whom I first went out) Object clause
    It was the first girl I went out with that ended up marrying me. Subject clause
    It's the article that Mary took a copy of that I wish to read. (the article of which Mary took a copy). Object clause
    It's the article that Mary took a copy of that caused such a fuss. Subject clause.
    It's the mess the dog brought in that I want you to clean up.
    ...
    This rule seems to make sense only if we can't end a clause with a preposition, which we all know by now is nonsense.

  5. #5
    engee30's Avatar
    engee30 is offline Key Member
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • Interested in Language
      • Native Language:
      • Polish
      • Home Country:
      • Poland
      • Current Location:
      • Great Britain
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,819
    Post Thanks / Like

    Cool Re: Can we use a that-clause after a preposition?

    Quote Originally Posted by Raymott View Post
    I don't see why we cannot do that.
    Here are some examples:
    It was the first girl I went out with that I ended up marrying. (I ended up marrying the girl with whom I first went out) Object clause
    It was the first girl I went out with that ended up marrying me. Subject clause
    It's the article that Mary took a copy of that I wish to read. (the article of which Mary took a copy). Object clause
    It's the article that Mary took a copy of that caused such a fuss. Subject clause.
    It's the mess the dog brought in that I want you to clean up.
    ...
    This rule seems to make sense only if we can't end a clause with a preposition, which we all know by now is nonsense.
    Raymott, all of your sentences containing that-clauses do not correspond to those that, according to the rule, cannot follow prepositions.

    Here are the simple solutions that can be applied in order that a noun clause is not preceded by a preposition:
    Josephine insists that we all go. (omitting the preposition, in this case on)
    Josephine insists on it that we all go. (retaining the preposition, with anticipatory it used)
    Josephine just concentrates on the fact that we are all fine at the moment. (inserting the fact before the noun clause)

  6. #6
    Raymott's Avatar
    Raymott is offline VIP Member
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • Academic
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • Australia
      • Current Location:
      • Australia
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    20,219
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Can we use a that-clause after a preposition?

    Quote Originally Posted by engee30 View Post
    Raymott, all of your sentences containing that-clauses do not correspond to those that, according to the rule, cannot follow prepositions.
    Thanks, I think.
    So, I guess you're saying that they're right.
    Naturally I did not give examples of 'that' clauses that could not follow a preposition, since that would have damaged my argument - my argument being that you can follow a preposition with a 'that' clause (as long as it is not the type of 'that' clause that can't follow a preposition).

  7. #7
    engee30's Avatar
    engee30 is offline Key Member
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • Interested in Language
      • Native Language:
      • Polish
      • Home Country:
      • Poland
      • Current Location:
      • Great Britain
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,819
    Post Thanks / Like

    Smile Re: Can we use a that-clause after a preposition?

    Quote Originally Posted by Raymott View Post
    Thanks, I think.
    So, I guess you're saying that they're right. Yep.
    Naturally I did not give examples of 'that' clauses that could not follow a preposition, since that would have damaged my argument - my argument being that you can follow a preposition with a 'that' clause (as long as it is not the type of 'that' clause that can't follow a preposition).Smart remark, I must admit.

  8. #8
    kiranlegend is offline Member
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • Student or Learner
      • Native Language:
      • Telugu
      • Home Country:
      • India
      • Current Location:
      • India
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    440
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Can we use a that-clause after a preposition?

    Good discussion. But, I have the following doubt:

    Quote Originally Posted by Raymott View Post
    [/I]This rule seems to make sense only if we can't end a clause with a preposition, which we all know by now is nonsense.


    What is 'which' refering to in here? is it refering to the rule?

    Thanks,
    Kiran

  9. #9
    bhaisahab's Avatar
    bhaisahab is online now Moderator
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • Retired English Teacher
      • Native Language:
      • British English
      • Home Country:
      • England
      • Current Location:
      • England
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    23,063
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Can we use a that-clause after a preposition?

    Quote Originally Posted by kiranlegend View Post
    Good discussion. But, I have the following doubt:





    What is 'which' refering to in here? is it refering to the rule?

    Thanks,
    Kiran
    Yes, it is referring to the rule. I agree with Ray that it is a rule more honoured in the breach. In other words, it is a useless rule.

  10. #10
    Raymott's Avatar
    Raymott is offline VIP Member
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • Academic
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • Australia
      • Current Location:
      • Australia
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    20,219
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Can we use a that-clause after a preposition?

    Quote Originally Posted by kiranlegend View Post
    Good discussion. But, I have the following doubt:

    What is 'which' refering to in here? is it refering to the rule?

    Thanks,
    Kiran
    This rule seems to make sense only if we can't end a clause with a preposition, which we all know by now is nonsense.
    On analysis, 'which' refers to the notion that we can't end a clause with a preposition.
    The "rule" in the above sentence refers to the rule about that-clauses not following prepositions, which is a different rule from that which says we shouldn't end a sentence with a preposition.
    So, no it doesn't refer to 'rule'.

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Help: splitting complex sentence and clause function
    By allience in forum Analysing and Diagramming Sentences
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 20-Jun-2008, 02:16
  2. Relative clause(non-defining/defining)
    By tzfujimino in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 12-Jun-2008, 19:43
  3. Adverb clause : Please Help
    By suteja in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 22-May-2007, 11:35
  4. relative pro...
    By nautes20 in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 30-Nov-2004, 14:49
  5. We can reduce adverb clauses to adverb phrases. Why?
    By Steven D in forum General Language Discussions
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 23-Sep-2004, 15:42

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •