# The idea that ....  [clause type]



## Cholo234

<<The idea that she was a vegetarian pleased him no end.>>

Can someone say whether "that she was a vegetarian" is a 1) noun clause or an 2) adjective clause?  If possible, it would be great to know just why it is a noun clause, an adjective clause or both.


----------



## Loob

I think you may be splitting the sentence wrongly, Cholo: it's
_The idea that she was a vegetarian ... pleased him ... no end._


----------



## PaulQ

"The idea that she was a vegetarian" consists of a noun and a restrictive/defining relative clause and these form a noun phrase, which is the subject of "pleased."


----------



## siares

Shouldn't there be a 'to':_ pleased him to no end_?


----------



## Cholo234

Can there be two ways of describing a sentence?  

In English Grammar, the author provides an example (somewhat similar to my own subject sentence?) with an adjective clause "that I consult most often":  "The book that I consult most often is the dictionary."

The author's calls "that I consult most often" an adjective clause.


----------



## JulianStuart

Cholo234 said:


> Can there be two ways of describing a sentence?
> 
> In English Grammar, the author provides an example (somewhat similar to my own subject sentence?) with an adjective clause "that I consult most often":  "The book that I consult most often is the dictionary."
> 
> The author's calls "that I consult most often" an adjective clause.


Yes, there are different systems for naming clauses. Paul has used the term "relative clause" while others, including your author, use the term adjective clause, and others use "adjectival clause"  The wiki on dependent clauses (also known as subordinate clauses ) has more information Dependent clause - Wikipedia.


----------



## Loob

siares said:


> Shouldn't there be a 'to':_ pleased him to no end_?


No, that would mean something quite different, siares. "Pleased him no end" is an informal way of saying "pleased him very much indeed".


----------



## velisarius

I'd say that it's a noun clause, in apposition to "idea".

Here is a defining relative clause:
_The idea *that my boss came up with *was brilliant._


----------



## Hildy1

siares said:


> Shouldn't there be a 'to':_ pleased him to no end_?


I agree with Loob that there should not be a "to".

no end - very much (literallly, without limit)
That pleased them no end. - That pleased them very much.

to no end - in vain
They made their best efforts, to no end. - Despite their best efforts, they did not succeed.

It is true, though, that many people seem to confuse the two expressions recently.


----------



## Cholo234

Noun phrase?  Noun clause, in apposition to "idea"?  Since I'm not here for an assignment, I'm pleased to read differing responses.


----------



## PaulQ

JulianStuart said:


> Yes, there are different systems for naming clauses.


This is the clue.

The idea.......[that she was a vegetarian]... pleased.....him..... no end.
noun............[.......adjectival clause.......]... verb......object... adverb - *adjectival *as it qualifies "idea"
Noun ...........[........relative clause........]... verb.......object... adverb - *relative *as it relates to "idea"
Noun............[.....clause in apposition....]... verb.......object... adverb - *in apposition *as it adds information to "idea"

{The idea that she was a vegetarian}... pleased.....him..... no end.
{...............noun clause..................}.... verb......object... adverb -> {The idea that she was a vegetarian} acts as the subject, which must be a noun.


----------



## siares

Thank you, Loob and Hildy1.
I haven't heard it before. I found it now in WR dictionary where it is called -Idioms. Must be why it sounds so ungrammatical.


----------



## SevenDays

Cholo234 said:


> Can there be two ways of describing a sentence?
> 
> In English Grammar, the author provides an example (somewhat similar to my own subject sentence?) with an adjective clause "that I consult most often":  "The book that I consult most often is the dictionary."
> 
> The author's calls "that I consult most often" an adjective clause.



(1) _The book that I consult most often is the dictionary_ (relative clause/adjective clause)
(2) _The idea that she was vegetarian pleased him to no end _(appositive clause/noun clause)

Relative clauses and appositive clauses look the same and point to the same idea (they say "something" about a referent), but they behave differently in sentence structure. Try the following tests to tell one from the other:

Can you omit "that" and still have a grammatical sentence? If "yes," you have a relative clause: _The book I consult most often is the dictionary_. if "no" (_The idea she was vegetarian pleased him to no end ???_), you have an appositive clause.

Does the word "that" play a syntactic role in the clause in which it appears? If "yes," you have a relative pronoun and a relative clause. In (1), "that" functions as direct object (_I consult that ~ I consult the book_). If "no," you have an appositive clause. In (2), "that"plays no function (the clause is simply "she was vegetarian"). All that "that" does is introduce the clause that functions as complement (and accordingly "that" gets the label _complementizer_; traditional grammar uses the term "conjunction").

