Results 1 to 3 of 3
  1. #1
    rambharosey is offline Junior Member
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • Student or Learner
      • Native Language:
      • Hindi
      • Home Country:
      • India
      • Current Location:
      • India
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    55
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default "that" as a Subordinating conjunction..

    Can someone tell me why "that" is considered a "subordinating" conjunction.

    Let us take the following example:

    He said that things were not going well.

    The above sentence has two "Independent" clauses:

    1. He said
    2. Things were not going well

    Since two "Independent" clauses are being connected, should "that" not be considered a "coordinating" conjunction.

    Thanks.

  2. #2
    5jj's Avatar
    5jj is offline VIP Member
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • Retired English Teacher
      • Native Language:
      • British English
      • Home Country:
      • England
      • Current Location:
      • Czech Republic
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    28,169
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: "that" as a Subordinating conjunction..

    'That things were not going well' is the grammatical object of the verb 'said'. 'Things were not going well' is not an independent clause.
    Please do not edit your question after it has received a response. Such editing can make the response hard for others to understand.


  3. #3
    TheParser is offline Key Member
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • Other
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • United States
      • Current Location:
      • United States
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    4,877
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: "that" as a Subordinating conjunction..

    Quote Originally Posted by rambharosey View Post

    He said that things were not going well.

    ***** NOT A TEACHER *****


    Good morning, Rambharosey:

    You have asked a great question. I have some information that may interest you.

    (1) My grammar books tell me that once upon a time (a long, long time ago) the word "that" was a pronoun in your sentence.

    (a) That is, your sentence many, many years ago would have been analyzed as:


    He said that: things were not going well.

    (i) In other words, the sentence was "He said that." Then "things were not going well" was added as an appositive to explain "that."

    (ii) Over the years, the English people started to lose that feeling. They started to feel that "things were not going well" was the

    object of the verb, and "that" just became a connective. As you know, we can now -- in sentences such as yours -- drop the "that."


    (2) By the way, a few books agree with you: they feel that "subordinating conjunction" is not the proper term for "that" in such sentences. So they just use the term "expletive." But most books do call it a subordinating conjunction.

    Sources:

    Paul Roberts, Understanding Grammar.
    Homer House and Susan Harman, Descriptive English Grammar.


    HAVE A NICE DAY!

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-May-2010, 10:50
  2. The "And" conjunction and sentence correction
    By sondra in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 15-Apr-2010, 04:42
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 23-Apr-2008, 11:13
  4. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 23-Nov-2007, 23:26
  5. omitting the infinitive "to" after a conjunction?
    By dihen in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 23-Aug-2006, 01:11

Posting Permissions

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