Omitting the word "that".

[kobeobie]

Have a look at the following sentence:

She realised she had made a terrible mistake.

It sounds to me as if the word "that" is missing.Should it be:

She realised that she had made a terrible mistake.

I know that you can in certain circumstances omit the relative pronoun in a relative clause but the above example does not appear to be a relative clause.My question is this when is it OK to omit the word "that"?

 

[Chicken Sandwich]

***NOT A TEACHER***

She realised (that) she had made a terrible mistake.

"That" is optional.

 

[Tuco]

*** Not a teacher ***

If the person who said, "She realised she had made a terrible mistake" is a native speaker of the language, s/he made the statement in a way that s/he is accustomed to hearing it, so it is acceptable.

 

[5jj]

If the person who said, "She realised she had made a terrible mistake" is a native speaker of the language, s/he made the statement in a way that s/he is accustomed to hearing it, so it is acceptable.

Regrettably we have to say that not everything that native speakers say, especially in informal conversation, is acceptable in semi-formal/formal writing; sometimes it is not even acceptable in formal speech. Equally, of course, some things found in formal writing would be inappropriate in a conversation between, for example, young men in a pub.

In kobeobie's sentence, the word 'that' is, as Chicken Sandwich said, optional. The more formal the context, the more likely 'that' is to be heard/seen, in my opinion.

 

[Tuco]

Regrettably we have to say that not everything that native speakers say, especially in informal conversation, is acceptable in semi-formal/formal writing; sometimes it is not even acceptable in formal speech. Equally, of course, some things found in formal writing would be inappropriate in a conversation between, for example, young men in a pub.

In kobeobie's sentence, the word 'that' is, as Chicken Sandwich said, optional. The more formal the context, the more likely 'that' is to be heard/seen, in my opinion.

It may not be common in formal speech, but when someone, a parvenu perhaps, makes it into an upper class, this person might make an utterance that has not been heard in that class to that point. That doesn't make it "wrong." To say it is wrong would be taking a snap-shot of the language as it was, and trying to maintain that as a prescriptive norm.

 

[emsr2d2]

Omitting "that" is perfectly acceptable in everyday speech and is what you will hear from the majority of BrE speakers. I would not recommend omitting it in an exam situation or in an oral exam. It's better to be safe than sorry.

 

[bhaisahab]

It may not be common in formal speech, but when someone, a parvenu perhaps, makes it into an upper class, this person might make an utterance that has not been heard in that class to that point. That doesn't make it "wrong." To say it is wrong would be taking a snap-shot of the language as it was, and trying to maintain that as a prescriptive norm.

Nobody has said that it is wrong.

 

[5jj]

It may not be common in formal speech, but when someone, a parvenu perhaps, makes it into an upper class, this person might make an utterance that has not been heard in that class to that point. That doesn't make it "wrong." To say it is wrong would be taking a snap-shot of the language as it was, and trying to maintain that as a prescriptive norm.

I did not use the word 'wrong' in my post.

If two young men are talking in a pub, and one says that a foreman has been reprimanding the workforce for leaving work early, it is possible that the other might remark, "I ain't gonna take no sh*t like that from no foreman b*st*ard". The language itself is acceptable in that context, and the grammar would probably not strike anybody present as incorrect.

However, if our young man wishes to enter different social circles, and/or gain employment as, for example, a bank clerk, shop assistant, lawyer, etc, then he will have to learn to express himself in a different way. That language will be considered unacceptable. If he uses it when attempting to pass an English language examination he will find that it is considered incorrect, and he will fail the examination.

 

[5jj]

Omitting "that" is perfectly acceptable in everyday speech and is what you will hear from the majority of BrE speakers. I would not recommend omitting it in an exam situation or in an oral exam. It's better to be safe than sorry.

That might have been true a few years ago, but I think that the main British examining boards are far less concerned about insisting on the 'best' English these days. I am not so sure about American examining bodies.

