 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2004I believe (that)
Reading Michael Howard's political credo (I have copied it below, from the BBC web site - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3361933.stm) I am puzzled by an inconsistency. The word "that" follows "I believe" in statements 4,6,15 and 16 but is omitted in all the other statements which begin in the same way. "That" follows "I do not believe" in every case (11,12,13). Is this some form of emphasis, a stylistic quirk or just sloppy draughtsmanship? I make no comment on the content, other than to observe that, on first reading number 4, I thought he was repudiating the idea of a tax on obesity... ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- * I believe it is natural for men and women to want health, wealth and happiness for their families and themselves * I believe it is the duty of every politician to serve the people by removing the obstacles in the way of these ambitions * I believe people are most likely to be happy when they are masters of their own lives, when they are not nannied or over-governed * I believe that the people should be big. That the state should be small * I believe red tape, bureaucracy, regulations, inspectorates, commissions, quangos, 'czars', 'units' and 'targets' came to help and protect us, but now we need protection from them. Armies of interferers don't contribute to human happiness * I believe that people must have every opportunity to fulfil their potential * I believe there is no freedom without responsibility. It is our duty to look after those who cannot help themselves * I believe in equality of opportunity. Injustice makes us angry * I believe every parent wants their child to have a better education than they had * I believe every child wants security for their parents in their old age * I do not believe that one person's poverty is caused by another's wealth * I do not believe that one person's ignorance is caused by another's knowledge and education * I do not believe that one person's sickness is made worse by another's health * I believe the British people are only happy when they are free * I believe that Britain should defend her freedom at any time, against all comers, however mighty * I believe that by good fortune, hard work, natural talent and rich diversity, these islands are home to a great people with a noble past and exciting future. I am happy to be their servant. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------  SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) > Reading Michael Howard's political credo (I have copied it below, > from the BBC web site - [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Is this some form of emphasis, a stylistic quirk or just sloppy > draughtsmanship? I don't think "that" adds to or detracts from any of the statements you quote. As a matter of consistency, I suppose Howard might have opted to go one way or the other. (In that case I vote for removing them all.) I'd hesitate to call it sloppiness rather than variety. There are, of course, cases where a "that" can clarify ambiguity. Consider the following sentence: "I believe the people who believe Tony Blair's ideas are on shaky ground." And there are other cases where a "that" can let you know up front which way a sentence is going. Consider this mess: "I don't believe Howard's quoted statements concerning the responsibilities and privileges of Britons produce the kind of ambiguity or confusion that could be resolved by a 'that.'" Until halfway through, you aren't sure whether it is the statements themselves that I don't believe, or (as it turns out) a proposition concerning those statements. SignatureOpus the Penguin (that's my real email addy) You snipped my sig! > Reading Michael Howard's political credo (I have copied it below, from > the BBC web site - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3361933.stm) I [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > reading number 4, I thought he was repudiating the idea of a tax on > obesity... [snip] > * I believe in equality of opportunity. Injustice makes us angry [snip] In the above case, statement number 8, I believe, "that" would be ungrammatical since it would be introducing a prepositional phrase. In every other case, it introduces a noun clause. "That" thus used as a subordinating conjunction is generally considered optional except where omitting it would cause ambiguity. Many economy-minded houses, however, urge omitting this use of "that" whenever possible. It's a style choice. Subordinating conjunctions are very handy things, functionally speaking, but semantically they're pretty weak--especially subordinating conjunction "that," which of course is to be distinguished from the demonstrative pronoun and adjective "thats." Generally speaking, and in this case, I don't register any emphasis associated with the sub. conj. "that" or its absence. Maybe I register a missed opportunity for perfect parallelism, but that's probably balanced by the stylistic mandate to have a little variety among sentences. SignatureCheers, Jody jodybilyeu@smsu.edu >> Reading Michael Howard's political credo (I have copied it below, >> from the BBC web site - [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > probably balanced by the stylistic mandate to have a little variety > among sentences. The Brit media are now pointing out the suspicious resemblance between Michael's credo and that of Mr Rockefeller http://www.rockefeller.edu/archive.ctr/jr_credo.html John D seems much fonder of 'that' than his Brit emulator. -- John 'The Rockefellers had had had had ....' Dean Oxford De-frag to reply [big snip] > The Brit media are now pointing out the suspicious resemblance between > Michael's credo and that of Mr Rockefeller > http://www.rockefeller.edu/archive.ctr/jr_credo.html [snip] So, more of an uncredited credit than a credible credo, then? Or, credimus, I guess, to be generous about it, though that one doesn't scan as well, joke-wise. SignatureCheers, Jody jodybilyeu@smsu.edu Most of the time "that" is optional before a substatival clause that is the object of a verb such as "believe". It adds a touch of formality. However, if the subject of the dependent clause is a long enough phrase, the reader may be misled into parsing it as the object of the main verb if "that" is omitted, and in that case supplying "that" is a commendable courtesy. There happen to be no good examples of that situation among your quotations, but here is a made-up one: I believe the people who offer us these positive assurances of our safety are badly misled. "I believe the people" starts you on a false track, and when you get to "are" you have to reparse the sentence. Signature--- Joe Fineman jcf@TheWorld.com ||: How we got here is no indication of what to do next. :|| |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.