An independent forum site for members of the Serif software community
You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Automated signup has been disabled for these forums. If you wish to register, please send an email to admin[at]punster[dot]me stating your preferred username.
Embedded images: Click on the 
Add image to post link below the message box. Your photo will be uploaded to the postimage website and then shared here via a thumbnail link. Click on the thumbnail for a larger view.
Private messages: There is no pop-up alert for new PMs on these forums, so you need to look out for the PM link (near the top right-hand corner of any forum page) becoming bold.
Alfred's Serif Users' Forums → General Discussion → Use of the word 'that'
https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index. … nt=1207261
Oh!
Off-topic to discuss in that thread.
However, here is a thread.
The sentence seems correct to me, I just used the word 'that' as part of writing the sentence.
Is there an issue if a word is used a number of times in a sentence?
William
To save members of this forum having to follow links to another forum in which they may well have no interest, nor subscribe to, Williams sentence is:
So it may be that Canva will decide that notwithstanding the present policy that a new policy will be instituted whereby after each meeting that considers ideas put forward by members of the community that due to Pledge 4 there will be published a document listing each suggestion that was considered at the meeting and what was decided about it, maybe to implement, to reject, to defer to a later meeting and in the meantime tests are to be done.
That sentence is not incorrect, but would not earn you good marks in any English exam.
Yes, there is an issue with using a word a number of times in a sentence. It comes under the heading of "style". No editor, or sub-editor, would allow it to pass unmodified.
Unlike in maths and science, being "correct" in English writing is not enough!
There is also an issue with unnecessarily long sentences, especially those with sparse punctuation.
That sentence is not incorrect, but would not earn you good marks in any English exam.
Yes, there is an issue with using a word a number of times in a sentence. It comes under the heading of "style". No editor, or sub-editor, would allow it to pass unmodified.
For the benefit of those who haven’t visited the other thread, I have to confess to being responsible for the criticism of William’s choice of words.
As someone who worked as an editor in a past life, I’m afraid I don’t agree with Geoff’s assertion about the correctness of the sentence in question. If you replace
it may be that Canva will decide that …
with
Canva may decide that …
then I hope it readily becomes apparent that we’re left with
Canva may decide that notwithstanding the present policy that a new policy will be instituted
There are two occurrences of the word ‘that’ in the above example; either one is fine, but not both. If you’re not yet convinced, try putting the parenthetical remark ‘notwithstanding the present policy’ in … er … parentheses:
Canva may decide that (notwithstanding the present policy) that a new policy will be instituted
By its very nature, a parenthetical remark is dispensable. If you dispense with it here, this is the result:
Canva may decide that that a new policy will be instituted
There is also an issue with unnecessarily long sentences, especially those with sparse punctuation.
Agreed. I also commented on that in the other thread:
And rather lacking in punctuation, too, which results in the reader having to do a lot of work to unravel the meaning.
As someone who worked as an editor in a past life, ...
Oh!
Ah!
William
I don’t agree with Geoff’s assertion about the correctness of the sentence
On reflection, I agree with your disagreement!
Thank you for pointing out that that that is surplus and that that that should be deleted.
Thank you for pointing out that that that is surplus and that that that should be deleted.
Well, alright, the part that Alfred put in parentheses could instead have been separated by using commas rather than parentheses.
I understand what you mean about the "that that" if that part is removed, but is not removed in the original.
In fact, I typically do repeat the "that" in such a circumstance, intentionally.
I suppose in a way I think of it as like the Oxford Comma. Having been taught when young not to use a comma before "and" I now often do when it avoids ambiguity.
I mean "like" in that sentence in the sense of avoiding ambiguity.
Side issue:
I found this about the Oxford Comma.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_comma
William
But Alfred's comment in the original thread did not just refer to those two uses of "that" as he put every use of "that" in bold type.
William
I suppose in a way I think of it as like the Oxford Comma.
I think of it as not even remotely like the Oxford comma! As you say, William, the Oxford (or ‘serial’) comma avoids ambiguity. I don’t see how a supernumerary ‘that’ can be regarded as performing a comparable function.
But Alfred's comment in the original thread did not just refer to those two uses of "that" as he put every use of "that" in bold type.
Well, there are other occurrences that I would be tempted to replace with ‘which’ for improved readability, but there is also another ‘that … that’ pair.
Alfred's Serif Users' Forums → General Discussion → Use of the word 'that'
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.