I hate "that"...and other grammar problems!

[kristie911]

I am doing a line by line edit on my novel and I never realized I write just like I speak and I say "that" way, way too much.

i.e. I never realized that I don't speak as well as I thought I did.
Or the one I just went back and deleted in "I never realized that I write just like I speak."

It's a superfluous word that I can't seem to shake. I see it when I edit but why am I putting it there in the first place?! It seems like I've deleted about a hundred of them! I don't know if it's some sort of strange Midwestern speech thing...I guess it's better than "Like".

Oh well, I guess I should be glad, being surrounded by rednecks, I haven't started saying things like: She don't see them anymore now.

Yes, I actually work with people that talk like that. It drives me bonkers!

BTW, I'm overstocked in "that"s, and will be auctioning them off for a nickel apiece on ebay if anyone needs some. lol

[reph]

"Yes, I actually work with people that talk like that."

It should be "people who talk like that," because they're people. Are any of the thats you're deleting whos in disguise?

Not every that is superfluous, even aside from the "who" kind.

[kristie911]

See what I mean?! I totally missed that one...

Of course, it was late and the moon was in my eyes!

What can I say? I have no excuse...

[KTC]

I do a FIND in WORD for THAT all the time. It's amazing how fast they fly off the fingers when you are typing. I am constantly doing a THAT delete. It's my nemesis. I'm glad others have this problem too!

[cwfgal]

I do a FIND in WORD for THAT all the time. It's amazing how fast they fly off the fingers when you are typing. I am constantly doing a THAT delete. It's my nemesis. I'm glad others have this problem too!

Ditto.

Beth

[StoryG27]

Mmm, me too.
Maybe we should all get together and start an, 'I hate THAT' club.

[Mistook]

[QUOTE=reph]"Yes, I actually work with people that talk like that."

It should be "people who talk like that," because they're people. Are any of the thats you're deleting whos in disguise?
[QUOTE]

I've got to say, this is an old pet peeve of mine for song lyrics. "The one that I love" must be a line in about three thousand songs. I always think, "You must not love her as much as you think, seeing as how you refer to her as an object rather than a person."

[Nateskate]

I was so brutal in deleting "That" my editor was putting some back in. Now, I'm putting some back in.

It's an overused word, but it has a place here and there.

[Jamesaritchie]

[QUOTE=reph]"Yes, I actually work with people that talk like that."

It should be "people who talk like that," because they're people. Are any of the thats you're deleting whos in disguise?
[QUOTE]

I've got to say, this is an old pet peeve of mine for song lyrics. "The one that I love" must be a line in about three thousand songs. I always think, "You must not love her as much as you think, seeing as how you refer to her as an object rather than a person."

Actually, I think fiction writers can, with care, learn something from such song lyrics. Sometimes grammar or word choice is wrong in song lyrics because the writer didn't know any better, but more often than not the writer was sacrificing grammar or word choice for rhythm, cadence, and sound.

"The one who I love" is grammatically incorrect, and "The one whom I love," while correct, just doesn't have either the rhythm or the sound needed.

Sometimes, just rarely, the right choice is the wrong choice, and the wrong choice is the right choice.

[loquax]

What's wrong with "The one I love"?

[reph]

"This is dedicated to the one I love."

Honor thy Mamas and thy Papas.

(Oh, phooey. Now I'll have to pay the permissions fee.)

[Jamesaritchie]

What's wrong with "The one I love"?

In most lyrics, it doesn't scan. The Mamas and Papas line works only because of the entire sentence. Scansion matters, particularly in songs and poems. Correct grammar is usually best, but when faced with correct that doesn't sound right, or that doesn't scan, and with incorrect that does sound right, that scans, go with incorrect. This can be true in fiction, as well.

[NicoleJLeBoeuf]

I was taught that, as regards people, there is a time to use "who" and a time to use "that."

"Johnny Bravo is the one that I love" - Because the clause "that I love" is necessary to the sentence (a restrictive clause), we use "that."

"Johnny Bravo, whom I love dearly, just sent his Mama a lovely present." - Because the clause "whom I love dearly" is a parenthetical aside (a non-restrictive clause), we use "who."

With things, there is a similar distinction in when you use "that" and "which".

"This is the knife that killed Col. Mustard."
"This knife, which killed Col. Mustard, is in grave need of sharpening."

That's what I was taught in school, anyway.

Strunk & White do not seem to address it exept by inference here (http://www.bartleby.com/141/strunk.html#3) (page down a bit).

