Timeline for Is there a way to avoid saying 'that that'?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 16, 2017 at 18:37 | history | edited | ColleenV |
edited tags
|
|
| S Jun 16, 2017 at 18:21 | history | suggested | Soha Farhin Pine | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
fixed grammar and formatting
|
| Jun 16, 2017 at 18:17 | comment | added | P. E. Dant Reinstate Monica | There are very few legitimate uses for the fact that. Although not all of his advice can be taken as gospel, there is wisdom in Prof. Strunk's counsel, from The Elements of Style, that "... the fact that should be revised out of every sentence in which it occurs." | |
| Jun 16, 2017 at 17:34 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jun 16, 2017 at 18:21 | |||||
| Feb 18, 2016 at 22:02 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackEnglishLL/status/700440284832858112 | ||
| Feb 18, 2016 at 17:00 | answer | added | TimR | timeline score: 5 | |
| Feb 18, 2016 at 15:52 | comment | added | Anton | that is perfectly acceptable but I completely understand and share this feeling. I would normally try to rephrase the sentence if I can but not get too hung up on it. You could say "the fact that it alone was the only..." or rework the whole thing, "It being the only evidence was a major source of shock" or "Shockingly, that was the only evidence". There are options, but no requirement to change it. | |
| Feb 18, 2016 at 15:21 | vote | accept | N A | ||
| Feb 18, 2016 at 15:16 | comment | added | FumbleFingers | Don't get too worked up about getting rid of the repetition. Native speakers have no objection to that that in such contexts (i.e. - it doesn't seem at all weird to us, and in any case when spoken the first instance will normally feature a neutral schwa rather than a fully-enunciated vowel, so the two words don't even sound the same). | |
| Feb 18, 2016 at 15:05 | answer | added | Jacob | timeline score: 1 | |
| Feb 18, 2016 at 15:00 | comment | added | ColleenV | You can get rid of the pronoun. The fact that a single hair was the only evidence was shocking. It's not always possible if what that stands for is more involved than a simple phrase. | |
| Feb 18, 2016 at 14:57 | answer | added | Jez W | timeline score: 2 | |
| Feb 18, 2016 at 14:46 | history | asked | N A | CC BY-SA 3.0 |