# <that> is always assuming that



## VicNicSor

Grace learns that her new servants had already served in the house, before she herself moved in. She:
-- So you say you know the house well?
-- Like the back of my hand. Well, *that *is always assuming that the walls haven't sprouted legs and moved in the meantime.
The Others, movie

What does the THAT refer to? "Knowing the house well"? Thank you.


----------



## Glasguensis

This is the set expression "that is", meaning "To qualify what I have just said :"
So yes, it refers indirectly to knowing the house well, since what the servant just said effectively means this.


----------



## VicNicSor

Glasguensis said:


> This is the set expression "that is", meaning "To qualify what I have just said :"
> So yes, it refers indirectly to knowing the house well, since what the servant just said effectively means this.


Ah, do you mean it's the idiom:
that is 
said when you want to give further details or be more exact about something 
• I'll meet you in the city, that is, I will if the trains are running.

And then there should be a comma, right?:
Well, that is*,* always assuming that the walls haven't sprouted legs and moved in the meantime.


----------



## JulianStuart

No comma needed in this case.  Your quoted idiom is similar but different


----------



## Glasguensis

JS beat me to it.


----------



## VicNicSor

I'm confused If "that is" here is a set expression, then -- which one is it if it's not the one I quoted? If the "that" is a pronoun and has an antecedent, then what it is?...


----------



## JulianStuart

Well, *that *(i.e., the previous statement)* is* (true) always assuming that the walls haven't sprouted legs and moved in the meantime.


----------



## VicNicSor

JulianStuart said:


> Well, *that *(i.e., the previous statement)* is* (true) always assuming that the walls haven't sprouted legs and moved in the meantime.


Ah, maybe I was misunderstanding the whole thing and "assuming that" in the OP means actually this?:
assuming (that)
conjunction 
accepting as true without question or proof 
• Even assuming that smokers do see the health warnings, I doubt they'll take any notice.


----------



## JulianStuart

VicNicSor said:


> Ah, maybe I was misunderstanding the whole thing and "assuming that" in the OP means actually this?:
> assuming (that)
> conjunction
> accepting as true without question or proof
> • Even assuming that smokers do see the health warnings, I doubt they'll take any notice.


Sometimes I wonder if you lose sight of the meaning of the whole sentence when you pick apart the individual structures and match them against your rules

 Most people would "accept as true without question or proof " the proposition that "the walls haven't sprouted legs and moved in the meantime."


----------



## VicNicSor

JulianStuart said:


> Sometimes I wonder if you lose sight of the meaning of the whole sentence when you pick apart the individual structures and match them against your rules
> 
> Most people would "accept as true without question or proof " the proposition that "the walls haven't sprouted legs and moved in the meantime."


The sentence is really confusing to me. Now, your rewriting makes more sense: "that* is* *true *always assuming that ...". The "is" is a linking verb. But in the OP, the "is" seems to be a verb which means "exist" -- "that exists / that takes place"... Right?


----------



## JulianStuart

An expansion of #7:  

Well, *that *(i.e., the previous statement "I know the house well like the back of my hand".)* is* (true) always assuming that the walls haven't sprouted legs and moved in the meantime.

If the walls have moved themselves, then I probably no longer know the place like the back of my hand


----------



## Glasguensis

VicNicSor said:


> But in the OP, the "is" seems to be a verb which means "exist" -- "that exists / that takes place"... Right?


You are the only person who can say what it seems like to you. To us, there is no doubt that it is a linking verb.


----------



## VicNicSor

Sorry, but how could "true" (or other similar word) be left out in a sentence like this? If "true" is implied, the OP sentence doesn't make sense to me without it. Unles it's the repeating of a verb, something like this:
-- So you say you know the house well?
-- Like the back of my hand.
*-- Is that true?*
Well, *that is*(,) always assuming that the walls haven't sprouted legs and moved in the meantime...


----------



## JulianStuart

VicNicSor said:


> Sorry, but how could "true" (or other similar word) be left out in a sentence like this? If "true" is implied, the OP sentence doesn't make sense to me without it. Unles it's the repeating of a verb, something like this:
> -- So you say you know the house well?
> -- Like the back of my hand.
> *-- Is that true?*
> Well, *that is*(,) always assuming that the walls haven't sprouted legs and moved in the meantime...


Sorry but I'm confused by your confusion - you seem to frequently ask about "missing" or "elided" words - and we've given you an example of one here.


