Talk:That

out of curiousity

is it grammatically allowed to have two that's?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bud0011 (talk • contribs) .

That makes "those". -Goldom (t) (Review) 05:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

sorry, i don't follow Bud0011 05:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

if you are talking about the word 'that', then cant you say 'That that'

If you are talking about a thing called 'That' that said the word 'that' then cant you say: That 'that', that that That said was 'that'.

There is more than one meaning of "that" - as a pronoun or to join two clauses together (eg. "I see that it's raining"). You don't need to quote "that" in order to have a grammatically correct sentence with two "thats" next to each other. Eg. I hope that that chicken is edible. If you think about the two "thats" in that sentence, you'll see they don't have exactly the same meaning as each other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.109.27.34 (talk) 00:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Is "that" a very common word?

Like I said before, "that" is a very common word in the English language. Does anybody knows the question, "Is "that" a very common word?" ExpandD2003 (talk) 10:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Schwede66 (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that?
  • ALT1: ... þæt?

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/MicroMacro: Crime City
• Comment: DYK check says no 5x expansion; the previous version is 1063 characters and the nominated one is 5375, which should be enough (5x would be 5315, no? if I made a mistake I can expand more over the next couple days). If this type of hook isn't acceptable I will probably withdraw this, just let me know...

5x expanded by Urve (talk). Self-nominated at 12:35, 26 November 2021 (UTC).

• Just a drive-by comment and not a review, but that is a brilliant hook. Love it! Schwede66 17:33, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Now, if only I could tell you how difficult the article was to write. Take a google scholar search for that... :) Urve (talk) 21:47, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
    • That is a serious case of scholarly work! Now that I’ve read your article I can easily say that. Would not have been easy to write. BTW, the "See also" section goes above the "References" section. Schwede66 07:03, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Thanks and thanks! Urve (talk) 07:07, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: @Urve: I just had to review this one because its such a creative and a bit wacky of a hook idea, and I totally agree with Schwede66 that it is really good. I was talking with my friend and then just thought, screw it, I have to give it a shot. Assuming good faith on the offline sources cited within the article proper with no discernible issues, of proper length and submission date. The sole major concern I have is that the hook isn't cited, which is difficult when the hook is a single word in itself, and thus would be nearly impossible to cite. Apart from that I think it should be totally set. I'm a bit of a new reviewer so I can't really say for sure if there's a policy which addresses this in special circumstances, which is why I want to get a second opinion on this. Perhaps @Theleekycauldron: can give it a glance if they're able to? Ornithoptera (talk) 08:19, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• I am but biased and blinded by the glory of this wonderful hook :) in all seriousness, it should be excellent and I absolutely cannot wait for its run. I'll have to let someone else promote since I'm going to formally sign off on this thing, though. Also, I'm going to third Schwede66's congrats on writing this because that absolutely cannot have been easy. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 08:21, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

To Prep4

proximal versus distal.

The opening paragraph states: "it has proximal distance from the speaker", which seems mistaken to me. Later under Modern Usage, "the word is a distal demonstrative pronoun, as opposed to proximal" Shouldn't the first phrase read distal, if anything? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsawangdorje (talk • contribs) 03:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Changed; the word was used colloquially. Urve (talk) 03:23, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Let's blow up the "Modern usage" section and start over

This article currently says in Wikipedia's voice: "That can be used as a demonstrative pronoun, demonstrative adjective, conjunction, relative word, and an intensifier", attributing this syntactic gobbledigook to a paper whose relevant part actually reads:

Arthur Sefton, writing over two hundred years [after Joseph Addison], accepts that as a relative pronoun but instead objects to its use as an intensifier. He constructs sentence (2) to illustrate what he considers the 'legitimate' uses of that, as a demonstrative pronoun, demonstrative adjective, conjunction, relative pronoun and 'relative adverb' (the first that in his sentence).

(2) On the day that I came, I saw that that that that man did was wrong. (1984, Times Education Supplement)

The 'illegitimate' use of that, as an intensifier, occurs in expressions such as it's not that important: this use detracts, Sefton claims, from the two essential functions of that, which are 'to join and to demonstrate'. It is interesting that both these authors [sc Joseph Addison and Arthur Sefton] were as secure in their convictions as they were wrong on their facts: that as a relativizer predates the use of the wh- pronouns, and that as an intensifier has essentially the same function as when it is a demonstrative or a conjunction, as this paper will show. [my emphasis]

Blithely ignoring the fact that it's citing as some sort of linguistics insight what was apparently written in an unidentified issue of the TLS by one Arthur Sefton (who he?) and debunked in the very paper it cites, our Wikipedia article takes seriously Sefton's analysis for its section "Modern usage".

When I write above of syntactic gobbledigook, I mean that the analysis is to what is argued for (and not just proclaimed) in a good reference grammar (such as The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language) rather as a phrenological account of some psychological tendency is to what you'd find about the matter in a recent psychology text.

I propose not to improve the "Modern usage" section of this article but to delete it and start it again from scratch. OK? -- Hoary (talk) 00:22, 23 December 2023 (UTC)