The meaning of the "that"

[GoldfishLord]

(1) The farm was flooded, with the result that most of the harvest was lost.
(2) The fact that he is your brother-in-law should not affect your decision.

PS "with the result being that", "with the result that", and "the result being that" all are used interchangeably.
------
Is the meaning of "that" the same as the meaning of "that"?

 

[TheParser]

NOT A TEACHER


Hello, GoldfishLord:

I have found some information that may interest you.

*****

1. "The idea THAT CAME TO ME seemed brilliant."

a. One expert says "that" is a relative pronoun. It is the SUBJECT of the ADJECTIVE CLAUSE "that came to me," which modifies "idea."

2. "The idea THAT MULROY IS A THIEF is ridiculous."

a. The same expert says "that" is NOT a relative pronoun. It is NOT a subject or object of the NOUN clause "that Mulroy is a thief," which is in apposition with "idea." (He calls "that" in the sentence a subordinating conjunction.)

b. NOTE: This expert feels, however, that it is NOT "incongruous" to label "that Mulroy is a thief" as an adjective clause, if one so wishes.



Source: Paul Roberts, Understanding Grammar (1954), page 313.

 

[GoldfishLord]

2. "The idea THAT MULROY IS A THIEF is ridiculous."

a. The same expert says "that" is NOT a relative pronoun. It is NOT a subject or object of the NOUN clause "that Mulroy is a thief," which is in apposition with "idea." (He calls "that" in the sentence a subordinating conjunction.)

b. NOTE: This expert feels, however, that it is NOT "incongruous" to label "that Mulroy is a thief" as an adjective clause, if one so wishes.

Could you let me know whether you think that "that" and "that" are interchangeable?

 

[Matthew Wai]

(1) The result that most of the harvest was lost.
(2) The fact that he is your brother-in-law.

"That" connects "The result" and a clause.
"That" connects "The fact" and a clause.

"The result" and "The fact" are not clauses, so I don't think "that" and "that" are subordinating conjunctions according to the following:

"Subordinating conjunctions are parts of speech that join dependent clauses to independent clauses."—quoted from https://www.gingersoftware.com/content/grammar-rules/conjunctions/subordinating-conjunctions/

 

[GoldfishLord]

(1) The result that most of the harvest was lost.
(2) The fact that he is your brother-in-law.

"That" connects "The result" and a clause.
"That" connects "The fact" and a clause.

"The result" and "The fact" are not clauses, so I don't think "that" and "that" are subordinating conjunctions according to the following:

"Subordinating conjunctions are parts of speech that join dependent clauses to independent clauses."—quoted from https://www.gingersoftware.com/content/grammar-rules/conjunctions/subordinating-conjunctions/

Thank you very much but I'd like to think about it from the viewpoint of "Source: Paul Roberts, Understanding Grammar (1954), page 313".
And "with the result being that", "with the result that", and "the result being that" all are used interchangeably.

 

[jutfrank]

It seems to me that the two thats are being used in different ways.

In (1), the result that = the result (being) that

In (2), the fact that is not to say the fact (being) that

As The Parser points out, in (2), that he is your brother-in-law is apposite to the fact. That means that that he is your brother-in-law is a way of renaming the noun phrase the fact. I don't think that's the case in (1) because the result is understood to mean the result [of the flooding] and the harvest was lost is not a way of renaming.

Notably, in (2) you could omit that whereas in (1) you can't. I assume this is evidence that (1) is not appositive.

[Not a grammarian]

 

[Matthew Wai]

(2) The fact that he is your brother-in-law should not affect your decision.

I think "The fact" can be omitted.
"That he is your brother-in-law should not affect your decision."
The that-clause, a noun clause, is the subject.

[Not a teacher/grammarian/native speaker. Just a learner.]

 

[Rover_KE]

I think "The fact" can be omitted.
"That he is your brother-in-law should not affect your decision."

That is very unnatural, and I strongly advise learners not to use that construction.

 

[Phaedrus]

(1) The farm was flooded, with the result that most of the harvest was lost.
(2) The fact that he is your brother-in-law should not affect your decision.

