Dave's ESL Cafe's Student Discussion Forums

[hiromichi]

Since "we can say in retrospect" is an inserted phrase, is "that" to be eliminated?


The peak of protest was also the moment when we can say, in retrospect, that the seeds of the confrontation
of 1968 were sown.
_________________
Hiromichi

[dragn]

I really hesitated in trying to answer this one. I understand the sentence perfectly, but I must be dense because I'm honestly not sure if I understand your question (or your personal definition of an "inserted phrase").

Well, whatever. It's late. I am sure of one thing, however. The sentence is absolutely 100 percent grammatically correct as it stands. Why you wish to eliminate that, or why you seem to believe it needs to be eliminated, is unclear to me. But it's perfect just the way it is.

For what it's worth, I believe you could leave out that with no serious ill effects, but it really sounds better with it. When you insert a phrase (in this case "in retrospect") between the verb (say) and a THAT-clause, it is normally preferable to leave the word that in there for clarity.

I have no clue if I am answering your question or not (probably not), but that's my feeling about the sentence.

Greg

[hiromichi]

dragn:
Let me clarify my question.

1. The peak of protest was also the moment when the seeds of the confrontation of 1968 were sown.
2. The peak of protest was also the moment that the seeds of the confrontation of 1968 were sown.

If I add or insert "I can say, in retrospect,", then , either 3 or 4.

3.The peak of protest was also the moment when we can say, in retrospect, the seeds of the confrontation of 1968 were sown.
4. The peak of protest was also the moment we can say, in retrospect, that the seeds of the confrontation of 1968 were sown.
_________________
Hiromichi

[dragn]

OK, I think I get it.

With your indulgence, I'd like to modify the original sentence to something that is structurally identical, but much shorter and easier to deal with. This will help focus attention on the important points without getting too bogged down.

1. That was the moment the argument started.

As far as the inserted phrase is concerned, it's probably not wrong but seems clumsy to me to call something an inserted phrase that has a comma contained within it, because inserted phrases are themselves frequently set off with commas. This can easily lead to an overabundance of commas. Why don't we just say that our inserted phrase is "I can say in retrospect" and let the commas fall where they may. Comma placement is rather flexible anyway.

[Note: I think that was part of my confusion about your original question. I don't think when is part of the inserted phrase.]

Either of the relative pronouns that or when can be used in the original, but both can be omitted as in 1.

2. That was the moment when the argument started.

3. That was the moment that the argument started.

When we insert our phrase into the original, we have:

4. That was the moment, I can say in retrospect, the argument started.

Now, let's try putting our relative pronouns back in:

5. That was the moment when, I can say in retrospect, the argument started.

6. That was the moment that, I can say in retrospect, the argument started.

7. That was the moment, I can say in retrospect, when the argument started.

8. That was the moment, I can say in retrospect, that the argument started.

All of the above are grammatically acceptable, but I would probably write 5.

According to sentences 3 and 4 in your previous post, you want to say the following two sentences:

9. That was the moment when I can say, in retrospect, the argument started.

10. That was the moment I can say, in retrospect, that the argument started.

Moving the first comma makes it seem as if the inserted phrase is just "in retrospect," but that's fine. Six of one, half a dozen of the other, as we say. Both of the above sentences are still grammatically acceptable.

However, let's take a closer look at the comma placement:

11. That was the moment when, I can say in retrospect, the argument started.

12. That was the moment, I can say in retrospect, that the argument started.

13. That was the moment when I can say, in retrospect, the argument started.

14. That was the moment I can say, in retrospect, that the argument started. (?)

I would write 11 or 12 because I just think they are slightly clearer. The reader doesn't need to waste a millisecond of his time wondering whether the moment in question is when the argument started or when the speaker could say something. Although this is still clear in 13 when you consider the overall sentence, as you read 13 and get to that point in the sentence for the first time, that fact doesn't necessarily jump right out at you. I just wouldn't write 14 because to me it sounds awkward. I r-e-a-l-l-y want to put the comma after moment in 14, as in 12. Example 12, with a pause after moment, sounds clearer to my ear than 14.

I'm curious...Is there some "rule" you've learned previously in regard to this sort of thing? I'm not asking so that I can belittle what you have been taught in school, but just so that I can more clearly understand your thinking about the grammar involved here. I know many times grammar "rules" are taught in schools around the world, especially in Asia, that are really just tendencies among native speakers. I understand, however, that this is a "necessary evil" sometimes. At least such manufactured rules usually guide students to forming correct sentences. They also help compensate for the fact that students in other countries haven't had the luxury of growing up listening to perfect English.

