Yes, you probably are losing your mind. :)
I say that (in jest!) because there is no grammatical or spelling mistake in this sentence:
There are many Danes who speak English.
Depending on the writing assignment, they may wish it rewritten for any number of reasons, but the spelling and grammar are still ok.
They might conceivably want something like ...
That heresies should arise, we have the prophesie of Christ; but that
old ones should be abolished, we hold no prediction.
is a re-ordering of:
We have the prophesie of Christ that heresies should arise; but we hold no prediction that old ones should be abolished.
In both of the examples in which that is optional, the relative pronoun is the object of the embedded clause.
Long books [that] religious people like tend to be Bibles. [Religious people like long books.]
Water tanks [that] fish need are spacious. [Fish need water tanks.]
This is also allowed when the relative pronoun is the object of a preposition ...
To paraphrase, I would say, "Christ predicted that there would be new heresies that would arise, so the author can be confidant that they will appear, but He said nothing about when old heresies would vanish, so the author makes no prediction about them." This is in keeping with Browne's observation that supposedly-suppressed heresies seem to pop up ...
In my school days I was told that starting a sentence There are is to be avoided at considerable cost. This was backed up with some decent examples for which there were good alternatives. Like many "rules" of grammar and writing taught in school this one oversimplified. There are many cases when there is/are is a good way to start a sentence, and avoid a ...
more power to your English-teaching elbow! It's a job I've done myself on occasion, so I know how difficult it can be.
As a speaker of Standard Scottish English and also a former UN English translator, I can say that "that" instead of "who" is rather more common in Scottish speech than in RP English or normal AmEng. "Which" is necessarily inanimate, as has ...
It is correct. The first "of" means "about", or "regarding". "That of which we speak" is a noun phrase. It could be replaced by any noun. Imagine you replaced "that of which we speak" with the word "mountains" or "philosophy". It still works, so it's correct.
This is the speech, that my father wrote (down).
This is the speech, which my father wrote (down).
This is the speech, what my father wrote (down).
The difference between write and write down is quite subtle. Write down implies that whatever was written existed in some other form before it was written down. So it might have been a ...
TL;DR There is no mistake in the sentence
First things first, the sentence as it stands is 100% acceptable and grammatical. But a really persnickety nit-picking language textbook author might insist or suggest that can is needed to express ability more explicitly. Compare the following statements
There are many Danes who speak English at work.
In both sentences, the order of the clauses has been inverted. This can be done to shift the focus of the sentence towards the clause that is moved forward.
In a standard construction, I could say:
We have (a prophesy that heresies will arise); but we have no (prediction that old ones will disappear).
By simply moving the italic parts to the front we ...
Both sentences are versions of
It was said that X would happen == That X would happen was said.
The verbal phrase "We have a prophesie that.."
is similar to "We have a law that.. "He made an announcement that...
So,without the inversion and with some "" (round what was foretold) "" and (<< backshift) shown
1 We have the propehsie of Christ ...
Your question shows that you are a critical thinker, unwilling to content yourself with superficial explanations. However, I believe cataphora is not what you think it is. Cataphora is uncommon in English (and in other languages I know). A typical instance of cataphora:
A typical amphora is this: an oblong, disposable vessel used for storing foodstuffs.
Before I answer your question, we need to review the difference between direct speech and indirect speech.
Quotation marks are used for reports of direct speech, that is, reports which attribute specific words to someone. For example,
Tom: Flies like honey.
Mike: Tom said "Flies like honey." [Direct speech]
Quotation marks are not used for indirect ...
This is a question about style and communication.
Know your audience.
If your readers are native English speakers then you can often drop such occurrences of that.
Otherwise, keeping them can help at least some readers for whom English is not their first language. In particular, it can help those whose native language(s) would use something equivalent to ...
I agree with you that there is an unexpressed that or which, but I disagree with your commas:
The nine words [that] you didn't know had offensive origins
I can sort of see your point. If we replace you didn't know with unbeknownst to you, we get
[Here are] nine words that, unbeknownst to you, have offensive origins.
Here, the commas look good, and ...
I don't think the problem is with however. These rules will make my point clear.
You can also use however near the beginning of a sentence to mean
‘but’, ‘nevertheless’ or ‘regardless of the fact’. It is often used
this way for emphasis.
The 2010–2011 Federal Budget was no fiscal revolution. It did, however, mark the first ‘real’ step towards ...
If that and who were used as relative pronouns, you would be correct: that would be used as the restrictive relative pronoun for things, and who for humans, but those sentences require that as a conjunction.
He was so angry that he didn't let me talk to him.
In the sentences below that and who are used as relative pronouns.
Katrina was the storm that ...
I've found, when a word presents a problem, that it is often helpful to re-order the sentence and avoid the word altogether.
So you might try something like:
"From what I have presented thus far, Hume's argument should be clear: reason has no role in moral determinations, and the sentiments from which moral determinations are drawn are those universal, ...
Of the four structures given,
*The implementation, we have made before, may ...
*The implementation, that we have made before, may ...
The implementation we have made before may ...
The implementation that we have made before may ...
(1-2) are both ungrammatical (whence the asterisks) because commas make a normal
relative clause into a non-restrictive (...
Generally, Americans (who nowadays use the subjunctive more than other English speakers) use the indicative with present perfect, even with constructions that require the subjunctive mood. Very occasionally, you can find a present perfect subjunctive. For example, from The New York Times in 1967,
The requirements are that the member be at least 25 years ...
Let’s first distentangle that sentence:
That these skills are transferable is a noun clause and the subject of the main sentence.
makes is the verb.
them refers to these skills and is the object.
especially beneficial is an predicative adjective referring to them.
Now to your questions:
Why makes? (Of course, because of that.)
Actually, it’s not ...
This is a fragment of a sentence, a phrase. Its meaning depends on the context of the missing words. For example:
"To verify that the following names are shown in this list, I will have to study the list carefully."
It is the missing words that define the tense, not the fragment.
The word "that" is just part of the verbal phrase in the infinitive.
When a compound subject contains – or, in this case, implies – both a singular and a plural noun or pronoun joined by "or" or "nor," the verb should agree with the part of the subject that is nearer to the verb. Since "two values" is nearer to the verb and plural, you would use the plural conjugation "make," not the singular conjugation "makes," which would ...
You are reacting to stylistic expectations. That is optional in all four uses. As you add words that can also carry emphasis, it becomes more and more desirable to omit an optional element and thereby reduce the number of words that can be emphasized.
Martin Endley, in Linguistic Perspectives on English Grammar, has a section on optional "that clause ...
Yes, it is a relative clause.
it begins with 'that'
it contains a subject and object (is a complete sentence without the relative pronoun)
Don't be distracted by the possible variations, the variation with 'that' is usually the most telling intro to a relative clause. 'When' works grammatically and you might think it is the better choice, but it just isn't ...
In both cases I would never use the "what" sentences.
There's a very subtle difference in using "that" vs. "which". The word "that" refers to something else, perhaps it is a physical object which we point to. "He pointed to that speech". "He wrote that speech". It is a definite statement with a single object in mind.
The use of the word "which" may ...
Grammatically-speaking you can omit "that" in object relative clauses. In object relative clauses the relative pronoun comes before a noun...in your case it is "that." Other examples:
These are the apples that mom picked this morning.
Where is the car that the policemen marked for towing?
If the pronoun comes before the verb in the second clause (...
The function of 'That' in your sentence is to refer to any thing that your sentence could apply to. So if I say 'That which doesn't kill me only makes me stronger' means 'Whatever doesn't kill me, makes me stronger'.
You could even write the same as 'Anything which is certain is of no interest'.