 

[Chicken Sandwich]

*** Not a teacher ***

If the person who said, "She realised she had made a terrible mistake" is a native speaker of the language, s/he made the statement in a way that s/he is accustomed to hearing it, so it is acceptable.

I disagree with your argument that everything a native speaker says is correct in all contexts by definition. I have heard on many occasion native speakers say, 'I got a question', meaning, 'I have a question'. The fact that it was said by a native speaker, doesn't make it right in all contexts.
If everyone starts saying, 'I got a question', meaning, 'I have a question', then at some point, even the most conservative grammarian will have to admit that the English language has changed. At the moment, in some circles, 'I got a question', is OK, it isn't in most though.

On the other hand, 'I haves a question', is, as it stands, incorrect, because you won't find a single native speaker saying this. This may change, but I don't see it happening any time soon.

 

[Tuco]

I know that you can in certain circumstances omit the relative pronoun in a relative clause but the above example does not appear to be a relative clause. My question is this when is it OK to omit the word "that"?

Perhaps someone can quote you the prescriptive rule. It seems to me "that" is simply unnecessary in this context, like saying, "Where is it at."

I'll be interested to see the answer.

 

[emsr2d2]

As far as BrE is concerned, I recall spending a lot of time explaining to incredulous Spaniards that English (as a language) is simply not taught to British children in school. Because of the complexities of the grammar (verb endings etc) in many European languages, for example, children are properly taught to speak their own language. We are not. British children learn to speak their own language through experience, by listening and by repetition.

As a child, I was lucky. My parents and my grandfather were very keen on grammar and on language generally, and all spoke various foreign languages. They helped me more with my essays etc than with any other subject. When I went to secondary school, everyone was obliged to take one extra subject for one year. The choices were psychology, Latin or grammar. There were 180 people in my year. Of those 180, seven of us chose grammar.

My best friend decided to learn to speak French at the age of 42. She attended a beginners' class but was flummoxed at the very first class (as were most of her classmates) when the teacher said "OK, we're going to start by conjugating the verb "etre" and then we will move on to other verbs". My friend had never conjugated a verb in her life, had no idea what the terms "first person singular", "third person plural" etc meant. She did not know the difference between a verb, a noun, an adjective, an adverb or any other grammatical term. The class teacher, who was French, was very surprised that about 80% of the students had no knowledge whatsoever of English grammar. They were not only beginners in French, they were beginners in grammar.

My point is that if you ask the average BrE speaker to explain the construction of a sentence, or ask them if something is grammatically correct or not, they will be unable to answer you. As far as most of them are concerned, if they can understand what you mean, then you've said it correctly.

 

[5jj]

Perhaps someone can quote you the prescriptive rule. It seems to me "that" is simply unnecessary in this context, like saying, "Where is it at."

I have looked back through the thread; no mention has been made of a prescriptive rule. If you wish to discuss the acceptability of "Where is it at?", we'll do that in a separate thread.

 

[Tuco]

I have looked back through the thread; no mention has been made of a prescriptive rule. If you wish to discuss the acceptability of "Where is it at?", we'll do that in a separate thread.

No, no, I was just making a comparison to show how I viewed the necessity of "that" in the example sentence in post 1.

I did not use the word 'wrong' in my post.

You're right, nobody mentioned wrong, or prescription. Maybe I have a hang-up. I read, "I know that you can in certain circumstances omit the relative pronoun in a relative clause but the above example does not appear to be a relative clause." That sounded to me as though a prescriptive rule was being addressed, and sought.

 

[5jj]

I don't necessarily agree with this [= post #12. 5jj]. It's true that English has relatively "simple" grammar compared to other European languages (German for one), ...

The thoughts of Chicken Sandwich and of emsr2d2 are interesting. However, may I suggest that people interested in pursuing this line do so in a separate thread. This thread is about omitting the word 'that'. Threads on usage can very easily get sidetracked. Thank you.

(Later) I have now moved the posts on this different topic to a new thread here.