----------



## VicNicSor

JulianStuart said:


> Sorry but I'm confused by your confusion - you seem to frequently ask about "missing" or "elided" words - and we've given you an example of one here.


I do, but this one is a completely different case. As I said in #13, there must be at least something to be elided/miss.
-- *Is that* true?
--* That is*.

Or:
-- So you say *you know* the house well?
-- Like the back of my hand. Well,* I do *always assuming that the walls haven't sprouted legs and moved in the meantime.

But "omitting" the adjective in the OP seems very odd to me. Honestly, I don't understand the "*always*" either. Why is it there? Does it go with "is" (is always) or with "assuming" (always assuming). The fact that there's no pause there before "always" makes me think that I still don't understand the structure.


----------



## JulianStuart

OK explanations have failed.  It is an idiom Check out "always assuming" in context

I still don't know if you have grasped the sense of the sentence:

If we assume that the walls haven't sprouted legs and moved in the meantime, then the statement that "I know the house well like the back of my hand" is always true.


----------



## Glasguensis

"That" refers to "like the back of my hand". 
Forget about understanding the structure - worry about understanding the meaning. Worrying about the structure is like worrying about why we say beef rather than cow-meat. It is perhaps of academic interest but of no utility whatsoever in understanding what is being referred to or knowing how and when to use the word.


----------



## VicNicSor

One more attempt to understand the structure. I'm sure it's possible!
After a quick research, I found that there is "(always) assuming (that)" as a conjunction, which is indeed used with a pause before "always assuming", and there is "(always) assume (that)" as a real verb. With the same meaning as the conjunction. In the OP it's the verb in the present continuous: "that *is *always *assuming *that".
Is that correct?


----------



## Glasguensis

I would have thought that the "real verb" version had a different meaning from the conjunction, so I have a hard time understanding what you're asking us to confirm.


----------



## VicNicSor

Glasguensis said:


> what you're asking us to confirm


That "that" is the subject, "is assuming" is the verb, and the meaning of "is always assuming" is the same as, e.g., here:
_For this reason, when games theorists talk about the Iterated or Repeated Prisoner's Dilemma game, they* always assume* that the end of the game is unpredictable, or known only to the banker._
Right?


----------



## Glasguensis

Wrong.
"That is" and "always assuming" are each idiomatic expressions which introduce a qualification or condition to the previous statement. They can be used together, as here, and retain this same meaning.
That is, if the walls haven't....
Always assuming that the walls haven't...
That is always assuming that the walls haven't...
The meanings of all three variants are identical.
The meaning of always assuming here is not the same as "always assume that the end of the game...", because that is using "always" and "assume" individually and not together as an idiomatic expression.


----------



## JulianStuart

Expressions like "He was always assuming ..." "They were always assuming..."  show up in some of the examples  the link I provided.  It is _not_ the structure used in the OP - the OP does not have a human as a subject.  However you wish to understand/analyse/categorize this idiom is up to you.  Because you may not be able to fit it into your existing understanding of rules and structures, it is an ideal candidate for you think of it as an idiom (_a group of words whose meaning cannot be predicted from the meanings of the constituent words_).  Thus a "true explanation" of the meaning and function if each word is not consistent with the rest of the language. Even a native speaker's familiarity with the language will not allow them to explain its meaning based only on the meaning of the words or their normally assigned function Therefore everyone, whether native speaker or learner,  has to learn it simply by using it and seeing it used.  Efforts attempting to explain it otherwise are futile.

To help you learn how it is used, here are some examples of its use, selected from the link above..

But Erik Pieters has retained his place at left back - *always assuming* his current calf problem doesn't rear its ugly head.

It has now been announced that the rate from 2020 will be 17% (*always assuming* we don't have a change of government before then).

We don't question anymore our chosen candidate's ability to deliver on his or her promises, *always assuming* that his or her sincerity is enough, ...

I rather suspect that it is around 3 games too late.* That is always assuming* that it is a new dawn and not just a false hope. 

... is open to political risk and the premise that the Government won’t be bankrupted by the crash of banks “too big to fail”. *That of course is always assuming *that the EU bureaucrats don’t step in and mandate a “haircut” for depositors as well (as they did in Cyprus).


*Always assuming*, of course, that some urban cowboy hasn't jacked up the thing on a set of 33-inchers and bolted on a Baja-style steel bumper.

I reckon that it'll be a couple of weeks before we see that backline gel properly, *always assuming* they get the chance. 

