# something <that> you feel is wrong



## brian&me

Hi friends, please read this.

_If you are feeling pressure to do something *you feel is wrong*, talk to a friend, parent, or counselor to find a solution._

(from _Transition to High School_)

I wonder if a “*that*” is omitted before “*you feel is wrong*”.

Many thanks in advance.


----------



## lingobingo

Yes, it’s omitted — as it nearly always is.


----------



## bennymix

'that' was omitted.   It's a common and licit practice.   Omission of a relative pronoun is something you'll see, often (note this sentence).

Here's a quiz for you on the topic:
https://www.englishrevealed.co.uk/FCE/fce_grammar/omitting_relative_pronoun.php


----------



## brian&me

Thanks, lingobingo and bennymix.

In my grammar books, they say when a relative pronoun is an object, it can be omitted. But when it acts as a subject, it cannot be omitted. In the example in the OP, I think the “that” acts as an subject, but it can also be omitted. I wonder if it’s a special case.


----------



## entangledbank

No, you feel it is wrong. It's the object of 'feel'.


----------



## brian&me

entangledbank said:


> No, you feel it *is* wrong. It's the object of 'feel'.


Thanks, entangledbank.

If it is the object of "feel", what is the subject of the "*is*"?


----------



## lingobingo

In that sentence, the relative pronoun *that* would refer to *something* — something [that] you feel is wrong


----------



## entangledbank

You feel (that) this thing is wrong.
It is a thing (that) you feel __ is wrong.
You are pressured to do a thing (that) you feel __ is wrong.


----------



## brian&me

lingobingo said:


> In that sentence, the relative pronoun *that* would refer to *something* — something [that] you feel is wrong


Thanks, lingobingo.

Do you think the "that" is the subject of "is"?


----------



## VicNicSor

brian&me said:


> Do you think the "that" is the subject of "is"?


Yes. And that's why if it weren't for "you feel", you couldn't omit "that":
_If you are feeling pressure to do something you feel is wrong,
If you are feeling pressure to do something *that *you feel is wrong,
If you are feeling pressure to do something is wrong,
If you are feeling pressure to do something *that *is wrong,_


----------



## brian&me

Thanks, Vic.

I think I got it.


----------



## Loob

Brian&me, you're right that if the sentence was:
_If you are feeling pressure to do something *that is wrong*, talk to a friend...._
it would be essential to include the red relative pronoun "that", because it's the subject of the verb "is".

As Vic and etb say, what makes your sentence different is the "you feel".  The blue relative pronoun can be omitted because it's the subject of a *subordinate* clause - it's not the subject of the main verb in the relative clause.
_If you are feeling pressure to do something *that you feel is wrong*, talk to a friend....
If you are feeling pressure to do something *you feel is wrong*, talk to a friend...._


----------



## loviii

1) 





brian&me said:


> If "that" is the object of "feel", what is the subject of the "*is*"?


That's the main question which for some reason nobody can answer(((

2) "_If you are feeling pressure to do something wrong,_ ..." is correct.
Then we can add "_(that) you feel_" (without "_is_" as in the initial example):
_If you are feeling pressure to do something (that) you feel wrong,_ ...
Am I right?

Thanks!


----------



## lingobingo

If-clause:
If you are feeling pressure ​Infinitive clause modifying “pressure”:
to do something​Relative clause modifying “something”
[that] you feel is wrong,​​Main clause (in imperative):
talk to a friend, parent, or counselor to find a solution.​


----------



## Forero

brian&me said:


> Thanks, lingobingo and bennymix.
> 
> In my grammar books, they say when a relative pronoun is an object, it can be omitted. But when it acts as a subject, it cannot be omitted. In the example in the OP, I think the “that” acts as an subject, but it can also be omitted. I wonder if it’s a special case.


That is not a hard and fast rule. Sentences such as "That's the man says you did it" do exist. A better rule is just that we avoid creating confusion. The example I just gave is a little confusing because "the man" seems to be a candidate for the subject of "says" until we get to the end of the sentence.

It is only a little confusing, though, because it is hard to imagine a context for something like "That's [the fact that] the man says ..." in which it would be at all natural to omit "that".

The phrase in your sentence is not confusing because the subject of "feel" is obviously "you", not "something", and "is" needs a subject.


----------



## velisarius

Forero said:


> Sentences such as "That's the man says you did it" do exist


They don't exist in the English we teach to ESL students though .

I think "subject contact relatives" are generally regarded as belonging to particular dialects, though some speakers of standard BE English may use them occasionally. Perhaps they are more commonly used in AE.


----------



## VicNicSor

Forero said:


> until we get to the end of the sentence


I still didn't get it Nor did I get this: "That's [the fact that] the man says ..."


----------



## Forero

VicNicSor said:


> I still didn't get it Nor did I get this: "That's [the fact that] the man says ..."


