0

While reading some phrases examples I saw this:

These are the plates I want.

Translating to Portuguese gets this way:

Esses são os pratos que eu quero.

As you can see the word "Que" means "That", apparently in my language, the word that is more usual. I think That(?) I'm using more "that" than is needed and I can't get when to not use.

It really feels that(?) needs an "that" here.
----------------------------↓
These are the plates * I want.

  • 1
    In non wh relatives, the subordinator "that" is omissible except where 'gap' is in subject position, e.g. "I met some friends [that __ saw Ed last week]", where gap is subject of the bracketed relative clause. – BillJ Aug 27 '17 at 16:13
1

The relativizer (that or a wh- word) which introduces a restrictive relative clause may be omitted in all registers if it designates a constituent other than the subject in the relative clause. In your example, for instance, that/which would designate the direct object of want, so it may be omitted.

The relativizer is usually omitted in speech, except when the speaker is groping for words—in this case, speakers will often include that, and even repeat it as a useful 'filler'. In formal discourse it should be included if your sentence is long or complicated, because including it helps the reader parse your meaning. I myself prefer the appropriate wh- word in such contexts, because that has so many uses besides that (!) of relativizer that (!) it is as likely to confuse the reader as help her.

Note, by the way, that even a subject relativizer may be omitted in casual speech:

There's this guy who lives down the street from me who has a reciprocating saw I borrow to prune trees.

This should not be emulated in formal registers.

|improve this answer|||||

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.