Anyway, I hope this is clear and helpful in some way.

Greg

[hiromichi]

dragn:
Thank you very much for your detailed explanation.
Regarding 'commas', my choices are two.
1. ,we can say in retrospect,
2. No commas
So I found the original sentence quoted in my question awkward.

However, my point of question is: either 'that' or 'when' is to be eliminated from the original sentence unless it is ungrammatical.
Yoroshiku Onegaishimasu.
_________________
Hiromichi

[hiromichi]

Dragn:
Let me add an explanation to my question.

We have three patterns of 'S+think +X'.

1. He said he was right.
2. He said that he was right.
3. He said hello.

In case of a quoted sentence in question, the above 3 is involved. In other words X should be 'he was right' not 'that he was right.'
_________________
Hiromichi

[redset]

Just to weigh in here, a parenthesis (the inserted phrase) is basically some extra information you're adding to a sentence which is already complete. What you're doing is pausing in the middle of a sentence, to mention something else, and then continuing with the original sentence.

So in this sense the parenthesis should be surrounded by commas (or dashes or parentheses), and removing it should be as simple as omitting everything between those commas. The rest of the sentence should (or at least can) stay the same, so if a that or when exists in the original sentence, generally it should be left in. I can't think of an example where you would need to remove them.

As dragn said, the original sentence would work fine without a that or when (although it sounds fairly informal), but they aid clarity when the parenthesis is added. Omitting them is a kind of grammatical shorthand, but when you're inserting extra phrases you're changing the sentence structure, and the shorthand becomes more confusing. So it's better to keep them when you're adding parenthesis, but if you're removing the parenthesis then it's your call.

[hiromichi]

redset:
Thank you. My original question is not about 'comma.'
My question is:'when' and 'that' should not coexist in my quoted sentence below:

The peak of protest was also the moment when we can say, in retrospect, that the seeds of the confrontation of 1968 were sown.

In the sentences from 1 to 14 'when' and 'that' do not coexist simultaneoysly in one sentence. On what basis can we add either 'when' or 'that' into either one of the sentences from 1 to 14.

The peak of protest was also the moment when we can say, in retrospect, that the seeds of the confrontation
of 1968 were sown.

_________________
Hiromichi

[redset]

Oh I see what you mean. In your original sentence, the that is connected to say:

'...we can say that the seeds of the confrontation of 1968 were sown.'

When is connected to the moment, to show that the clause which follows describes what happened at that moment.

You can use either that or when after moment (that works because you're describing the moment, which itself implies a specific point in time). You use that after say. Generally you can omit these conjunctions in both cases, although it's probably better to keep them in formal writing. Using too many thats looks messy, so it would be preferable to use 'moment when' if you're going to follow it with 'say that'.

I hope that makes sense - basically you have 'moment when/that *clause*' and 'say that *clause*', and you can omit one or both conjunctions (as in sentences 1-14) - they're really there for clarity and structure, especially useful in longer or more complex sentences.

Your example sentence is actually quite awkward grammatically, to me anyway. As a native speaker I can grasp the meaning without needing to think about it - but if you actually analyse it, technically it seems to say that the peak of the protest was the moment when we could say something, otherwise 'moment when' and 'say that' are both pointing to the same clause, 'the seeds of confrontation are sown'. Maybe that's why you thought one needed to be removed. Personally I'd have written it like this:

The peak of the protest was also the moment when, we can say in retrospect, the seeds of the confrontation of 1968 were sown.

We can rearrange the sentence like this:

We can say in retrospect (that) the peak of the protest was also the moment when the seeds of the confrontation of 1968 were sown.

Now it's more obvious that 'we can say' refers to the whole of the main sentence, not just the end part following the that in your original sentence.

I hope that wasn't horribly confusing, I had a train of thought thing going on there

[hiromichi]

redset:
Thank you very much. Now I got it. The part of your answer below is quite persuasive:

otherwise 'moment when' and 'say that' are both pointing to the same clause

For your reference my quoted sentence was written by an Australian scholar in political science in an academic magazine " Social Science Japan Journal.
_________________
Hiromichi

[hiromichi]

Again from hiromichi, on second or third thought.

I actually interpreted my quoted sentence as the same with the one like this.

....the moment when,if I use a proper expression,the seeds of the confrontation of 1968 were sown.

Thank you again.
_________________
Hiromichi