Yes, it is confusing.

"That's the man says you did it" works better with "that" between "man" and "says", but some people casually omit the "that", or use the shorter "as".

You might say we can omit "that" whenever it is a subordinating conjunction, but I would not omit it from this sentence:

_There is something bothering me, and that's that the man says you did it._

In fact I find omitting this "that" even less natural than omitting "who" from "That's the man who says you did it."

My point is that sentences read better when we can see where they are going as soon as is convenient for the speaker.


----------



## lingobingo

velisarius said:


> They don't exist in the English we teach to ESL students though .




Yes, there’s a danger here that English learners will gain the (false) impression that ungrammatical sentences like that are standard or even common.


----------



## VicNicSor

Forero said:


> Yes, it is confusing.
> 
> "That's the man says you did it" works better with "that" between "man" and "says", but some people casually omit the "that", or use the shorter "as".


Yes but the problem is Forero said "the man" is not actually the subject of "says", whereas if it's just a case of an omitted relative pronoun, between "man" and "says", then "the man" _is _the (real) subject...


----------



## bennymix

VicNicSor said:


> Yes but the problem is Forero said "the man" is not actually the subject of "says", whereas if it's just a case of an omitted relative pronoun, between "man" and "says", then "the man" _is _the (real) subject...



"Man" is certainly the one who says.    What is your point.

Consider B: "That's the man--he says you did it."

"Omitted _who_" is a guess.   We can say "omitted _he_'  just as well.

Speech omits words.  B*: That's the man ...says *you *did it*."*

I believe Forero in another thread remarked about how these plausible omissions occur,  when they do, in cleft or similar sentences.   A story. 

B3: "There was a man...lived down the street from me...had a long beard, and he'd sometimes let me pull on it."  

Who's to say what *word *is omitted. _  he, man, who_....? It's rather clear to the hearer because of pauses. The sentence structure makes the agent clear, contrary to what Vic says, above.

I think much of the fuss comes from written examples easily misread.        In speech, for example, to my young son.  "You...Here...Quick" is quite understandable, but the grammarist is going to say,   I've omitted a verb, but can't say which:  'be'  'come'  etc.


----------



## Loob

It's worth stressing, I think, that 
- the sentence in the OP does not contain what veli called a "subject contact relative"
- the omission of the relative pronoun in that sentence is 100% standard English.


----------



## Forero

VicNicSor said:


> Yes but the problem is Forero said "the man" is not actually the subject of "says", whereas if it's just a case of an omitted relative pronoun, between "man" and "says", then "the man" _is _the (real) subject...


In the grammar I learned, the "says" clause needs a subject, the null relative pronoun (which you can call omitted "who" or "that"), and the relative clause, including its subject, modifies "the man" in the main clause.

And in, for example, "I see him who said that", the direct object of "see" is "him who said that", a personal pronoun in objective case modified by a relative clause with its own subject, "who", a relative pronoun in subjective case, and verb, "said". "Him" is the antecedent of "who", but they play different roles in the sentence.

In the "him who" sentence, if "him" is the subject of "said", why is it not "he"? And what, then, is "who"?

"Something you feel is wrong" is not at all problematic, because "something" is immediately followed by the personal pronoun "you". When we get to the verb "feel", we know its subject is "you", not "something", and we "see" the null relative pronoun between "something" and "you" (and we know we should find a "trace" somewhere after "feel").

But because "is" is a verb, "you are feeling pressure to do something is wrong" does not readily suggest a null relative pronoun after "something".


----------



## VicNicSor

Thank you everyone.

Sorry, Forero, I thought that in #20 I was replying to veli

I see now I just overanalized that. When you said "because "the man" seems to be a candidate for the subject of "says" until we get to the end of the sentence" you meant that it was the omitted relative (null) pronoun that was the subject.


----------



## billj

entangledbank said:


> No, you feel it is wrong. It's the object of 'feel'.


Actually it's the subject of the embedded clause "is wrong". We understand "something is wrong".


----------



## billj

entangledbank said:


> No, you feel it is wrong. It's the object of 'feel'.


Actually, it's not the object of "feel" but the subject of the embedded "is wrong" clause.


----------



## billj

brian&me said:


> Thanks, lingobingo.
> 
> Do you think the "that" is the subject of "is"?


Yes, it is.


----------



## billj

brian&me said:


> Thanks, entangledbank.
> 
> If it is the object of "feel", what is the subject of the "*is*"?


It's not the object of "feel" but the subject of "is".


----------



## SevenDays

brian&me said:


> Hi friends, please read this.
> 
> _If you are feeling pressure to do something *you feel is wrong*, talk to a friend, parent, or counselor to find a solution._
> 
> (from _Transition to High School_)
> 
> I wonder if a “*that*” is omitted before “*you feel is wrong*”.
> 
> Many thanks in advance.



