Esoterica Grammatica

[theprestige]

The language arts?

Consider the following sentence:

Police are right next to money on my list of top ten things, that if we abolished them, the first thing we'd do is reinvent them.

Don't consider whether the sentiment is correct - obviously it's correct.

Rather, consider whether the sentence is grammatically correct. I'm specifically concerned about the use of "that". I don't think it's correct, but (a) I can't be arsed to figure out why, and (b) I can't be arsed to come up with a more cromulent formulation that still makes the point clear.

So. Is it grammatically correct? If not, why not? If not, what is the grammatically correct way to state this claim? Is information lost or made less accessible, by using the grammatically correct form? Is the information reasonably accessible as-is?

 

[JayUtah]

Assuming you mean "ten" for "then"—quick, you can still edit it!—then I agree. "That" seems to start out being a relative pronoun and ends up being a conjunction as the sentence ends.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Well, it's understandable so it's not too far gone with grammar. A trifle inelegant. This strikes me as more correct, although I certainly can't justify why:

Police are right next to money on my list of top ten things which if abolished would need to be reinvented immediately.

I would probably embellish it with some commas which aren't strictly necessary, but I'm fond of:

Police are right next to money on my list of top ten things which, if abolished, would need to be reinvented immediately.

There's nothing particularly wrong with "first thing" but it looked weird wherever I tried to put it so I substituted "immediately". "Right away" would work as well, being on the same formality level as "first thing", but I think my changes moved the sentence up a notch in formality so I wanted to match.

 

[theprestige]

Assuming you mean "ten" for "then"—quick, you can still edit it!—then I agree. "That" seems to start out being a relative pronoun and ends up being a conjunction as the sentence ends.

Edited! You are a scholar and a gentleman. Thanks!

 

[theprestige]

Well, it's understandable so it's not too far gone with grammar. A trifle inelegant. This strikes me as more correct, although I certainly can't justify why:

Police are right next to money on my list of top ten things which if abolished would need to be reinvented immediately.

I would probably embellish it with some commas which aren't strictly necessary, but I'm fond of:

Police are right next to money on my list of top ten things which, if abolished, would need to be reinvented immediately.

There's nothing particularly wrong with "first thing" but it looked weird wherever I tried to put it so I substituted "immediately". "Right away" would work as well, being on the same formality level as "first thing", but I think my changes moved the sentence up a notch in formality so I wanted to match.

I like this. It turns out that "which, if abolished" is what I was looking for.

 

[junkshop]

Move the first comma from before 'that' to after.

 

[arthwollipot]

Meh, so long as communication was did.

 

[jt512]

Police, like money, are on my top-ten list of things that, if we ever abolish, we'll immediately re-create.

Or, if you prefer subjunctive:

Police, like money, are on my top-ten list of things that, if we were ever to abolish, we'd immediately re-create.

To make either of the above sentences more concise, replace "on my top-ten list of things" with "among the top ten things."

 

[arthwollipot]

if we were ever to abolish

I'd split that infinitive, but English is incredibly flexible.

 

[Vixen]

The language arts?

Consider the following sentence:

Police are right next to money on my list of top ten things, that if we abolished them, the first thing we'd do is reinvent them.

Don't consider whether the sentiment is correct - obviously it's correct.

Rather, consider whether the sentence is grammatically correct. I'm specifically concerned about the use of "that". I don't think it's correct, but (a) I can't be arsed to figure out why, and (b) I can't be arsed to come up with a more cromulent formulation that still makes the point clear.

So. Is it grammatically correct? If not, why not? If not, what is the grammatically correct way to state this claim? Is information lost or made less accessible, by using the grammatically correct form? Is the information reasonably accessible as-is?

Doesn't need a comma. Only needs a comma if you leave out 'that'. It is a house style of some publishers to see the word 'that' as obsolete in some contexts where it can be left out all together without losing meaning.

For example, 'All things bright and beautiful' could also be 'All things that are bright and beautiful'.

 

[theprestige]

Doesn't need a comma. Only needs a comma if you leave out 'that'. It is a house style of some publishers to see the word 'that' as obsolete in some contexts where it can be left out all together without losing meaning.

For example, 'All things bright and beautiful' could also be 'All things that are bright and beautiful'.

Thanks. I've got my own house style, which I like very much.