We’re going round in circles. I think this is being over-analysed.
Hi,
This has nothing to do with circles or analysis. All I want to know is why you think there should be a comma before the first ‘that’.
Alan
Hi.
This is going round in circles because I explained my views on that in post #9.
Of course, as you dismissed my views in post #12 then you are hardly likely to accept them now.
As I’m not going to change my views, there is nothing more I have to add.
Hi,
For the record I didn’t ‘dismiss’ what you wrote. I was merely trying to respond to the original poster’s comment about the use of the comma. That can be seen by the comments made back in June 2006 concerning the use of the comma before ‘that’.
Alan
I thought
sounded pretty dismissive.
Still, it doesn’t matter either way.
.
Yeah I think we may have been over-analysing, which might be partly my fault, because I sort of enjoy that.
Okay cool, that’s what I thought you meant. I don’t remember why I felt like posting such a large quote at the time.
The below quote of Bee’s sums it up nicely for me - why there was a comma before “that”:
Hey everyone, let me ask one more question
what’s about this sentence? I cited it from nytimes.com/2010/10/22/world … _LI_LST_FB
Ultimately, it is this sensitivity, this ability to accommodate context and local detail, that works best in development.
I think “that” can’t stand behind the “comma”.
Hi,
Do you mean - ‘comma before that’ ? The relative pronoun (that) in your sentence refers back to ‘sensitively’ and the commas either side of this ability to accommodate context and local detail are put there to show that this phrase is in parenthesis as an explanation of ‘sensitivity’. In that way the defining relative ‘that’ in its use here isn’t preceded by a comma.
Alan