Yes, "that" is omitted.



brian&me said:


> In my grammar books, they say when a relative pronoun is an object, it can be omitted. But when it acts as a subject, it cannot be omitted. In the example in the OP, I think the “that” acts as an subject, but it can also be omitted. I wonder if it’s a special case.



That rule is correct, but for relative clauses; in your example, there is no relative clause; what you have is a noun/nominal clause, with "that" as complementizer ("conjunction" in traditional grammar). Let's put "that" back:

_something that you feel is wrong = you feel that something is wrong_

Can you omit "that"? Yes,
_you feel that something is wrong ~ you feel something is wrong_

Does "that" play a grammatical role in the clause that follows ("something is wrong")? No. The clause has a subject ("something"), a verb ("is"), and a predicate complement/subject complement ("wrong").  What "that" does is _introduce _the subordinate clause, allowing "something that follows" to function as_ complement_ of "feel" (that's why "that" is called a _complementizer_). You can replace the noun/nominal clause with the direct object pronoun "it:" _you feel that something is wrong ~ you feel it._

Now, given that there is a higher _transitive _clause, "something" _moves up _to become the object of "to do:"

_If you are feeling pressure *to do* something you feel is wrong_

For analytical purposes, we say that moving "something" leaves a _gap _and a _trace _("t") where the subject of "is" normally goes, stated as

_If you are feeling pressure to do something that you feel ___t is right_

The gap and trace are _phonologically null/silent. _

In _I see him who said that, _

the higher/main clause and the subordinate/relative clause have different syntactic needs. The higher clause needs an object pronoun for "see" (_I see him_), while the subordinate clause needs a subject pronoun for "said" (_who said_). "Him" is the antecedent of "who," but this is a _*semantic* _relationship ("him" is what gives "who" meaning). There's no reason for "him" to be "he," and there is a good reason for the pronoun to be "him;" _to do _needs an object pronoun.


----------



## billj

brian&me said:


> Hi friends, please read this.
> 
> _If you are feeling pressure to do something *you feel is wrong*, talk to a friend, parent, or counselor to find a solution._
> 
> (from _Transition to High School_)
> 
> I wonder if a “*that*” is omitted before “*you feel is wrong*”.
> 
> Many thanks in advance.


Strictly speaking, "that" is not a relative pronoun but a clause subordinator. We 'gap' the clause to show the position of the missing relative pronoun:

_If you are feeling pressure to do something you feel ____ is wrong_

The clause contains a gap in the position of subject of the embedded "is wrong" clause, and this gap is linked to "something", the antecedent.


----------



## billj

SevenDays said:


> That rule is correct, but for relative clauses; in your example, there is no relative clause; what you have is a noun/nominal clause, with "that" as complementizer ("conjunction" in traditional grammar). Let's put "that" back:



I wouldn't go along with that, though I agree that _that_ is a subordinator when it introduces relative and content clauses. The relative clause is _you feel is wrong_, which contains the embedded content clause ____ _is wrong,_ functioning as complement of _feel_. There is no relative pronoun present, but the gap notation '_____' represents the position of covert relativised element, functioning as subject of the content clause:

_If you are feeling pressure to do something_ [(that) _you feel ____ is wrong_]

The relative clause is bracketed, and gap is linked to "something", the antecedent.

Note that presence or absence of "that" has no bearing on the analysis, though it is omissible in this instance.


----------



## Forero

I sense some confusion in this thread between the subordinating conjunction _that_, the relative pronoun _that_, and the "trace". In our sentence:

_If you are feeling pressure to do something you feel is wrong, talk to a friend, parent, or counselor to find a solution._

there is a relative pronoun assumed between "something" and "you", to provide the subject of "is". "Something" is the antecedent of that relative pronoun.

Yes, you can include an explicit relative pronoun (_which_ or _that_) in that position:

_If you are feeling pressure to do something *which* you feel _ is wrong, talk to a friend, parent, or counselor to find a solution._

Here I have included a "_" to represent a trace. The trace is just a "hole" in the syntax. There is nothing there in normal spoken or written English, no pause, no cadence in the intonation, nothing.

But that trace allows us to look at the relative clause as a declarative sentence that has been relativized (turned into a relative clause). It shows us where a noun phrase was in the declarative sentence, a noun phrase that is no longer there after the relativization process that gave us the relative pronoun.

Every relative clause contains a trace. For example, "That thing is wrong" can be relativized as "which _ is wrong", where "_" represents the trace, the "hole" that is left where "that thing" used to be.

Now there is also a null subordinator in our sentence between "feel" and the trace left by relativization.

The subordinator _that_ can be included in a declarative sentence:

_You feel _*(that)* _that thing is wrong._

But when this declarative sentence is relativized , one element ("that thing" in my example) becomes a trace, and a relative pronoun appears in front:

_*Which* you feel _ is wrong_

But what has happened to the _that_, that I just had in boldface?

