armanborja
New member
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2013
- Member Type
- Other
- Native Language
- Tagalog
- Home Country
- Philippines
- Current Location
- Philippines
How to diagram "that" in a sentence. For example, "I am persuaded that he is able to do it."
Thanks
Thanks
How to diagram "that" in a sentence. For example, "I am persuaded that he is able to do it."
Thanks
"That" is a subordinating conjunction introducing the content clause "that he is able to do it", which functions as complement to the verb "persuaded". Subordinating conjunctions are meaningless words used mark a clause as subordinate.How to diagram "that" in a sentence. For example, "I am persuaded that he is able to do it." Thanks
Both "that" and "if" are certainly conjunctions in those sentences, more specifically finite clause subordinating conjunctions.In any case, "that" is not a conjunction but rather a function word, like "if" in "I wonder if it will rain." Although in that case the "if" serves more of a purpose.
"That" is a subordinating conjunction introducing the content clause "that he is able to do it", which functions as complement to the verb "persuaded". Subordinating conjunctions are meaningless words used mark a clause as subordinate. Both "that" and "if" are certainly conjunctions in those sentences, more specifically finite clause subordinating conjunctions.
I agree. :up:Calling them "function words" is OK, but "function word" is not a recognized part of speech.
I am quite sure that according to Reed-Kellogg, the word "that" is never a conjunction. The word "if" certainly can be.
"That" can be a relative pronoun, a demonstrative adjective, a demonstrative pronoun, or a "function" word, but not a conjunction. True, "funtion word" is not one of that practically sacred number of EIGHT parts of speech, but interjections are suspect in that they are not bound by syntax, and expletives are also a little different.
But, if it comforts, one to think of this "that" in a group with "because, when, before, as," etc., then ok.
It is simply not what Reed-Kellogg would say. And the original request was how to diagram it. This "that" has a very special job to to. It introduces noun clauses and does not need to be there.
I suspected as much. In any case, we wait for the diagram.
Actually, I should not leave it at that. Calling "that" a conjunction is a cop out. "That" is different. Sometimes linguists refer to the decay of the cases or gender, or something like that, referring to the way that languages have tended over time to become more simple. I believe that the same may be true for descriptive grammar. "That" is not like "other" conjunctions. Consider "dass" in German. But, if "that" so used must have a quick title, as a dictionary would tend to give, "conjunction" is not bad.
But... the diagram?
It seems you're not quite up-to-date with the developments in 21st-century grammar. There is actually no need for the category "conjunction" at all nowadays; it's replaced by the two distinct primary categories "subordinator" (formerly "subordinating conjunction") and "coordinator" (formerly "coordinating conjunction"). The most central members of the subordinator category are "that", "whether", and one use of "if" — when it can be used in place of "whether", as in "I wonder whether/if she is OK". These words, which you call function words, are meaningless words whose role is to mark the clause they introduce as subordinate. By contrast, words like "because", "when", "before", and "as", traditionally viewed as conjunctions, are now analyzed as prepositions because they are not semantically empty markers of subordination; they have independent meaning and introduce head + dependent constructions.I am quite sure that according to Reed-Kellogg, the word "that" is never a conjunction. The word "if" certainly can be. "That" can be a relative pronoun, a demonstrative adjective, a demonstrative pronoun, or a "function" word, but not a conjunction. True, "funtion word" is not one of that practically sacred number of EIGHT parts of speech, but interjections are suspect in that they are not bound by syntax, and expletives are also a little different. But, if it comforts, one to think of this "that" in a group with "because, when, before, as," etc., then ok. It is simply not what Reed-Kellogg would say. And the original request was how to diagram it. This "that" has a very special job to to. It introduces noun clauses and does not need to be there.
In any case, we wait for the diagram.
True. I am not up-to-date. But, from what I have seen, there have been no improvements in descriptive grammar that make diagramming any better or more fun. Reed-Kellogg is amazingly complete that way. Within that system, "that" as a function word is diagrammed differently from coordinating or subordinating conjunctions, or "transitional adverbs", for that matter. But, regardless of what you choose to call "that", I keep returning to the start of this thread which asked about diagramming. Probably within other systems of diagramming this "that" can be treated much as a conjunction.
"Preposition" within Reed-Kellogg is a word that begins a prepositional phrase, not one that begins a subordinate clause, and that matters greatly within the diagram of a sentence.
The difference between the British terms and the traditional American terms is virtually always present within this forum. Perhaps that is what is going on.
But... the diagram?
Perhaps I will diagram this sentence as a short video on my Youtube channel. I should probably do that. Reed-Kellogg diagramming is awkward and a chore on a computer, but a joy on a blackboard
I submitted a diagram here and in another thread yesterday, but they went into moderation and never got approved. I'll try once more.But... the diagram?
Sorry. I don't know what happened there. I have now taken your first diagram out of moderation and deleted the (now unnecessary) second,I submitted a diagram here and in another thread yesterday, but they went into moderation and never got approved. I'll try once more.