In monarchical countries, the estates and the greatest portion of the wealth are left to the first son, that the vanity of the parent may be gratified by the thought that his name and title are to descend to succeeding generations unimpaired.

I think the "that" is supposed to be "so that" considering the context. But Isn't it impossible to omit "so" of "so that"?

  • 1
    It would probably help if you mentioned that the source is a 19th century article by Andrew Carnegie, industrialist cum philosopher. The language is more than a bit dated and to a modern ear quite swollen. – oerkelens Apr 3 '17 at 6:15
  • One has to question the wisdom of trying to become familiar with the turns of phrase used in a text from 1889 written by Andrew Carnegie. It's not going to reflect today's English. – AmE speaker Apr 3 '17 at 6:28
  • 3
    The omission of "so" in "so that" was fairly common for centuries, is all over the classics, and is used today occasionally for emphasis - or for laughs. – Ricky Apr 3 '17 at 6:52
  • 1
    One question per Question please. I've edited out the secondary question. If you wish to ask it, please ask it separately. – AndyT Apr 3 '17 at 11:19

Your Answer

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

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.