Consider a slightly different declarative clause:

_You feel _*how* _that thing is wrong._

This relativizes to:

_Which you feel _*how* __ is wrong_

"How" is kept, but unlike "how", the subordinating conjunction "that", optional in the declarative sentence, completely disappears in the relativization process.

It disappears because of the ambiguity of the English word _that_. Because the same word can be a subordinating conjunction, a relative pronoun, or a demonstrative pronoun, it is removed to avoid clouding the issue.

In other words, "something which you feel that is wrong" is proper syntax, but we normally remove the conjunction "that" when it might be misinterpreted as a relative pronoun (meaning "which") or a demonstrative pronoun (meaning "the thing we're talking about", approximately).


----------



## billj

Forero said:


> I sense some confusion in this thread between the subordinating conjunction _that_, the relative pronoun _that_, and the "trace". In our sentence:
> 
> _If you are feeling pressure to do something you feel is wrong, talk to a friend, parent, or counselor to find a solution._



I would classify "that" as a subordinator when it is introducing relative clauses.There are several solid reasons for that. For example, _the patients to whom the letter was sent  _is grammatical but_ *the patients to that the letter was sent _is of course not.



Forero said:


> there is a relative pronoun assumed between "something" and "you", to provide the subject of "is". "Something" is the antecedent of that relative pronoun.



Agreed. The nucleus contains a gap in the position of the subject of "is".



Forero said:


> Yes, you can include an explicit relative pronoun (_which_ or _that_) in that position:
> 
> _If you are feeling pressure to do something *which* you feel _ is wrong, talk to a friend, parent, or counselor to find a solution._



Yes, either the subordinator "that" or the relative pronoun "which" can be inserted.



Forero said:


> Every relative clause contains a trace.



Not where the relativised element is subject as in _The man_ [_who came to dinner_]_ turned out to be from my home town._




Forero said:


> Consider a slightly different declarative clause:
> 
> _You feel _*how* _that thing is wrong_.
> 
> This relativizes to:
> 
> _Which you feel _*how* __ is wrong_
> 
> "How" is kept, but unlike "how", the subordinating conjunction "that", optional in the declarative sentence, completely disappears in the relativization process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't follow you. That example is ungrammatical. "How" is not used in relative clauses, except in the 'fused' free-choice construction, as in _You can do it it how(ever) you wish._
> Or are you using "how" as a very informal variant of "that", as in _Ed told him how his cattle were being rustled, _where "how" is simply equivalent to "that"?
> 
> 
> 
> Forero said:
> 
> 
> 
> It disappears because of the ambiguity of the English word _that_. Because the same word can be a subordinating conjunction, a relative pronoun, or a demonstrative pronoun, it is removed to avoid clouding the issue.
> 
> In other words, "something which you feel that is wrong" is proper syntax, but we normally remove the conjunction "that" when it might be misinterpreted as a relative pronoun (meaning "which") or a demonstrative pronoun (meaning "the thing we're talking about", approximately).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "That" is simply an optional subordinator in the OP's example. Gap doesn't represent "that" -- it can't since "that" is not a relative word; rather, the subject in the nucleus is realised by a gap anaphorically linked to the antecedent "something". Thus the antecedent of the gap is external to the relative clause. However, if the relativised element was the relative pronoun "which", then gap would be anaphorically linked to "which", which derives its interpretation from the head, "something".
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Steven David

brian&me said:


> Hi friends, please read this.
> 
> _If you are feeling pressure to do something *you feel is wrong*, talk to a friend, parent, or counselor to find a solution._
> 
> (from _Transition to High School_)
> 
> I wonder if a “*that*” is omitted before “*you feel is wrong*”.
> 
> Many thanks in advance.




Yes, "that" is omitted.

It's possible to put "that" after "something" and before "you", yes.

"Something" is the object of do.

"(that) you feel is wrong" << This is an identifying clause. This clause identifies something.

do - verb

something (that) you feel is wrong - object of the verb "do"

The indefinite pronoun "something" is the object of "do". And the indefinite pronoun "something" combined with its identifying clause is also the object of "do".

Because the identifying clause is an object, we do not have to use "that". In this sentence, "that" is optional.


"pressure to do something you feel is wrong"

The above phrase is the object of the verbal noun 'feeling".

Either way we look at it, we have an object here. And so this is, again, why "that" can be omitted.


----------



## Loob

Steven David said:


> The indefinite pronoun "something" is the object of "do". And the indefinite pronoun "something" combined with its identifying clause is also the object of "do".
> 
> Because the identifying clause is an object, we do not have to use "that". In this sentence, "that" is optional.


So you could omit "that" in _Do something that is wrong, _Steven?


----------



## Steven David

Loob said:


> So you could omit "that" in _Do something that is wrong, _Steven?




