Grammatically correct?

[mr109]

Hello, there!
Is the sentence below grammatically correct?

Tom didn't like that John had much Italian food at Mrs. Kim's house.

Thank you.

[costas]

Hi mr109,

I think that the correct sentence is:

Tom didn't like John to have much Italian food at Mrs. Kim's

Cheers

[Lorikeet]

Hmm those two sentences don't have the same meaning for me.

Tom didn't like that John had much Italian food at Mrs. Kim's house.
means to me that John had a lot of Italian food at Mrs. Kim's house, and that's what Tom didn't like.

Tom didn't like John to have much Italian food at Mrs. Kim's
means that Tom didn't like John to have a lot of Italian food at Mrs. Kim's, but it's unclear as to whether or not John did it.

Part of my discomfort with the first sentence is that although much Italian food is appropriate grammatically, in current American English, a lot of is used much more.

I guess I'd try Tom didn't like John's having had a lot of Italian food at Mrs. Kim's house.

[dduck]

Tom didn't like John to have much Italian food at Mrs. Kim's.

I think you have to use that to introduce the new subject: John. Are we talking about John's past habits, or something that happened once in the past?

Tom didn't like that John had much Italian food at Mrs. Kim's house

We know:

Tom was unhappy.
John ate a lot of food.

We can tell that John ate the food before Tom became unhappy, because of the use of the word had (indicating the past perfect).

The only reservation I have with mr109's example is the word much used as a determiner. It seems a bit archaic to me.

Iain

[mr109]

I appreciate your deep considerations on the sentence I posted.

By the way, is'nt there any grammatical errors in using "that" in the original sentence (Tom did not like that John had much Iatalian food at Mrs. Kim's house)?

I mean, some people maintain that there should be an antecedent in front of "that" to make the sentence grammatically correct such as "the fact", but others argue that the original sentence itself is already grammatically correct without an antecedent because they believe "that-clause" itself functions as the objective (noun phrase) of the verb "like".
Personally, I support the second view, but I want to know your views on this matter.

To summarize, which one is more grammatically correct? Any grammatical or semantic differences between them?

1. Tom did not like the fact that John had much Iatalian food at Mrs. Kim's house.
2. Tom did not like that John had much Iatalian food at Mrs. Kim's house

Thanks.
Young Koo

[dduck]

I think both examples are grammatically correct. Although, I prefer the shorter sentence because it's less verbose.

Iain

[Lorikeet]

Of course, I like the one with "the fact that" better -- sounds better to me. heh (Also I'd prefer "a lot of" to "much" too.)

[LarryLatham]

Forgive me for jumping in with another (probably unneeded) opinion, but I just came across this thread.

I see nothing wrong with the original sentence as submitted. That said, I also believe I agree with both Iain and Lorikeet that I feel a quibble with "much" in the place where it is. "A lot of", or "too much", or leave it out altogether might make the sentence more in line with current American usage. But the sentence is not incorrect. The "that clause" is perfectly acceptable as it stands, as far as I can tell. I would not "correct" the student who produced it in my class.

Larry Latham

[Harzer]

Speakers of American English may accept the form "John did not like that .. ", but for speakers of British English it is incorrect.

We use the form: "John did not like X having ..." or "John did not like X to have ....."

Harzer