PS "with the result being that", "with the result that", and "the result being that" all are used interchangeably.
------
Is the meaning of "that" the same as the meaning of "that"?

As I see it, both "that"s are of the same type. Both are complementizers introducing noun-complement clauses (or "appositive clauses").

I do not think it is correct to analyze "being" as elided in (1), for, in a standard nominative-absolute construction, it could not be elided.

(3) *[strike]The farm was flooded, the result that most of the harvest was lost.[/strike]

But the meaning is the same. There would also be the same meaning if we substituted "(with) the result that" with "in consequence of which."

(4) The farm was flooded, in consequence of which most of the harvest was lost.

In (4), "in consequence of which most of the harvest was lost" is a sentential relative clause. It is not even remotely a noun-complement clause.

By the way, the word "complementizer" wasn't around in 1954. I'm comfortable with "subordinating conjunction," just so long as we don't think this kind of "that" functions like "when," "after," "before," "unless," etc. It functions in a totally different way. It connects a noun and a sentence. (In other uses, complementizer "that" introduces verbal complement clauses: "He said that his name was John." There, too, a complete sentence-phrase follows "that.")

 

[jutfrank]

As I see it, both "that"s are of the same type. Both are complementizers introducing noun-complement clauses (or "appositive clauses").

I do not think it is correct to analyze "being" as elided in (1), for, in a standard nominative-absolute construction, it could not be elided.

(3) *[strike]The farm was flooded, the result that most of the harvest was lost.[/strike]

But the meaning is the same. There would also be the same meaning if we substituted "(with) the result that" with "in consequence of which."

(4) The farm was flooded, in consequence of which most of the harvest was lost.

In (4), "in consequence of which most of the harvest was lost" is a sentential relative clause. It is not even remotely a noun-complement clause.

After considering Phaedrus' comments above , I'd like to take back my analysis in my post #6.

The farm was flooded, with the result that most of the harvest was lost.

Here, being cannot be understood as elided. with the result that = in consequence of which

The farm was flooded, the result being that most of the harvest was lost.

But here, being cannot be elided. the result being that = the result of which was that

 

[TheParser]

NOT A TEACHER

I have stumbled across some information that I wish to share.

*****

1. It is an ADVERBIAL clause that follows "subordinators" such as "so that" and "with the result that."

a. "The guests came early, WITH THE RESULT THAT they had to wait."



Source: Website result with the title "40 subordinate clauses of adverbial positions - StudFiles." (It seems to be an English-teaching website for Russian speakers.)

 

[Phaedrus]

I have stumbled across some information that I wish to share.

*****

1. It is an ADVERBIAL clause that follows "subordinators" such as "so that" and "with the result that."

a. "The guests came early, WITH THE RESULT THAT they had to wait."

That's an interesting take. I wonder how the Russian StudFiles would handle modifiers within the phrase -- for example:

a1. The guests came early, with the UNFORTUNATE result that they had to wait.

Would they say "with the unfortunate result that" is another subordinator unto itself? How about "with the surprising result that"?

I embrace the StudFiles' adverbial analysis, but I'd analyze "with the result that . . ." as an adverbial prepositional phrase.

 

[GoldfishLord]

I do not think it is correct to analyze "being" as elided in (1), for, in a standard nominative-absolute construction, it could not be elided.

(3) *[strike]The farm was flooded, the result that most of the harvest was lost.[/strike]

But the meaning is the same. There would also be the same meaning if we substituted "(with) the result that" with "in consequence of which."

(4) The farm was flooded, in consequence of which most of the harvest was lost.

Question 1. Would you let me know exactly what meaning "There, be" have in that context?
--------------
(5) There's no point in arguing about it

Question 2. Would you let me know whether the meaning of "There's" is the same as that of "There, be"?

 

[Matthew Wai]

Question 1. Could you let me know exactly what meaning "There, be" have in that context?

"There would also be" is used in a second conditional sentence: https://www.usingenglish.com/glossary/conditionals.html