Are you asking me, Loob, because you don't know whether it is possible to omit "that" in this sentence?

I would have to say that you know the answer to this question. So it's not clear why you ask.

"Do something that is wrong." << Also, this sentence is an imperative. And this is a very unlikely sentence. How could anyone imagine that someone would order someone to do something that is wrong?


----------



## Loob

The "this is an object" argument that you presented and I quoted would apply equally to the sentence _Do something that is wrong.  _By my reckoning, that means that your argument is flawed, I'm afraid.

You might like to look at some of the earlier posts in the thread.


----------



## Steven David

Loob said:


> The "this is an object" argument that you presented and I quoted would apply equally to the sentence _Do something that is wrong.  _By my reckoning, that means that your argument is flawed, I'm afraid.
> 
> You might like to look at some of the earlier posts in the thread.




No, the reasoning, or the statement, is not flawed. (It's not an argument.) If what I posted is not the reason that "that" can be omitted in the original example sentence, then what do you suppose the reason would be?

It's just that we don't have an answer as to why "that" cannot be omitted in your example sentence. Would you happen to know why "that" cannot be omitted in your example sentence?

"Do something that is wrong." <<

I would note that "that is" can be  omitted in the above sentence. Sometimes we can omit the "relative pronoun" and the verb "be" or a form of the verb "be" like "is".

"Do something wrong." <<

Still, that is a very unlikely sentence.

More likely sentences would be these: Do something that's right for a change. Do something right for a change. An admonishment to do something that is right for a change is more likely than an order to do something that is wrong or to do something wrong.

So, in the example sentence that you asked about, "that is" stays or "that is" can be omitted. But "that" cannot be omitted alone. In other words, if there is an omission, it has to be "that is", not just "that" in the example sentence that you asked about, Loob.

Do something that is wrong.

Do something wrong.

But, of course, *not*, * "Do something is wrong".

We have to omit "that is" or omit nothing.

Given the above observation, I would *not* say that your example sentence equally applies to the original example sentence in speaking of omitting "that" or not omitting "that". And this includes the reason I gave that we can omit "that" in the original example sentence.


----------



## Steven David

Loob said:


> The "this is an object" argument that you presented and I quoted would apply equally to the sentence _Do something that is wrong.  _By my reckoning, that means that your argument is flawed, I'm afraid.
> 
> You might like to look at some of the earlier posts in the thread.




I don't believe that they apply equally.

Here's your example sentence.

1) Do something that is wrong.

Here's another example sentence, which is similar in form but not the same exact form.

2) Do something that you feel is wrong.

I would have to say that the reason "that" cannot be omitted in your example sentence has something to do with the fact that we use the verb "is" and that there is no subject before the verb "is". This is to say a subject that is a person, which is the case with "Do something that you feel is wrong". 

The second example sentence, with the verb "feel", is taken from the original example sentence. And, like the original example sentence, we can omit "that" in example number two above. Also, again, the verb "feel" has a subject to and the verb "is" does not have a subject. So these are two different things and don't make for a good comparison in speaking of whether "that" can or cannot be omitted.

So, again, I have to say that your example sentence does not apply to the original example sentence and the reason I stated that we can "omit" that in the original example sentence.

I also consider my previous post along with this.

Also, I would like to state that I did not present an "argument". I made a statement. What I posted was not an argument and should not be characterised as an argument.


----------



## Steven David

brian&me said:


> Hi friends, please read this.
> 
> _If you are feeling pressure to do something *you feel is wrong*, talk to a friend, parent, or counselor to find a solution._
> 
> (from _Transition to High School_)
> 
> I wonder if a “*that*” is omitted before “*you feel is wrong*”.
> 
> Many thanks in advance.




Here's a somewhat different way of putting it.  This is why we can omit "that" in the example sentence.

Because "something" is the object of "do", and the clause "(that) you feel is wrong" identifies "something", we can omit "that". The clause identifies an object. This is why we can omit "that".

When a clause identifies a subject, then we cannot omit "that".

Here's an example of a clause that identifies a subject.

They are the people that told me to do it. 

The clause, "that told me to do it", identifies "people". And "people" is a subject,  not an object. Therefore, we cannot omit "that".

These two sentences illustrate the point clearly.

1) People told me to do it.

2) They are the people that told me to do it.


----------



## billj

Steven David said:


> Here's a somewhat different way of putting it.  This is why we can omit "that" in the example sentence.
> 
> Because "something" is the object of "do", and the clause "(that) you feel is wrong" identifies "something", we can omit "that". The clause identifies an object. This is why we can omit "that".
> 
> When a clause identifies a subject, then we cannot omit "that".
> 
> Here's an example of a clause that identifies a subject.
> 
> They are the people that told me to do it.
> 
> The clause, "that told me to do it", identifies "people". And "people" is a subject,  not an object. Therefore, we cannot omit "that".
> 
> These two sentences illustrate the point clearly.
> 
> 1) People told me to do it.
> 
> 2) They are the people that told me to do it.