[triceretops]

Isn't the "that" word the one editors say, "oh hell leave it in there for me to take out."? I hate that that is the way things are supposed to be! Now there's a doozy for ya.

Tri

[NeuroFizz]

"Yes, I actually work with people that talk like that."

It should be "people who talk like that," because they're people. Are any of the thats you're deleting whos in disguise?

Not every that is superfluous, even aside from the "who" kind.

Good call, Reph. This is one of my pet irks. A person is a who, not a that. Now, how about Nicole's example? I'm not sure, but to say a person is the "one" that I love--does that make it okay to use "that" since the word refers to one instead of the person (directly)? I need an expanded ruling on this.

Now, back to the original thread question/comment. Don't automatically throw away incorrect, obscure or repetitive words. They can be used. Each one of our characters should be very distinctive in his/her speech pattern as well as in his/her actions. Throwing in an annoying use of a word like "that" may mark a peculiarity of one of your characters, to give that character separation from your other characters, particuarly if their dialogue lines tend to come out sounding very similar. Little personal quirks in spoken grammar and usage help tag a speaker without using an overt tag, and gives the character greater depth, if done right. We do this without thought if two characters are from different backgrounds, but if two characters are close in background and interests, it can be a problem, and subtle quirks can help. My opinion, of course.

[loquax]

In England we have a radio station that constantly plays the same songs, and the idiots at my work have it on all day. One song they keep playing is "the one I love (http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/The-One-I-Love-lyrics-David-Gray/CE9A9627C7DE3B7F48257061000D43C7)" by David Gray.


Another song they keep playing is "Cool" by Gwen Stefani. One line irritates me beyond belief - "And it's such a miracle that you and me are still good friends."

There's no excuse for it. The correct grammar would sound exactly the same. As you say, sometimes it fits, sometimes the songwriter just doesn't know any better.

[NeuroFizz]

Hi, L.

Just to be you-know-who's advocate, do you expect SnoopDog to use pinky-in-the-air, proper King's English? Music is cultural, and ethnic. Just like writing. Sometimes wrong is right in particular circumstances. Then again, I agree with you. Some songs are inconsistent in terms of grammar, which suggests the irregular usage is not for effect.

[loquax]

Neurofizz, you've hit upon quite a controversial subject.

Should language be respected? Or are we free to abuse it under the guise of "culture"?

[NicoleJLeBoeuf]

Good call, Reph. This is one of my pet irks. A person is a who, not a that. Now, how about Nicole's example? I'm not sure, but to say a person is the "one" that I love--does that make it okay to use "that" since the word refers to one instead of the person (directly)? I need an expanded ruling on this. As I understand it, "that" versus "who" has absolutely nothing to do with "personhood". If my example is correct, then it's more relevent to say "A person is a who, not a which." Who/that is used with people, while which/that is used with things.

...which only addresses the issue of proper grammar in and of itself, and not the issue of whether every character in your novel, or every lyric in every song, ought to use proper grammar.

[NeuroFizz]

Neurofizz, you've hit upon quite a controversial subject.

Should language be respected? Or are we free to abuse it under the guise of "culture"?

...or are we free to let language evolve (or devolve some might say)? Again, I'm playing "advocate." Shall we commit to a practice of linguistic eugenics? If the function of language is to communicate, and we insist on proper language in communication in the business, educational and professional worlds, should we also insist on such rigid communication in the artistic worlds, where we can draw so heavily on the emotion and history of our particular lineages? Somewhere in this world, we need a place or places, where people can celebrate their particular roots without being made to feel improper or less than acceptable. Music has always been one of these places. Storytelling, another. I guess the question boils down to, which language should we respect, and which should we not respect?

[Ray Dillon]

Ah, "that." I might be doing that, too.

I just found out that I've been using "then" in place of "than" quite a bit. Not because I don't know the difference, but just not catching it.

I think I've worked that out, but it was pretty embarassing, so I'm paranoid about someone pointing something else like that out.

I'll be on the lookout for "that."

Good topic!

[Jamesaritchie]

I was taught that, as regards people, there is a time to use "who" and a time to use "that."

"Johnny Bravo is the one that I love" - Because the clause "that I love" is necessary to the sentence (a restrictive clause), we use "that."

"Johnny Bravo, whom I love dearly, just sent his Mama a lovely present." - Because the clause "whom I love dearly" is a parenthetical aside (a non-restrictive clause), we use "who."

With things, there is a similar distinction in when you use "that" and "which".

"This is the knife that killed Col. Mustard."
"This knife, which killed Col. Mustard, is in grave need of sharpening."

That's what I was taught in school, anyway.

Strunk & White do not seem to address it exept by inference here (http://www.bartleby.com/141/strunk.html#3) (page down a bit).

The link you give isn't to Strunk & White. The Bartleby site only has the Strunk version that dates back to, I think, 1918.

There are times when "that" can be used, but it depends on the reference. "That" is for animals and objects when referring directing to an animal or object, and "who" is for people when referring directly to people. Which doesn't mean you can't write "Why is that man naked?"

Though in the case of the sentence you write, I wouldn't use "that" at all. Any sentence that reads as well, or better, without "that" is one where "that" should be dropped. "Johnny Bravo is the one I love" sounds much better to my ear.

[NicoleJLeBoeuf]

The link you give isn't to Strunk & White. The Bartleby site only has the Strunk version that dates back to, I think, 1918.I am corrected.

If I find an online reference to the rule I was taught, I'll post it.

[NicoleJLeBoeuf]

And here it is. (http://www.ku.edu/~edit/which.html)

I find it interesting that although this article is very clear on "that" versus "which" for inanimate objects, it simply says that for people, " 'who' may be used for either kind of clause."

Eeeenteresting.

There's this, too. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restrictive_clause)

Looks like I was misremembering my grammar lessons. "That" (restrictive)/"which" (non-restrictive) for inanimate objects, and "who" for people regardless of type of clause. OK, I can live with that.

[Mistook]

I'm looking at my dictionary, and there are six seperate entries for "That". It can be a noun, adverb, conjuction, adjective, and pronoun. No wonder it comes up so much in a person's writing:


Adverb:<I'm that tired I can hardly walk>

Conjunction:
<he made it clear that he did not agree>
<oh, that the world could be persuaded of the truth of that maxim -- W.S.Gilbert>
<not that it matters, but the shirts aren't back from the laundry yet>

Adjective:
<that gentleness ... as I was wont to have -- Shakespeare>
<those two are that way about each other>

Pronoun:
<that is a maple>
<read to the end of the chapter, and after that he went to bed>
<wily and destructive -- that's foxes for you>
<treated with the same respect that others are>

Noun: <civilization, they agree, faces an inexorable alternative, either this or that; but their thises are irreconcilable and even their thats are not the same -- Saturday Review>

[reph]

As I understand it, one uses "who" for people (or personalized animals) whether the clause is restrictive or nonrestrictive. "That" has a long history of use in the same way, however. Shakespeare did it.

[Mistook]

...or are we free to let language evolve (or devolve some might say)? Again, I'm playing "advocate." Shall we commit to a practice of linguistic eugenics? If the function of language is to communicate, and we insist on proper language in communication in the business, educational and professional worlds, should we also insist on such rigid communication in the artistic worlds, where we can draw so heavily on the emotion and history of our particular lineages? Somewhere in this world, we need a place or places, where people can celebrate their particular roots without being made to feel improper or less than acceptable. Music has always been one of these places. Storytelling, another. I guess the question boils down to, which language should we respect, and which should we not respect?

I agree that with lyrics, poetry and prose, there's a real artistic license that has to be respected. For whatever reason, I've never had any problem with "ain't" or "gonna" or the "What's the dilly yo?" But I still get peeved by wording that seems to miss the mark it's aiming for.

"The one that I love" isn't too big a deal to me. James is right that "the one whom I love" probably wouldn't play too well.

But my all time biggest song lyric peeve is in Paul McCartney's "Live and Let Die" when he sings:

"...and if this ever changing world in which we live in..."

If you're gonna go for the "in which" construction, you're definitely in the linquistic territory of extended pinkies. Tossing in an extra "in" at the end, I think can reasonably be called a mistake.

[LightShadow]

write the way people talk when people are talking. Otherwise, in the words of E.B. White: "Omit needless words."

[Mistook]

As I understand it, one uses "who" for people (or personalized animals) whether the clause is restrictive or nonrestrictive. "That" has a long history of use in the same way, however. Shakespeare did it.

That that man did that that long ago... well, that's interesting.

[reph]

One writer on usage said: "Write the way that you would speak."

Ugh.

[kristie911]

One writer on usage said: "Write the way that you would speak."

Ugh.

That is exactly where I'm finding a lot of my "that"s...when I delete them, the sentence still makes sense. "Write the way you would speak"

And, yes, I missed one in my original post, sparking a lively debate. I still maintain that the moon was in my eyes. lol

[Jamesaritchie]

One writer on usage said: "Write the way that you would speak."

Ugh.


Overall, I think this is excellent advice. It depends partly on how you speak, of course, but those who want to be writers should be fairly intelligent, should have good vocabularies, and should speak somewhat better than the average street thug.

I don't know about anyone else, but when speaking I do not fill my sentences with all the extraneous material dialogue specialists tell us to get rid of. I try to say what I mean, in the way I mean it, and in a manner that will let listeners understand just what I'm saying.

One of the worst things new writers can do is to try to write like writers. One of the worst things experienced writers can do is try to write like writers. I've always believed that in dialogue and in narrative, most readers want to hear a person talking. A real person. Writers who try to affect a voice generally do not come off well.

When I hear writers in interviews, I generally hear a good writing voice. A writer may not be confident when speaking in public, or even when talking to friends, but the voice is usually still there.

What I'd probably say is that if you can't write the way you speak and make it work, you probably need to work on how you speak.

The only real modification I'd make to this is that we probably ought to write the way our characters would speak if they were real people, even in narrative.

[reph]

Overall, I think this is excellent advice.
Ah, but people don't say "Write the way that you would speak." That writer wasn't writing the way he'd talk.

[Jamesaritchie]

Ah, but people don't say "Write the way that you would speak." That writer wasn't writing the way he'd talk.

How do you know? Have you heard him talk enugh to see the difference? I think most good writers do write the same way they would talk.

It certainly isn't something that would work for everyone, but a writer who can't write the way he talks probably needs to work seriously on how he talks and on how he writes.

Maybe the rule should be, "Write the way you would talk if you knew how to talk properly."

I know, for me, if something I write doesn't emerge as something I would say when talking, whether dialogue or narrative, it needs changed.

[Button]

I think every one has a word they use repeatedly. Mine has always been 'just'.

Just because he ... Just now... He just did... see what I mean?

When you write freely, you do write how you talk. It's okay, that is why we do line edits. ;)

[Jamesaritchie]

I think every one has a word they use repeatedly. Mine has always been 'just'.

Just because he ... Just now... He just did... see what I mean?

When you write freely, you do write how you talk. It's okay, that is why we do line edits. ;)

Sure, a bit of editing is always good. But for me, the age old cry "Tell me a story" means just that. "Write me a story" really means "Tell me a story on paper."

For me, good fiction always sound slike the writer is sitting across the table, telling me a story orally. It isn't the writing voice that makes for good fiction, it's the speaking voice. Good fiction can always be read aloud, and sound natural in the process.

Different people talk in different ways, but this is all to the good. Narrative or dialogue, good writers tell us an oral story, even if it's on paper. Some editing is essential, but by and large, writing that doesn't come across as talk usually doesn't get very far. Too many writers are, I think removed from the oral tradition, but it's still the backbone of good fiction.

Writing isn't about the eye, it's about the ear.

[reph]

How do you know? Have you heard him talk enugh to see the difference?
In my original post, I wasn't quarreling with the content of "Write the way that you would speak," only with its expression. "Write the way that you would speak" doesn't sound conversational. It sounds stilted and awkward. It contains a "that" of the exact kind some writers in this thread have talked about culling from their manuscripts.

"Write the way that you would speak" would be unnatural speech and poor dialogue unless the character was a fusty academic. That was my point. Ordinary people will more likely say "Write the way you'd talk."

[MarkPettus]

Well, hoss, you write the way that you would speak, and I'll write the way that I would speak. Comprende?


I was careful to avoid excessive adverbs, culling words that end in -ly as I wrote. My weakness turned out to be for almost and very.

The parking lot was almost deserted.

Not a very strong visual.

[spacejock2]

Don't worry about precise language usage or hangups with particular words - that's what second, third, fourth drafts are for. Get the book finished, THEN print it out and red pen the hell out of it. There's no point writing perfect prose if you're going to trim 20% of the book away later.
The good news is, the more you write and edit, the more you'll automatically trim during first drafts. It's all down to practice, and you'll drive yourself nuts if you scrutinise every sentence the minute it hits the page.

[Jamesaritchie]

In my original post, I wasn't quarreling with the content of "Write the way that you would speak," only with its expression. "Write the way that you would speak" doesn't sound conversational. It sounds stilted and awkward. It contains a "that" of the exact kind some writers in this thread have talked about culling from their manuscripts.

"Write the way that you would speak" would be unnatural speech and poor dialogue unless the character was a fusty academic. That was my point. Ordinary people will more likely say "Write the way you'd talk."