Can you use "which" instead of "that"? If "yes," you have a relative clause: _The book which I consult most often is a dictionary_. If "no," you have an appositive clause: _The idea which she was vegetarian pleased him to no end ???_

So, (2) is an_ appositive clause_. Notice that you can use the noun phrase or the appositive and maintain meaning: _The idea pleased him to no end ~ That she was vegetarian pleased him to no end_.


----------



## Loob

SevenDays said:


> Can you use "which" instead of "that"? If "yes," you have a relative clause:


That's the test I use, SevenDays.

Whatever you call "that she was a vegetarian" in post 1, I'm as sure as I can be that it's not a relative clause....


----------



## Cholo234

I'm very pleased by all of the responses -- no end!


----------



## Cholo234

Newer discussion added to previous thread.
Cagey, moderator 

<<the idea that he likes mustard is absurd>>
Hi,

Following up on <---> <<The idea that she was a vegetarian pleased him no end>>, I want to know whether 'that he likes mustard is absurd' could also be called an appositive clause.  The subject line comes from the sentence 'the idea that he likes mustard is absurd'.

Any and all responses would be welcomed.


----------



## e2efour

You can call _that he likes mustard_ an appositive clause.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I don't see anything appositive about it at all, I fear.

An appositive clause usually defines or expands the meaning of another clause beside it.

If you were to say* The idea that he likes mustard, that he gets pleasure from its fiery taste, is absurd*, then I'd call that an appositive construction.

Cross-posted.


----------



## e2efour

_That he likes mustard_ is in apposition to the noun phrase _the idea.
_
Why do you say that you _don't see anything appositive about it_?, Thomas?
Of perhaps you mean that _is absurd_ is not part of the appositive clause?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

e2efour said:


> _That he likes mustard_ is in apposition to the noun phrase _the idea.
> _
> Why do you say that you _don't see anything appositive about it_?, Thomas?
> [...]


I gave at least a suggestion of a reason:


Thomas Tompion said:


> An appositive clause usually defines or expands the meaning of another clause beside it.


One of the few rules of puncuation on which most grammarians seem to agree is that appositives need to be separated from each other by a comma.

Thus I'm distinguishing between *The idea, that he likes mustard, is absurd* (appositive), which is not how the clause was presented to us, and

*The idea that he likes mustard is absurd* (no appositive), which is how it was presented to us.

The two would be intoned very differently in speech, and thus be very easy to tell apart.


----------



## e2efour

In _The report that I resigned is false_, the (defining) appositive clause (_that I resigned_) follows a noun phrase (_The report_).

The appositive clause complements the noun phrase.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

e2efour said:


> In _The report that I resigned is false_, the (defining) appositive clause (_that I resigned_) follows a noun phrase (_The report_).
> 
> The appositive clause complements the noun phrase.


I don't think we will progress if we change the examples on each other.

I don't see that your case addresses the points I made.

I have the impression that we understand different things by apposition.


----------



## e2efour

To go back to the original question, _the idea that he likes mustard is absurd_ is a sentence. It is *not *an appositive clause.

I gave the standard definition of an appositive clause in #1. An example in the Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar 2014 (underlined) is "they had the idea that everything would be alright in the end".

You are using a slightly different meaning of _apposition._


----------



## RedwoodGrove

e2efour said:


> I gave the standard definition of an appositive clause in #1. An example in the Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar 2014 (underlined) is "they had the idea that everything would be alright in the end".


That looks more like what I understand by a _relative clause_, though grammatical terminology is not my highest skillset or priority.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

e2efour said:


> You are using a slightly different meaning of _apposition._


I said I thought this was the case.

So you disagree with the argument I make in #20?

You must grant the difference between *The idea, that he likes mustard, is absurd*  and *The idea that he likes mustard is absurd*, surely?

Do they both contain appositive constructions for you, then?  Your world must be quite full of the things.

For me they often have rhetorical effect - *Friends, Romans, Countrymen*, etc.

I'm against weakening that principle, but maybe you will tell me that the word has developed much wider meaning.

Edited after threads were merged to update post numbers.  Cagey, moderator


----------



## Thomas Tompion

e2efour said:


> I gave the standard definition of an appositive clause in #1.


But you were not the author of #16.

We are good at misunderstanding each other.