It's much simpler than that.

_If you are feeling pressure to do something _[_you feel _[ ______ is wrong_]] _..._

The subordinator "that" is omissible provided the gap is not in subject position in the relative clause, which it clearly isn't here. Gap is subject of the embedded "is" clause functioning as complement of "feel". Since there is no relative pronoun in the sentence, gap is of course anaphoric to "something".


----------



## Steven David

billj said:


> It's much simpler than that.
> 
> _If you are feeling pressure to do something _[_you feel _[ ______ is wrong_]] _..._
> 
> The subordinator "that" is omissible provided the gap is not in subject position in the relative clause, which it clearly isn't here. Gap is subject of the embedded "is" clause functioning as complement of "feel". Since there is no relative pronoun in the sentence, gap is of course anaphoric to "something".




Interesting. That sounds more complicated to me.

I understand, however, "that" can come before the "is" clause.

If I were explaining this to someone who is learning English, I would not use that explanation. However, this does not have to do with the idea that it sounds complicated to me.

I would like to understand your explanation better. Perhaps, this could be another discussion.


----------



## Steven David

billj said:


> It's much simpler than that.
> 
> _If you are feeling pressure to do something _[_you feel _[ ______ is wrong_]] _..._
> 
> ... ...  gap is of course anaphoric to "something".




This, I understand. However, I don't get how it explains the fact that we can omit "that" after "something". 

The "gap", before the "is" clause", where we could put "that", refers to "something" just as "you feel" refers to "something". 

So we get this: "something (that) you feel" and this "something (that) is wrong, and both clauses identify "something", which is the object of "do". This explains how "that" can be omitted. 

Can you break down your explanation more? 

Again, this, the "anaphora", I understand. However, I don't get how it serves as an explanation for omitting "that" in the original example sentence as it was originally provided or posted. 

 Where is the ? 

Steve


----------



## billj

Steven David said:


> I would like to understand your explanation better. Perhaps, this could be another discussion.


Yes, I think that's a good idea.


----------



## Steven David

billj said:


> Yes, I think that's a good idea.




One more comment or question here:

Do you mean that because "gap" refers to an object, we can omit "that" in both cases? 1) after "something", which is an object, and 2) before the "is" clause, which is embedded as part of the whole clause "(that) you feel is wrong".

So is this your simplified explanation, taking into account anaphora? 

Because "gap" refers to an object, or is anaphoric to "something", we can omit "that", which would come after "something". (Understanding that the "gap" is where it's possible to place "that")

If that's the idea, then, yes, that's a simpler explanation. I would hesitate to use the term "anaphoric", however. If this is the idea, then it's another viewpoint (another way to explain it) -- and an interesting one.

Is that the idea?


----------



## Steven David

Speaking of this example posted earlier

* "That's the man says you did it." 

"That's the man *that *says you did it." 

We cannot omit "that" here because "that" refers to "the man" and "the man" is a subject.

Or, to go on what @billj posted, the explanation *could *be this? (Yes? No?)

We cannot omit "that" in this sentence because "that" is anaphoric to a subject.

It's clear that "*that*" does not refer to an object.

It's important to note we can use "who" in place of "that" here because the relative pronoun refers to (is anaphoric to) a person. Both "that" and "who" can refer to things and people. However, "who" only refers to people.


----------



## Steven David

> @bennymix  - Consider B: "That's the man--he says you did it." < Post #21 something <that> you feel is wrong

Okay, considering B - And considering B in the interest of the original poster's understanding

We can say that there are two sentences combined to make one, with one sentence becoming a subordinate identifying clause.

That's the man. He says you did it.

Replace "he", a subject, with either "that" or "who" and combine the two ideas.

That's the man who says you did it.

That's the man that says you did it.

And, of course, we cannot omit "that" or "who" in the above sentences (reference this post: something <that> you feel is wrong).


----------



## billj

Steven David said:


> This, I understand. However, I don't get how it explains the fact that we can omit "that" after "something".
> 
> The "gap", before the "is" clause", where we could put "that", refers to "something" just as "you feel" refers to "something".
> 
> So we get this: "something (that) you feel" and this "something (that) is wrong, and both clauses identify "something", which is the object of "do". This explains how "that" can be omitted.
> 
> Can you break down your explanation more?
> 
> Again, this, the "anaphora", I understand. However, I don't get how it serves as an explanation for omitting "that" in the original example sentence as it was originally provided or posted.
> 
> Where is the ?
> 
> Steve


It may help to compare this pair:

[1]_ I have some friends _[_that ____ saw her_]_._
[2]_ I have the key _[_(that) she found _____]_. _

In [1] gap is in the position of subject of the verb "saw", and "that" is obligatory. If it is omitted the sentence becomes ungrammatical: _ *I have some friends saw her._

In [2], by contrast, gap is in the position of object of the verb "found", and  hence "that" is optional.

Thus it is the position of gap that determines whether "that" is obligatory or optional.


----------



## Steven David

billj said:


> It may help to compare this pair:
> 
> [1]_ I have some friends that ____ saw her._
> [2]_ I have the key (that) she found ____. _
> 
> In [1] gap is in subject position and "that" is obligatory. If it is omitted the sentence becomes ungrammatical: _ *I have some friends saw her._
> In [2], by contrast, gap is in object position, and "that" is optional.
> 
> Thus it is the position of gap that determines whether "that" is obligatory or optional.




"Thus it is the position of gap that determines whether "that" is obligatory or optional."


Okay, then, I can understand it with this explanation.       I understand your statement, billj.

That makes sense to me. It's a shorter or simpler explanation.

I would have to consider it more, however, before thinking that I can use it as a way to explain omitting "that" to someone learning English.

________________________

Side note: Can this idea of "gap" - *possibly *- be used to explain why we can omit "that" before a "noun clause object"*?? *

I thought _____ they meant something else.

I thought that.

I thought that they meant something else.

"That", by itself, is the object of "thought". And can we now say that "gap", or "that", is anaphoric to "they meant something else", which is the object of "thought"*??*

Clearly, "they meant something else" is a noun clause object, which can be introduced by "that". And "that" is optional.


----------



## billj

Steven David said:


> "Thus it is the position of gap that determines whether "that" is obligatory or optional."
> 
> 
> Okay, then, I can understand it with this explanation.       I understand your statement, billj.
> 
> That makes sense to me. It's a shorter or simpler explanation.
> 
> I would have to consider it more, however, before thinking that I can use it as a way to explain omitting "that" to someone learning English.



I can see that, since gapping doesn't always come naturally to learners. The difficulty is that there is no other way to explain things other than to say that "that" is a relative pronoun. But that would misleading, even flat wrong, and it's for those reasons that I wouldn't recommend it.



Steven David said:


> Side note: Can this idea of "gap" - *possibly *- be used to explain why we can omit "that" before a "noun clause object"*?? *
> 
> I thought _____ they meant something else.
> 
> I thought that.
> 
> I thought that they meant something else.
> 
> "That", by itself, is the object of "thought". And can we now say that "gap", or "that" is anaphoric to "they meant something else", which is the object of "thought"*??*
> 
> Clearly, "they meant something else" is a noun clause object, which can be introduced by "that". And "that" is optional.



No, I'm afraid it can't. With declarative content clauses (your noun clauses), different considerations apply.

"That" is sometimes obligatory, sometimes optional, and sometimes inadmissible. Briefly:

_That I need help is clear._  [preposed subject of matrix clause -- obligatory]
_*I left before that he arrived_. [complement of preposition - inadmissible]
_I know_ (_that_) _it's genuine._  [optional]

Perhaps someone (you?) could post a separate question about "that" in such content clauses.


----------



## Steven David

billj said:


> I can see that, since gapping doesn't always come naturally to learners. The difficulty is that there is no other way to explain things other than to say that "that" is a relative pronoun. But that would misleading, even flat wrong, and it's for those reasons that I wouldn't recommend it.




I see. I understand this. I used "relative pronoun" because that's the common term others were using here. I usually just call these type of "that" clauses "identifying clauses" (as opposed to "non-identifying clauses"). So I usually think of these as "identifying clauses introduced with "that".



billj said:


> No, I'm afraid it can't. With declarative content clauses (your noun clauses), different considerations apply.




Okay, I've got that. Thank you.



billj said:


> "That" is sometimes obligatory, sometimes optional, and sometimes inadmissible. Briefly:
> 
> _That I need help is clear._  [obligatory]
> _*I left before that he arrived_. [inadmissible]
> _I know_ (_that_) _it's genuine._  [optional]
> 
> Perhaps someone (you?) could post a separate question about "that" in such content clauses.




Yes, those are three possibilities for "that" in speaking of whether we can or cannot omit "that" -- and whether "that" is possible in the first place. I had not thought of that idea -- the idea of pointing out when "that" is inadmissible, meaning not possible.

This could be a question, which is to say another topic or another thread. I'll bookmark this for now and come back to it later.


----------



## Steven David

VicNicSor said:


> Yes. And that's why if it weren't for "you feel", you couldn't omit "that":
> 
> _If you are feeling pressure to do something you feel is wrong,
> If you are feeling pressure to do something *that *you feel is wrong,
> If you are feeling pressure to do something is wrong,
> If you are feeling pressure to do something *that *is wrong,_




Yes, that's it. Without the clause that starts with "you feel", it's not possible to omit "that".