By contrast, McIlroy and Sullivan will need to play 27 holes on Sunday, *always assuming* the morning fog that has caused two successive three-hour delays doesn’t crop up again.


----------



## siares

I also read 'that is' as in


VicNicSor said:


> seems to be a verb which means "exist" -- "that exists / that takes place".


 'that is' takes the same place as 'id est', and I haven't thought of 'e' in 'i.e.' as a linking verb.
Statement + i.e. + qualification of under which conditions the statement was made/is actually valid:

_With NIMs for prime corporate customers at 2 to 2.5 percent, banks will be forced to lower margins of project, consumer and commercial (SMEs) loans. While this *will* generally *be* negative for banks, the overall economy *should* benefit from greater loan volumes from this lower trend in NIMs (*i.e. assuming* banks do not decide to place their funds in other financial instruments such as 10-year government bonds, which are still yielding around 8 percent.) Analysis: Market strategy amid policy risks
Jakarta post 26 Feb 2016_

_*We compared* the radiometric apparent surface temperature (T*) (*i.e. always assuming* the road as a black body) with the “true” surface temperature (Ts) estimated using the Temperature-Emissivity algorithm (TES) [23] applied on measurements made with a light hand-held multispectral radiometer[24
THERMAL INDETERMINATION: THE PROBLEM OF SEPARATION OF EMISSIVITY AND TEMPERATURE by A. Royer, F. Nerry, and F. Chagnon_


----------



## VicNicSor

Glasguensis said:


> That is, if the walls haven't....
> (.......)
> That is always assuming that the walls haven't...


If it's the expression "that is (to say)", which is what in your first example, then there must be a comma after "is"... whether it's followed by "if" or "always assuming".... Am I wrong?


JulianStuart said:


> "They were always assuming..." show up in some of the examples the link I provided. It is _not_ the structure used in the OP - the OP does not have a human as a subject.


But that's not essential. That's not a grammatical difference. You yourself said that "that" refers to an antecedent.
No matter whether the antecedent is human or not.
But the difference between these two


JulianStuart said:


> We don't question anymore our chosen candidate's ability to deliver on his or her promises*, always assuming* that his or her sincerity is enough, ...
> 
> I rather suspect that it is around 3 games too late.* That is always assuming* that it is a new dawn and not just a false hope.


... is essential. The comma makes all the difference
As well as in your suggestion with "true". Imagine a sentence: "That is true*,* assuming that ........". Here, "assuming" is a conjuction as in "deliver on his or her promises*, always assuming* that ".

Siares, again, I believe the comma is obligatory there.


----------



## JulianStuart

I have no idea what your point is any more 

You quoted two examples.  I can change the second one to the same structure as the first without any alteration in meaning.  So what?



> We don't question anymore our chosen candidate's ability to deliver on his or her promises*, always assuming* that his or her sincerity is enough, ...
> 
> I rather suspect that it is around 3 games too late.* That is always assuming* that it is a new dawn and not just a false hope.



I rather suspect that it is around 3 games too late, *always assuming* that it is a new dawn and not just a false hope.


----------



## Glasguensis

VicNicSor said:


> If it's the expression "that is (to say)", which is what in your first example, then there must be a comma after "is"... whether it's followed by "if" or "always assuming".... Am I wrong?


Yes.


----------



## VicNicSor

JulianStuart said:


> You quoted two examples. I can change the second one to the same structure as the first without any alteration in meaning. So what?


That's what I've been talking about. The meaning is the same, but the grammatical structure is different:


VicNicSor said:


> I found that there is "(always) assuming (that)" as a conjunction, which is indeed used with a pause before "always assuming", and there is "(always) assume (that)" as a real verb. *With the same meaning* as the conjunction.



Note, you *had to *change the structure.


----------



## JulianStuart

Still  not getting your point Are you _still_ trying to come up with a _rational_ explanation for an _idiom_/structure?  If so, I'm outta here


----------



## VicNicSor

JulianStuart said:


> _still_ trying to come up with a _rational_ explanation


But you yourself did that. You said that the "that" refers to "I know the house well like the back of my hand". Hence, it's a pronoun which is the subject of the clause and hence it has a verb. The only verb it could be is "is assuming".


----------



## JulianStuart

I changed it by inserting words so y_ou would be able to understand the idiom, _not to pick it to pieces or rationalize it...


----------



## VicNicSor

JulianStuart said:


> I changed it by inserting words so y_ou would be able to understand the idiom, _not to pick it to pieces or rationalize it...