Edited after threads were merged to update post numbers.  Cagey, moderator


----------



## e2efour

RedwoodGrove said:


> That looks more like what I understand by a _relative clause_, though grammatical terminology is not my highest skillset or priority.



In _The idea that he likes mustard is absurd _there is no relative clause.
_That _is a conjunction, not a pronoun. Try replacing it with _which_, which is impossible.

Just to give the definition of an appositive clause:

"a finite clause, often introduced by _that_, which complements (or postmodifies) the content of a noun phrase."
The finite clause may be a defining or a non-defining clause (i.e. the presence of a comma after the noun phrase). 
For a non-defining clause: _They ignored Wendy's very sensible sugggestion, (namely) that the police should be told._


----------



## Thomas Tompion

You still don't address my case.  Are you forgetting, or just doing it on purpose?


----------



## e2efour

The definition of _appositive clause_ includes non-defining and defining clauses, such as those as you gave in #20.

Are you disputing what I wrote in #17? That hardly seems possible. The word _namely_ is called an apposition marker and we can insert it into apposition clauses, as appropriate.

Your definition of _apposition_ is wider narrower than mine, it would appear.

Here is another example of an appositive clause:
_Police say they can't confirm a TV report that the building had been hit by automatic fire._

In any case I have little interest in terminology. I am only answering the question posed in #16.


Edited after threads were merged to update post numbers.  Cagey, moderator


----------



## Thomas Tompion

e2efour said:


> Are you disputing what I wrote in #2? That hardly seems possible.


Of course I am.  I've said so at least once.

I may be wrong to do so, of course.  I just don't use the word appositive in that way.

I'm sorry you still don't answer my question.  Perhaps I should give up hope of an answer.


----------



## e2efour

Your statement in #20 simply illustrates the statement that "Grammarians vary in how widely they apply the term _apposition_" (Bas Aarts). Your interpretation of apposition is narrower than the one I gave.

If you dispute what I have written in #17 (for which I have given evidence in #27), perhaps you could provide some evidence for not accepting it.

What would you call the clause in question? If you don't like _appositive clause_, you can call it a _that-_clause, if you like.



Edited after threads were merged to update post numbers.  Cagey, moderator


----------



## Thomas Tompion

e2efour said:


> Your statement in #5 simply illustrates the statement that "Grammarians vary in how widely they apply the term _apposition_" (Bas Aarts). Your interpretation of apposition is narrower than the one I gave.
> 
> If you dispute what I have written in #2 (for which I have given evidence in #12), perhaps you could provide some evidence for not accepting it.
> 
> What would you call the clause in question? If you don't like _appositive clause_, you can call it a _that-_clause, if you like.


You expect me to answer your questions, while continuing to refuse to answer mine.

Look at the definitions in our dictionary: i*n apposition,* (of two consecutive nouns in a sentence) referring to the same person or thing. In the sentence "Washington, our first president, was born in Virginia'', the nouns _Washington_ and _our first president_ are in apposition.

Or the Random House: *Apposition*

the act of placing together or bringing into proximity;
juxtaposition.
the addition or application of one thing to another thing.
Grammara syntactic relation between expressions, usually consecutive, that have the same function and the same relation to other elements in the sentence, the second expression identifying or supplementing the first. In _Washington, our first president,_ the phrase _our first president_ is in apposition with _Washington._
My post #5 follows these principles exactly and I'd maintain that this is how the word is used normally in the language.

*The idea that he likes mustard is absurd *clearly *does not *contain an apposition in this sense, whereas
*The idea, that he likes mustard, is absurd *clearly *does*.

This seems to be a case where some grammarians, faced with problems of definition, have produced an interpretation which is quite different from the standard use of the word.

I'd assumed that Cholo wanted his question answered for standard English.


----------



## Cholo234

Thanks for your responses. I'm not overwhelmed by them, but I am still trying to soak them all in.


----------



## e2efour

Thomas Tompion said:


> I said I thought this was the case.
> 
> So you disagree with the argument I make in #20?
> 
> You must grant the difference between *The idea, that he likes mustard, is absurd*  and *The idea that he likes mustard is absurd*, surely?
> Edited after threads were merged to update post numbers.  Cagey, moderator



This thread is not about what you consider to be an appositive clause or your definition of apposition. It's about how modern grammar books describe certain clauses.

I have pointed out that there are different views about what is meant by apposition.
But I have also given you the correct grammatical terminology to describe the clause in #16 more than once, which you apparently refuse to accept.

