1

In CGEL, while discussing the purpose adjuncts "so/in order" + that-clause (p. 727), it is stated that "that" is omissible after "so", but not after "in order".

Under result adjuncts, there is "so/with the result" + that-clause (p. 732). There are examples with "so" without the "that", but there is just one example with "with the result", and I can't decide if it sounds correct without the "that":

They had gambled away all their money, [so /with the result that they didn't even have the fare to get home]

Contrary to the purpose adjuncts, it is never made explicit whether or not "that" is omissible after "with the result".

Thanks in advance.

Improve this question
4
  • 2
    You are right that it's not made clear, but personally I would not drop "that" after "with the result".
    – BillJ
    Commented Jan 14, 2023 at 15:30
  • 2
    In principle you can always drop that in all such contexts, but it's not idiomatic to do so after with the result in OP's example. Note that we wouldn't normally include that after so in OP's exact example, because so that there could imply the only reason they gambled in the first place was in order to end up without the fare home. Admittedly, that's a bizarre "goal", but it's what the construction would normally imply today if we include that. Note that a century or two ago, this distinction didn't normally apply.
    – FumbleFingers
    Commented Jan 14, 2023 at 15:48
  • 1
    In "with the result that...", the that-clause is a complement of the noun result. I don't think it can be omitted.
    – nschneid
    Commented Jan 14, 2023 at 20:42
  • 1
    A search of Google books suggests "that" is usual in such examples, although there are many other ways of using "with the result", e.g. following by an adjectival or adverbial phrase, so it is hard to search automatically.
    – Stuart F
    Commented Jan 15, 2023 at 11:07

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1

I believe that I have found the answer in CGEL, chapter 11 (content calsuses), under "optional omission of that" (page 953). It gives the following example as favouring retention

I didn’t like his insinuation [that we had initiated the complaint]

and comments: "In (the example) it is complement to a noun; omission is not impossible in this construction, but it is unlikely with a morphologically complex noun like insinuation (compare The fact [it was illegal ]didn’t seem to worry him, with the simple noun fact as head)."

So my conclusion is that in the OP it is optional, somewhat favouring retention.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

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