Well, I don't know about that writer, but I wrote "Write the way you would speak" because it's the way I speak. I only changed it to talk to try to get the point across. One person's stilted is another person's everyday languge.
In other words, I'd drop the "that" without conscious thought, but I'd leave the rest intact. Which is what I just did.

"Talk" sounds wrong to my ear. "Write the way you'd talk" gives me the reaction of "Eeeuuu." I'd never say that in a million years, and I'm not a fusty academic. I'm just a country bumpkin with a decent vocabulary and a love of reading. (Love the word "fusty," by the way. It's one I rarely get to use. Fusty, fusty, fusty. Great word. Sounds like "fussy" and "dusty" rolled into one, which isn't too far from the definition.

I think this is the point. We each have a different vocabulary. We each have a unique ear that says "This is stilted," or "That sounds too common, too uneducated"

For you, "Write the way you would speak" sounds stilted. For me, it's the natural choice of words. Different writers, different voices, different choices.
There is no average, there is no one way to speak. Stilted for one is plain to another, too lengthy for others, and an exercise in brevity for yet another.

Just a guess, but my guess is that most writers would say "Write the way you would speak," rather than "Write the way you'd talk."

I very much hope I do not sound like the average gas jockey or burger flipper when I speak. If I do, much of my education was for naught. But I hope very much that when I put the average gas jockey or burger flipper into a story, that he sounds like the real deal would talk.

I think a writer need a hundred vocabularies, and a hundred ways of talking. Like most, I'll usually let up on the vocabulary, if talking to someone who isn't going to understand big words. (And every now and then, talking low to academics, and talking high to John Bugerflipper also has dividends.)

But my natural manner of speaking, that which I do not affect in any way, is what you probably see most often here on the forums, and that's my natural writing voice. It's the voice and vocabulary I use when sitting around the kitchen table talking to family and friends, and for the most part, my family and friends wouldn't say "Write the way you'd talk," either.

The other side of this coin is that my vocabulary and speaking voice changes according to the character speaking or narrating a piece of fiction. I try to become that character, and I try to write every word of narration, and every word of that character's dialogue exactly as that character would really speak or talk, depending on which the character would do.

For me, it's really "Write exactly as the character in question would speak." But it's all the same thing. And since, very often, the character in question is really me, the narration and dialogue sounds as much like me as I can possibly make it.

And one thing is certain: not everyone would say "Write the way you would speak," and not everyone would say "Write the way you'd talk." Thinking there is a one way to speak makes everything sound the same, which is one of the main reasons I think natural is best. Don't worry about whether something sounds stilted, common, right, wrong, or anything else. Just say it without thinking about it. What comes out is the way you'd really say it, and that's the right way to write it.

Do you really consider the way you write posts here? For me, these posts are my natural speaking voice, no different than what I'd say on a telephone. This is also my natural writing voice. I think no more about the voice I put on paper than the voice I use right here. Become the character, and then just talk from the belly. Make yourself the character, and it's easy. Start thinking about whether it's right or wrong, stilted or plain, and it will probably be wrong.

[reph]

I wrote "Write the way you would speak" because it's the way I speak....For you, "Write the way you would speak" sounds stilted. For me, it's the natural choice of words.
Sure, some people would say "speak" and some would say "talk." It's the "that" that sounds unnatural. "Speak" is slightly more formal than "talk," nothing more, but "the way that you" removes the sentence from everyday discourse. (I mean the kind of talk that goes on within a household.) There may be a regional difference, too.

Do you really consider the way you write posts here?
Yes. I try extra hard to be clear the first time, because in conversation a listener can say "Huh?" to give me a chance to reword. Here, if I'm misunderstood, trouble ensues. Despite my effort, I'm sometimes misunderstood anyway.

I also try not to use "to be" so much. It's a writing fault. Oops, I just did it again.

[reph]

Do you really consider the way you write posts here?
After thinking longer about this question, I lit on other ways my writing and my talk differ. If I started as many sentences in posts with "Well" as I do in speech, people would get sick of it.

I use the following far more often in speech than in writing: well, right (as a reply), just, very, some, a little, a lot, lots of, kind of, I guess so, I guess not, really, there is, there are, -ing, and, so, but (in narratives: "I wanted to mail it, but I was out of stamps, so I went to the post office, but it was closed, and I didn't know what to do, so...").

I'm more likely to say "cat food" or "Kleenex" than to write it in a post, but that's a different kind of thing.

Another difference: when speaking, I never go on for four paragraphs. Writing a long post explaining something is more like writing an essay than like talking.