Of course there is a difference in meaning between the two sentences above. I have already answered your question by saying in #27 that one is a defining and the other a non-defining appositive clause.

I suggest you read what SevenDays says in #13.

Here is another definition of an appositive clause (Leech, A Glossary of English Grammar, 2006):  "By extension, the term apposition can apply to a noun phrase next to a coreferential nominal clause (for example, _the idea/hope that the White House would change its policy_ can become a sentence with be: _The idea/hope was that the White House would change its policy_)."

This is exactly what this thread is about.

(The unfortunate thing, in my opinion, is that all this has little to do with learning and understanding the syntax of a language. If grammatical terms are needed, they can only be of help if they are in the questioner's own language and interpreted in relation to that language.)


----------



## SevenDays

_The idea that he likes mustard is absurd_

To me, this is indeed apposition. The two elements are syntactically equivalent; there's a noun phrase (_The idea_) and a that-clause (_that he likes mustard_) which functions like a noun. They are also semantically equivalent, in that they are co-referent. As a result of this apposition, we can drop one of the elements and maintain the basic contextual meaning:
_The idea is absurd.
That he likes mustard is absurd_.

In other words, both "The idea" and "That he likes mustard" can play the role of "subject," precisely because they are syntactically equivalent. But _because_ they are co-referent, the original structure is more likely to be kept intact.

Now, some use the term "full apposition" when the two elements are noun phrases. When they are not (as in the case of a _noun phrase_ plus _that-clause_), they go with "partial apposition." One way or the other, it's still apposition.

And you can clearly have apposition without commas:
_King Arthur
The expression "little green men"_ _makes a lot of sense in Mars_ (_The expression_ and _"little green men"_ are in apposition).

The use of commas may simply reflect a particular intonation (or "pauses," if you wish) in speech:
_The idea that he likes mustard is absurd
The idea*, *that he likes mustard*,* is absurd_
Either way, it's still apposition.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

SevenDays said:


> To me, this is indeed apposition. The two elements are syntactically equivalent; there's a noun phrase (_The idea_) and a that-clause (_that he likes mustard_) which functions like a noun. They are also semantically equivalent, in that they are co-referent. As a result of this apposition, we can drop one of the elements and maintain the basic contextual meaning:
> _The idea is absurd.
> That he likes mustard is absurd_.


Interesting.  I had considered this view and rejected it, on the grounds that *That he likes mustard is absurd* doesn't work, whereas *the idea is absurd* does work.  So we don't have the grammatical equivalence which is a necessary condition of apposition.

Thank you for considering my argument from what has now become #20.


SevenDays said:


> The use of commas may simply reflect a particular intonation (or "pauses," if you wish) in speech:
> _The idea that he likes mustard is absurd
> The idea*, *that he likes mustard*,* is absurd_
> Either way, it's still apposition.


You don't deal with the fact that the meaning of the two sentences is different.  In the first case the apposition is far from obvious to me (indeed absent in my view); in the second it is entirely obvious and standard.

I don't think you can treat the two as though they were the same sentence.


----------



## SevenDays

Thomas Tompion said:


> Interesting.  I had considered this view and rejected it, on the grounds that *That he likes mustard is absurd* doesn't work, whereas *the idea is absurd* does work.  So we don't have the grammatical equivalence which is a necessary condition of apposition.
> 
> Thank you for considering my argument from what has now become #20.
> You don't deal with the fact that the meaning of the two sentences is different.  In the first case the apposition is far from obvious to me (indeed absent in my view); in the second it is entirely obvious and standard.
> 
> I don't think you can treat the two as though they were the same sentence.



Let's leave aside _labels_ for a moment.

(a)_ The idea that he likes mustard is absurd_
(b) _ The idea, that he likes mustard, is absurd
_
The only potential difference that I see is that (a) suggests that there are "other" ideas (contextually). But this is extra-linguistic; it can't be discerned just by looking at the sentence in isolation. Then again, the only difference could be in terms of intonation/pause, where syntax simply reflects what happens in speech.

But perhaps you see another difference (in terms of meaning).

And, back to labels. To me, this _is_ apposition. But, as e2efour has already pointed out, there are different views as to the meaning of "apposition."


----------



## Thomas Tompion

SevenDays said:


> as e2efour has already pointed out,


It's not reasonable or civilized in argument to use expressions like this which assume that you are right.

You cannot point out something which is not the case.

You have sidestepped the point about *That he likes mustard is absurd *not being a viable sentence.

There's a vast difference in register between the two sentences, the second is much more rhetorical.