Look at this please:
assume:
5. to be based on the idea that something else is correct 
assume (that) 
The theory assumes that both labour and capital are mobile. 
Coen’s economic forecast assumes a 3.5% growth rate.

No humans, inanimate things assume. In the OP, the previous statement "assumes", in the same way. No difference. "Is assuming" is a verb. 

Do you disagree with that and say that "that is always assuming" is "_i.e./that is to say_ always assuming", but without the comma?


----------



## Myridon

VicNicSor said:


> No humans, inanimate things assume.


You have assumed that based on two examples.  You assume incorrectly.


----------



## VicNicSor

Myridon said:


> You have assumed that based on two examples.  You assume incorrectly.


You mean you deny the definition with the examples I quoted?


----------



## Glasguensis

Why are you quoting a definition of "assume" when we have repeatedly told you that this is an idiomatic expression? You really need to stop analysing this and accept.


----------



## VicNicSor

Glasguensis said:


> Why are you quoting a definition of "assume" when we have repeatedly told you that this is an idiomatic expression? You really need to stop analysing this and accept.


Because there are two idiomatic expressions: "that is" and "assuming that". The former requires a comma after itself, the latter -- before itself. In the OP there is _no comma_.
You said they're used here together, as here: "*That is, if* the walls haven't...." But then, why no comma in the OP? That's what I have been asking


----------



## JulianStuart

Comma is optional in this use of this idiom.  Doesn't affect the meaning.


----------



## VicNicSor

JulianStuart said:


> Comma is optional in this use of this idiom.  Doesn't affect the meaning.


I hate arguing, but it does affect the meaning:
Being optimistic is a choice. While being akeptical can be a healthy way to avoid getting taken advantage of, being pessimistic - *that is, always assuming* the worst - can have major negative consequences on your life.

In the sentence above, "that is" and "always assuming" are used as two different expressions that have no connection with each other. "Always assuming the worst" explains what "being pessimistic" means. It's not the case in the OP. Other than cases like that, I guess, you won't find "that is, always assuming"


----------



## JulianStuart

JulianStuart said:


> Comma is optional in* this* use of *this* idiom.  Doesn't affect the meaning.





VicNicSor said:


> I hate arguing,


No you don't, you seem to enjoy it  You bring in anther example just for that purpose.  It would help if you read the post I wrote. I've highlighted the key words I specifically inserted so you could not take it away and say "It doesn't always apply" - but you did anyway


----------



## VicNicSor

Thank you everyone for your answers !

I keep believing that "that is ... assuming" in the OP is "pronoun+verb", though


----------



## RM1(SS)

Permit me to confuse things further with my interpretation. 


VicNicSor said:


> -- So you say you know the house well?
> -- Like the back of my hand. Well, *that *is always assuming that the walls haven't sprouted legs and moved in the meantime.


*That* *is always assuming* that the walls haven't sprouted legs and moved in the meantime.
*My statement that I know the house well* *always assumes* that the walls haven't sprouted legs and moved in the meantime.


----------



## VicNicSor

RM1(SS) said:


> Permit me to confuse things further with my interpretation.
> 
> *That* *is always assuming* that the walls haven't sprouted legs and moved in the meantime.
> *My statement that I know the house well* *always assumes* that the walls haven't sprouted legs and moved in the meantime.


I see this pretty well as a support of my point of view


----------



## Glasguensis

You insist that "that is" is only an idiomatic expression if followed by a comma, and the millions of native speakers who do not believe so are wrong. Bearing in mind of course that correct English is actually *defined* by how native speakers use it, and not by some central authority. 
Whilst I agree that "that is" is *usually* followed by a comma, *it does not have to be*. Here I would argue that the combination of the two idiomatic expressions actually creates an idiomatic expression in itself, and that this combined idiomatic expression  "that is always assuming" does not have a comma, either internally or following. 
If it makes you happy to believe you have analysed the grammar of this sentence and found a rule, great. The rest of us will continue to use English empirically, as we always have.


----------



## VicNicSor

I just think it's much easier to assume that "*that is* always assuming" acts in the same way as, e.g., "*we are *always assuming" than believe that the expression "that is" may not be followed by a comma, and another important thing -- I don't understand why "that is" (expression) would be put in the OP. It makes sense to me in the sentence I quoted in #37, but in the OP... 
No, I don't "insist", I, as I said, just "keep believing"


----------

