How to diagram

[armanborja]

How to diagram "that" in a sentence. For example, "I am persuaded that he is able to do it."

Thanks

 

[MikeNewYork]

How to diagram "that" in a sentence. For example, "I am persuaded that he is able to do it."

Thanks

It is difficult to reproduce diagramming on a web site. In your sentence, "that" is a conjunction. It has no independent meaning and no place in the following clause.

 

[Frank Antonson]

Reed-Kellog would say that "that" is a "function word" simply serving the function of introducing a noun clause. MikeNewYork is right. It does not need to be there. It is like "dass" in German. In a R-K diagram it would go on a "stand" made by a dotted line above the simple predicate "is". (I think) Actually this is quite interesting. I think that "he is able to do it" is an objective complement -- something often forgotten. It would be analogous to "angry" in "I am made angry" ( I am caused to be angry.) or "chairman" in "I am elected (to be) chairman. Compare to "The sun made the tomatoes ripe" Not sure about this. It should make for some discussion.

 

[Frank Antonson]

"I think that he is able to do it" would be very easy. The fact that "I am persuaded" is in the passive voice complicates things. 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.

 

[Sawsawxx]

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.

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.

Both "that" and "if" are certainly conjunctions in those sentences, more specifically finite clause subordinating conjunctions.

 

[MikeNewYork]

"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 completely agree that "that" in the first sentence and "if" in the following example are conjunctions. Calling them "function words" is OK, but "function word" is not a recognized part of speech.

 

[Sawsawxx]

Calling them "function words" is OK, but "function word" is not a recognized part of speech.

I agree. :up:

 

[Frank Antonson1]

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.

 

[MikeNewYork]

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 have no idea what Reed-Kellogg would say, but dictionaries routinely list "that" as a conjunction. When it is used "to introduce noun clauses", calling it a conjunction is appropriate.

 

[Frank Antonson1]

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?

 

[MikeNewYork]

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?

The cop out is "function word". "Conjunction" is a perfectly reasonable name for a word that conjoins two things.

 

[Sawsawxx]

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.

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.

 

[Sawsawxx]

In any case, we wait for the diagram.

 

[Frank Antonson1]

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

 

[MikeNewYork]

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 agree with you. New grammar theories develop all the time. Some stay, others go away. The Reed-Kellogg is excellent for teaching learners about how different parts of speech interact with each other in sentences. It will not cure cancer, but it serves a real purpose. I went to a Reed-Kellogg site to try to diagram the original sentence, but it refused to recognize the initial example as a full sentence. I agree that diagramming is more fun on a blackboard.

 

[Sawsawxx]

But... the diagram?

I submitted a diagram here and in another thread yesterday, but they went into moderation and never got approved. I'll try once more.

 

[5jj]

I submitted a diagram here and in another thread yesterday, but they went into moderation and never got approved. I'll try once more.

Sorry. I don't know what happened there. I have now taken your first diagram out of moderation and deleted the (now unnecessary) second,

 

[Sawsawxx]

Thanks, 5jj. (Typo -- in the diagram the category for "able to do it" should be AdjP, not VP.)

 

[Frank Antonson1]

Very nicely done. Thanks.

Today at some point I will diagram the sentence on Youtube. I will alert this forum when I have uploaded it.

A very great difference between your system and Reed-Kellogg is all of the labeling. In R-K there is none. Everything is shown by the lines and the position of the parts. No doubt that is one of the reasons for its former great popularity. If you are unfamiliar with it, you may find it interesting. The sentence is very quickly done, once the syntax has been figured out, which, I believe is actually quite tricky because of the passive voice and the objective complement.

 

[Frank Antonson1]

Here is the link which will show you the Reed-Kellogg version of the sentence:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgNIG6QNBoY