[Grammar] When there are two that clauses in a sentence

[MichaelLu2000]

Hello people!

I have been taught that when there are two "that clauses" in a sentence, the second that should not be omitted.

For example,

I know (that) he loves me and that he will do everything for me.

However, I am wondering if the rule also applies to that clauses connected by a different conjunction.

For example,

I know (that) he loves me but that he won't forgive me for everything.

I think (that) we should do whatever he says or that he will kill us.

Are these sentences correct?

Any advice is welcome.

Thanks

 

[Tdol]

I am not convinced that your starting rule is a real rule.

 

[jutfrank]

I know (that) he loves me but that he won't forgive me for everything.

That's not good as it doesn't make good sense. Since there are two things that 'I know', you could use and instead of but.

I know (that) he loves me and [I know] that he won't forgive me.

I've put the second I know in square brackets to show that I'm merely expanding the thought, not adding an optional part of the sentence. If you do include the second I know as part of the sentence, the second that is not necessary, but if the second I know is not explicitly part of the sentence, then the second that works to make clear that the following he won't forgive me is the second of two thoughts that 'I know'.

However, if you want to express the sense of contrast that but brings, you should repeat I know.

I know (that) he loves me but I (also) know (that) he won't forgive me.

I think (that) we should do whatever he says or that he will kill us.

That's not right. I suspect that what you mean is this:

I think (that) we should do exactly what he says or he'll kill us.

With this phrasing, it's not possible to repeat that before he'll kill us. There are not two thoughts that 'I think', but only one. The or he'll kill us part is not the second thing that 'I think', it is simply the consequence of not doing what he says.

If you really want to express that the ideas contained in both clauses (we should do exactly what he says and he'll kill us) are only opinions, by prefacing both with I think, you could phrase it like this:

I think (that) we should do exactly what he says or I think (that) he'll kill us.

In this rather unlikely thought, the second I think is necessary.

 

[MichaelLu2000]

What if the the "or" part implies an alternative?

For example,

"This does not necessarily mean that it is bad or that the event covered is unimportant" This is a sentence I found in TIME Magazine Corpus of American English, which I think is a reliable source of context.

 

[jutfrank]

"This does not necessarily mean that it is bad or that the event covered is unimportant".

Yes, that's obviously okay. There are two things that this does not necessarily mean.

In your 'or' sentence, there's only one thing that 'I think'. The idea is that he'll kill us if we don't do what he says. You could replace or with the word otherwise. This is not exactly the same use of or.

 

[MichaelLu2000]

I think I understand what you mean right now.

Let me interpret what you said in this way:

1. I think that (we should do whatever he said, or he'll kill us). The part between the parentheses is considered to belong to the same clause led by "that"

2. The government announced yesterday that (all tariffs would be abolished, but the new law wouldn't apply to the automobiles and other imported vehicles). Again, the part between the parentheses belongs to the same that clause.

3. It didn't suggest (that he was the murderer) or (that he had something to do with the murderer). These are two different things: He was the murder & He had something to do with the murderer.

4. I know that (he will say he loves me) and that (he will then kiss me). There are two different things here: He will say he loves me & He will then kiss me.

Have I distinguished between them correctly?

 

[MichaelLu2000]

However, I have also seen sentences like this:

She said that she would come, but she might be late. (Wrong!)
She said that she would come, but that she might be late.

It claims that the first sentence is wrong.

 

[emsr2d2]

However, I have also seen sentences like this:

She said that she would come, but she might be late. (Wrong!)
She said that she would come, but that she might be late.

It claims that the first sentence is wrong.

That claim is wrong. Sentence 1 is perfectly acceptable (in BrE, at least).

 

[jutfrank]

Have I distinguished between them correctly?

Yes, that's right. You've understood what I was saying.


In the example She said that she would come but she might be late, you could interpret either that she said only one thing (that she would come) or that she said two things (that she would come and that she might be late). If you interpret that she said only that she would come, you could then interpret that the prediction she might be late comes not from her but from somebody else (perhaps the speaker.)

I assume the person who said it was wrong was making a point that if you mean that she said two things, the sentence would be clearer with the repeated that. In casual speech, however, the second that may well be omitted.

 

[MichaelLu2000]

Is it still correct if we consider both events to be the claims of the speaker?

For example,

I told him (that I would come, but I would be late.)

They are in the same that clause.

 

[MichaelLu2000]

I actually want to put them in the same that clause, as in "He told me he knew the answer, but he couldn't tell me right now"

Both of the events were said by the same speaker.

 

[MichaelLu2000]

Yes, that's right. You've understood what I was saying.


In the example She said that she would come but she might be late, you could interpret either that she said only one thing (that she would come) or that she said two things (that she would come and that she might be late). If you interpret that she said only that she would come, you could then interpret that the prediction she might be late comes not from her but from somebody else (perhaps the speaker.)

I assume the person who said it was wrong was making a point that if you mean that she said two things, the sentence would be clearer with the repeated that. In casual speech, however, the second that may well be omitted.

Here, I would like to say, for some conjunctions, such as but, so, or (to mean otherwise), and for, the second that should not be included at all. Here's my reason.

When we said:

I am not saying (that) he's stupid or that he's not working hard. The second that should be kept because we are talking about two separate things that are not related to each other at all.

Again, in this sentence:

He said (that) Jack got married yesterday, and that Mike was the priest. The second is again necessary because we are talking about two separate things that are not related to each other.

However, when using other conjunctions, separating two events might make the second part ambiguous.

For example,

He said (that) he put the cup on the table, so "that" he would not knock it over by accident. The second that makes the second part an independent clause, which is not meaningful without the connection with the first part. (You don't use "so he would not knock over by accident" alone without the first sentence led by that)

He said (that) we should do whatever she said or "that" she would kill us. Again, the "that" clause after "or" is not meaningful as an independent clause.

She said (that) she knew the answer but "that" she couldn't tell me right now. As you've mentioned, we could assume that the speaker says two things: That she knew the answer and That she couldn't tell me now"

However, if look more closely, we will find that separating what the person said into two independent "that clauses" makes the second part ambiguous again. The "but part" is only meaningful when considered to be a part of the whole "that clause" after "She said". (You don't use "but she couldn't tell me now" without the first sentence.)

Unlike Or (to mean alternative) or And, which simply shows an alternative or connects two independent sentences, "but (to mean however but as a conjunction)", "or (to mean otherwise)", and "so (to mean reason)", are conjunctions that entail connection with the first sentence and should not be considered to be an independent clause when used in the same sentence.