In the first *The idea that he likes mustard* is an entity.

In the second *The idea* and *That he likes mustard* are two entities in apposition; the separation of the entities, usually by commas is a typical feature of apposition - Friends, Romans, Countrymen!

You force me to repeat myself: you may be right that the grammarians regard both as examples of apposition, but this then seems to me another example where their use of a word is at variance with the way it's used by normal sensible educated people, who deploy it in the way described above in the dictionaries.


----------



## SevenDays

Thomas Tompion said:


> It's not reasonable or civilized in argument to use expressions like this which assume that you are right.
> 
> You cannot point out something which is not the case.
> 
> You have sidestepped the point about *That he likes mustard is absurd *not being a viable sentence.
> 
> There's a vast difference in register between the two sentences, the second is much more rhetorical.
> 
> In the first *The idea that he likes mustard* is an entity.
> 
> In the second *The idea* and *That he likes mustard* are two entities in apposition; the separation of the entities, usually by commas is a typical feature of apposition - Friends, Romans, Countrymen!
> 
> You force me to repeat myself: you may be right that the grammarians regard both as examples of apposition, but this then seems to me another example where their use of a word is at variance with the way it's used by normal sensible educated people, who deploy it in the way described above in the dictionaries.



It is reasonable and civilized to use that expression; it acknowledges that the expression in question ("there are different views as to the meaning of apposition" has already been introduced in the conversation, and not by me (by e2efour). And, yes, I agree with him.

What's viable or not is in the eye of the beholder. _That is likes mustard is absurd_ doesn't bother me at all, nor do any of these:

_That he loves his wife is evident
That he hates cooking is obvious_
and on and on

The fact that you can place the "that-clauses" at the end via clefting (_It is evident that he loves his wife; what is obvious is that he hates cooking_) doesn't make the original wording _incorrect _or _unidiomatic. _Don't confuse style, rhetoric, with syntax. And, just out of curiosity, are "normal sensible educated people" those that agree with you, and your views on language?

Back to this, one last time
_The idea that he likes mustard is absurd
The idea*,* that he likes mustard*, *is absurd._

You claim there's a difference in _meaning _(#36), but you haven't told us what that difference in meaning _is_. I suspect that whatever difference in meaning you see is just as subjective as calling one "appositive," and not the other. There's nothing wrong with subjectivity, and I wouldn't think of you any less "sensible" or "educated" for it.


----------



## wandle

(1) 'The idea that she was a vegetarian pleased him no end.'





Cholo234 said:


> Can someone say whether "that she was a vegetarian" is a 1) noun clause or an 2) adjective clause?


It is an indirect statement. An indirect statement is usually introduced by a verb of saying or thinking: (2) 'He realised that she was a vegetarian'.
However, it is also standard to introduce an indirect statement by a noun which represents a statement or a thought: 'the rule that ...', 'the announcement that ...'. 'the recollection that ...' etc.

Either way, we can convert the indirect statement into direct statement, by leaving out 'that', using inverted commas, and changing the tense or personal references where necessary:

(2a) 'He realised, "She is a vegetarian" .'
(1a) 'The idea "She is a vegetarian" pleased him no end.'


e2efour said:


> "Grammarians vary in how widely they apply the term _apposition_" (Bas Aarts).


That sounds rather like an admission that *Thomas Tompion's* point is valid:


Thomas Tompion said:


> In the first *The idea that he likes mustard* is an entity.
> In the second *The idea* and *That he likes mustard* are two entities in apposition;


That is certainly what the commas appear to mean in sentence (b):


SevenDays said:


> (a)_ The idea that he likes mustard is absurd_
> (b) _The idea, that he likes mustard, is absurd_


If we say that the use of the noun phrase 'the idea' to introduce the indirect statement means that those two elements are placed side by side, and that the indirect statement clause is a noun clause, then the question arises, is there any less apposition in sentence (a) than in sentence (b)? There is certainly a difference between (a) and (b). It is the same as the difference between a defining (restrictive) relative clause and a non-defining one. In other words, including the commas makes the noun clause correspond to a non-defining relative clause. It seems reasonable to me to say that this difference is typical of any phrase in apposition.


----------



## Cholo234

The "test" to help determine whether a clause is appositive or relative, suggested by SevenDays_,_ I tried with sentences in Schaum's Outline Series -- using "which" instead of "that", and it worked with all examples of adjective clauses (except for the ones that started with "who").  "Which" worked in all the adjective clause examples.


----------