"If you are feeling pressure to do something is wrong, ... ..." 

"If you are feeling pressure to do something *that *is wrong, ... ..." 

It's not possible to omit "that" here because "that is wrong" refers to a subject.

We can break this part of it down into two sentences.

1) Something is wrong.

2) Do *it*.

We can combine these two sentences by replacing "it" with "that".

1-2) Do something *that *is wrong.

In the above example, 1-2), we recognize "something" as the subject.

Or we can look at this way.

1A) Do something.

2A) *It *is wrong.

1A-2A) Do something *that *is wrong.

In the above example, 1A-2A), we recognize "it" as the subject.

In both examples, "that" refers to a subject.

In the first pair of examples, "that" refers to "something", which is a subject.

In the second pair of examples, "that" refers to "it", which is a subject.

___________________________

Or, if I can apply what billj said, maybe, it's possible to say this:

Gap ______ refers to a subject, "something". Clearly, "something", in this sentence, is not an object. We also know that "something" is not an object because we use the verb "be". Both sides of the verb "be" are equal, even though we do not say a sentence like the second one below. Recognizing that there's no way "something" can be an object after "is", we also recognize it's impossible to omit "that".

Something is wrong.

Wrong is something.

In both of these sentences, "something" cannot be an object even though in the second sentence "something" occupies the space after the verb, which is the place where the object goes.

Here's how the phrase, or sentence, can work.

You may think it's okay to break the law, but if it's wrong -- well then - that's something else. Against the law is one thing, but *"wrong is something else"*. The law is one thing, and morals and ethics are other things. They're mostly the same, but sometimes they're not.


______________________________________________


This also refers to the question that Loob posted to me.

Do something *_____ *is wrong. 

Do something *that _____ *is wrong.  (Something is wrong. - Reminder: "something" is a subject.)

Both sides of the verb "be" are equal. Recognizing that there's no way "something" can be an object after "is", we also recognize it's impossible to omit "that".

Review: If we omit anything, we have to omit "that is", not just "that".

*Do something that is wrong. Do something wrong.

Something is wrong. = Wrong is something. < Both sides of "is" are not objects. So in "Do something that is wrong", "that" cannot be omitted, just "that is". 

______________________ *

*This is not likely at all, but it is a grammatical possibility.

Do wrong that is something.*

Do something that is wrong.

In both cases, it's impossible to omit "that" because "that" refers to a subject. And there's no way that an object comes after the verb "be" or a linking verb for that matter.

Cook something *that *tastes good.

Cook something that *is *good.

*Good is something that you cook.* - *This is a very unlikely sentence but a grammatical possibility*, nonetheless, with the point being that it's not possible to omit "that" in this sentence for the same reason that it's not possible to omit "that" in "Something is wrong" and "Do something that is wrong".

*Anything that comes after "be" is not an object. And, potentially, what comes before "be" and what comes after "be" can exchange places. Because what comes after "be" is not an object, we cannot omit "that" when it refers to anything that comes after "be". We can only omit "that" when "that" refers to (or is anaphoric to) an object -- and objects do  not follow "be". *


----------



## Steven David

billj said:


> I wouldn't go along with that, though I agree that _that_ is a subordinator when it introduces relative and content clauses. The relative clause is _you feel is wrong_, which contains the embedded content clause ____ _is wrong,_ functioning as complement of _feel_. There is no relative pronoun present, but the gap notation '_____' represents the position of covert relativised element, functioning as subject of the content clause:
> 
> _If you are feeling pressure to do something_ [(that) _you feel ____ is wrong_]
> 
> The relative clause is bracketed, and gap is linked to "something", the antecedent.
> 
> Note that presence or absence of "that" has no bearing on the analysis, though it is omissible in this instance.



>> Note that presence or absence of "that" has no bearing on the analysis, though it is omissible in this instance. <<

I must say that I agree with this.   

I would also like to add that, with respect to the original example sentence and a previous comment in a previous post in this thread, the phrase "to do" does not have objects. However, the verb "do" has objects. These are two separate words with two separate meanings: "to" and "do". They do not go together as a single unit called "infinitive". 

To some people they go together as a single unit called "infinitive". However, they do not go together as a single unit called "infinitive" to everyone.


----------



## Steven David

billj said:


> I can see that, since gapping doesn't always come naturally to learners. The difficulty is that there is no other way to explain things other than to say that "that" is a relative pronoun. But that would misleading, even flat wrong, and it's for those reasons that I wouldn't recommend it.




What about just calling that "that"?

And then just speak of whether or not the clause that follows "that" refers to an object or a subject.

Would that work for you?

That's how I explained it here in a couple other posts, and that's how I always explain it -- if I ever have to explain it.

This is the usual explanation provided in reference books and grammar books. And it's consistent and holds up well as a "rule".

The original poster referred to this way of explaining it, as well.

??


----------

