From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

out of curiousity[edit]

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

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 (talk) 00:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

2007-02-9 Automated pywikipediabot message[edit]

--CopyToWiktionaryBot 10:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

He said that that can be used as a pronoun.

Starting a sentence with 'that'[edit]

A friend told me that it's grammatically incorrect to start a sentence with the word 'that'. Is this true? PolarisSLBM 16:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

That such sentences are acceptable is beyond question. Is this ok? 17:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

That looks good to me, as long as the pronoun has a clear reference in context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok. That that 'that' is accetable appears to be the consensus. (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Unrelated reference[edit]

moved comment to bottom of page and added heading Phaunt (talk) 15:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The fourth reference link, about the pattern being infinitely repeatable, goes to a page of links rather than an article. - (talk) 05:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed the reference and added a {{fact}} tag. Phaunt (talk) 15:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

'Indefinitely' is probably a better word than 'infinitely'. Formal grammars generally stipulate that a well formed sentence must be finite. (talk) 20:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Repeated "that"s[edit]

This section is fun but does it really fit in an encyclopedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It is certainly notable, but could perhaps be trimmed as giving undue weight to a minor point of interest. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I see that that section was removed. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge with Ꝥ?[edit]

I moved the redirect for ꝥ to Ꝥ, as there is an article for it now. However, all of the information in this article is either about Ꝥ, and so belongs in the main article, or is about the word's function, and so belongs in the Wiktionary article. So could this article be merged with Ꝥ? LokiClock (talk) 21:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC) On second thought, most of the information really wouldn't be relevant to ꝥ... LokiClock (talk) 23:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Ampliarlo, por favor[edit]

Hello, I am an english student, and this article is to small. "That" is very important in english, please could some people develop this article???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. A link is provided to the Wiktionary entry on "that". Please follow the link for more information on the word; you may expand the Wiktionary article on it or request that someone else does so. Elizium23 (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Italic title[edit]

Given that WP:ITALICTITLE says to italicize the title if italics would be used in running text, and WP:WORDSASWORDS says that words as words are italicized in running text, should this title (which is a "word as word") not be italicized? Victor Yus (talk) 14:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so. The word "that" is just a word. The running text means that if you are referring to a novel or a film, you would normally italicize the names in running text. Therefore, the title name should be italicized. I thnk you're misinterpreting WORDSASWORDS to be connected to the principle stated in ITALICTITLE. By your interpretation, almost all words would have italic titles.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Only if the article is about the word itself, as it is in this case. (Whether it's appropriate to have an article about this word in Wikipedia is another matter.) The articles Cat and Dog and millions of others would not have italic titles, since they are not primarily about the words cat and dog, but about the things that those words denote. In running text you would not italicize "cat" and "dog" if you are using them to refer to cats and dogs, nor would you normally italicize "that" if you're using it in a sentence with one of its normal meanings; but you would italicize it (in Wikipedia's style) if you were using it to refer to the word that (as I did just then). Victor Yus (talk) 08:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
WORDSASWORDS doesn't say anything about the title of the article, and the title of the article isn't "running text" anyway. It is a guideline, BTW, that I'd never seen before and have unwilfully ignored for many years now: I am in the habit of using quotation marks to write about words as words, and italics for foreign words. But don't tell anyone, certainly not Mandarax. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Poor example[edit]

" introduce a restrictive relative clause ("The test that she took was hard.") In this role that may be analyzed either as a relative pronoun or as a conjunction as in the first case...."

Could someone come up with a better example for this type of use? "The test that she took was hard," is confusing as the sentence should properly read: "The test she took was hard." No "that" is needed nor should it be used. Risssa (talk) 03:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)