*bonks head repeatedly on keyboard*

Are you talking about "that" as in "That book", or the "The book that...", as in that vs. which, or as in, "He thought that the book was..."

In the last case, you can usually get away without "that". And if you can get away with out it, the general convention (at least as I was taught in journalism) was to get rid of it. Sometimes, though, people want it, and it seems particularly to confuse fiction writers when you don't put it in (my observation only).

I usually read it both ways, and see which one works better. Sometimes for the flow of the sentence, it's nice to have it in there. Other times, it's better without. If it could go either way, I take it out.

The thing is that sometimes it's needed for clarity and more often it's not. I feel that I overuse it because I hate having sentences that aren't clear.

An example of when I know that it is needed is a sentence like this:

The governor announced his new tax plan would be introduced soon.

Here “that” is needed after "announced. Without it, it sounds at first like you are saying the plan itself has been introduced.

However, more often than not the word really isn't needed. My problem is that using “that” is rarely really wrong, though it may be unnecessary. Omitting “that” in some cases can be wrong.

I had an English prof in college whose pet peeve was "that." He pretty much graded entirely based on the number of times the words "That" and "It" came up in a paper. I don't think he looked at anything else. No that or it = 100%! (Once he docked me for an "it" in a quoted passage!)

He drove me nuts. Extremism of that kind is never useful. That is a word that has a place in the English language.

"Where is that darn cat?"

"Once you've done that..."

One time I do not like to see the word that is in situations like in your last post -- you don't need the that when you immediately tell us what "that" is.

I think that you don't need a that in this sentence.
I think (what do you think?) you don't need a that in this sentence.

On the other hand....

If you feel you don't need that conjunction, I think you're also probably right.

Here's a nice little page on conjunctions. "That" is near the end of the page.
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/conjunctions.htm

Hope that helps, and remembering my medications,
Pat

You should always tell what "that" is next. After all it is a conjunction so what it is conjoining has to be next.

However, whether something is ambiguous or not is a judgement call. You don't find it ambiguous. I do. And THAT (grins) shows how difficult the word is.

I'd rather have an extra word than an ambiguous sentence. I just wish there were some blasted rule about it. There isn't. It's totally a matter of judgement.

Since it's impossible to think a book (unless you're one of those who can conjure up a physical object by thinking about it), I don't see how leaving out the "that" can cause confusion.

On the other hand, look at Strunk and White's example, "He felt [that] his big nose. . . ." The ambiguity is clear, and amusing.

quote:

---

I'd go with Christine on this particular example (unless I've gotten confused: We're talking about "He thought [that] the book was, . . ." right?)

---

Honestly, I would be fine with and without the "that" in :
The governor announced [that] his new tax plan would be introduced soon.

Obviously, without the that, you can briefly read this as "The governor announced his new tax plan." The thing is, by the time the sentence is over, I'm not at all unclear about what the governor is announcing. It just doesn't make sense any other way.