0

If you're reading this, first of all, thank you so much for even considering supporting my work...I've always been immensely grateful to viewers and fellow film lovers for enjoying my videos and it's never lost on me that without you, I'd still be working on a school bus, instead of pursuing my dreams. I can't thank you enough.

That being said, YouTube has become a very different place in recent years. The "ad-pocalypse," the rampant demonetization issues, and countless fraudulent copyright claims have made creating ...

What is the original and complete "clause" of "That being said"? What grammar and sentence structure are included in this? Can't understand the meaning of the clause.

5
  • "That being said" – "having made those remarks." Jun 22 at 11:41
  • "that being said" = [despite] the fact that I said that Jun 22 at 11:46
  • You've now edited out most of the paragraph, as though you know to what it exactly refers. I thought it was referring to the writer's exposure due to social media. Jun 22 at 11:48
  • I deleted the first comment after you added the paragraph (which has now been removed) as it was clearly causing confusion. Jun 22 at 12:03
  • Confusion occurs a lot, I guess. Sorry for that. Jun 22 at 13:05
1

Clause?  As I parse and label it, there isn't one.  Still, we should be able to create a couple:

Now that that has been said, I can also say that YouTube has become a very different place in recent years.

The structure "that has been said" is a clause.  The demonstrative "that" is our subject, and (in the original context) it indicates the content of the preceding paragraph.  The predicate "has been said" employs the present tense, perfect aspect, passive voice and indicative mode.  On its own, the clause works as an independent clause and could stand as a complete, separate sentence.

We don't want an independent clause here.

The phrasing "now that that has been said" is a subordinate clause, specifically an adverbial clause.  In my example, it acts as a supplement to the matrix clause "I can also say that...."

But, why should we use a dozen words when we can simply use two or three?  Why should we deal with a layer of indirection (as represented by the orienting matrix "I can also say that...") when a direct statement is simpler and easier to understand?

The absolute construction in the original example accomplishes all of that.

In the original example, we still have the demonstrative pronoun "that" indicating the content of the preceding paragraph.  We have the participial phrase "being said" as a post-positive modifier of this pronoun.  The resulting three-word phrase is a supplement of the direct independent clause of the original sentence.

In my framework, "being said" doesn't count as a predicate.  It has no tense.  It doesn't attach to a subject.  It's not part of a clause.  In contrast, the Wikipedia entry for absolute constructions does use the label "non-finite subordinate clause".  Other sources still use the traditional label of "absolute phrase".  Either way, the principle and usage remain the same.

 
There are options.  "That said", "that being said", and "that having been said" all work as valid and sensible absolute phrases.  Choosing between these is a matter of style, emphasis and dialectic preference.  None of those options are more correct than the others, but different native speakers might find any one of those options to be the more natural choice.

By the way and despite what Wictionary says, none of those options have any tense, so none of those options can imply simultaneity of the action.  They simply imply relevance of the resultant state.

3
  • Thank you for your reply. I guess I still need time to digest some of your content since I am not so familiar with some of linguistic terms you used. What I can understand from what I have learned on English is that this is a sentence with an independent participle clause. The subordinate and main clauses originally go with different subjects. As you mentioned, the subject of "that being said" is "that", referring to the content of the preceding paragraph while the subject of the matrix clause is Youtube. When it comes to shortening the subordinate one, ...(continued below) Jun 23 at 6:28
  • ..., there are options: "that said", "that being said" or "that having been said". This is what I have figured out. Correct me if I am wrong. Jun 23 at 6:28
  • You're welcome. Yes, those three options are good. No, they aren't independent. If you do call them clauses (and I don't) then you must call them dependent clauses, or perhaps supplemental clauses. You would also call them non-finite clauses. Jun 23 at 14:49
1

That is a pronoun referring back to whatever the previous sentence/clause/idea was, and is the object of the passive voice verb being said. The clause is actually a shortening of the phrase with that being said, which is an adverbial phrase modifying the main verb in the sentence (here "has become").

In the usage notes, wiktionary says that this phrase is actually used incorrectly:

"That said" is an appropriate truncation of "that having been said", which is correct in that the clause refers back to what was just stated in the prior sentence. "That being said" is incorrect since the prior sentence is in the past, and "being said" implies simultaneity.

2
  • So, grammatically, "that having been said" should be shortened to "that said". Thus, "that being said" is incorrect. However, "that having been said" or "that said" is a participle clause. Then, what is the original and complete clause? Is it "despite what I just said"? If yes, how come it can be transformed to "that said" I mean to use "that" replace "despite what I"? How about "having that said" ? ( dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english-chinese-traditional/… ) Jun 22 at 13:18
  • @questionguy I'm not sure what you're asking. With that having been said or with that being said are grammatically fine, it's just a question of usage. The idiomatic meaning is despite what I just said but there is not a one-to-one part-of-speech relationship between the two phrases. There is not a single "original" clause that this clause is "replacing," it is simply a different way of expressing "despite" or "however."
    – randomhead
    Jun 22 at 14:20

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .