If our “we saw that when S+V, at the same time that S+V,” is grammatically correct? Is?”
Through the air, we were seeing that when Chinese warships turned up off the coast of Alaska, within U.S. territorial waters, at the same time that President Obama was on the ground here.
Journals from CNN student news that can be found here
The syntax of the sentence above is:
we saw that when S+V, at the same time that S+V.
How does this sound grammar correct? I thought it should be rather something like ‘we saw that when S+V, at the same time, S+V’,
Thank you in advance!
What are your thoughts about my experience in the Philippines as a student?
Is this ambiguous in writing but completely unambiguous in speech? In the example sentence that is a noun phrase, not a subordinator. Which word has been changed to this? The word “talks about” was mentioned in the previous sentence. We saw this when Chinese warships turned up off the coast of
- Alaska within U.S. territorial waters at the same time that President Obama was on the ground here].
This sentence is a transcript of a spoken report by a journalist for CNN. When we read the sentence it is easy to think that the word that is a subordinate. Compare the following sentences:
- I saw that yesterday.
- I saw that she had already left me.
In the first sentence that means the thing. In the second sentence the word introduces another clause. Notice that in the second sentence the verb “See” changes its meaning; it means something like NOTICE or UNDERSTAND.
In the original poster’s example, the word that means that thing, it won’t introduce a new clause. Now, when we read the sentence, the word that is ambiguous until we get to the end of the sentence and then realise that it cannot be the subordinator. However, this sentence is from spoken report. When you speak out a sentence in English, this sentence will not be ambiguous.
What does the word “Cat” mean? What does the IPA look like; /t /? This is the subordinator that is almost never stressed and is almost always pronounced / T/ with the same vowel as we find at the beginning of the word America. Why we just don’t confuse both of these very
often in a conversation.
Is this ambiguous in writing but completely unambiguous in speech? In the example sentence that is a noun phrase, not a subordinator. Which word has been changed to this? The word “talks about” was mentioned in the previous sentence. We saw this when Chinese warships turned up off the coast of
- Alaska within U.S. territorial waters at the same time that President Obama was on the ground here].
This sentence is a transcript of a spoken report by a journalist for CNN. When we read the sentence it is easy to think that the word that is a subordinate. Compare the following sentences:
- I saw that yesterday.
- I saw that she had already left me.
In the first sentence that means the thing. In the second sentence the word introduces another clause. Notice that in the second sentence the verb “See” changes its meaning; it means something like NOTICE or UNDERSTAND.
In the original poster’s example, the word that means that thing, it won’t introduce a new clause. Now, when we read the sentence, the word that is ambiguous until we get to the end of the sentence and then realise that it cannot be the subordinator. However, this sentence is from spoken report. When you speak out a sentence in English, this sentence will not be ambiguous.
What does the word “Cat” mean? What does the IPA look like; /t /? This is the subordinator that is almost never stressed and is almost always pronounced / T/ with the same vowel as we find at the beginning of the word America. Why we just don’t confuse both of these very
often in a conversation.
“It’s grammatically fine, but awkward because the first that is ambiguous.. When I first encountered it I took it as a subordinator (subordinating conjunction) but in fact it’s a demonstrative pronoun, pointing to an event which preceded it in the article. The second that would be a comparative construction is an “inference in real time,” equivalent to the first “that”, nod;. It is when a relativizer is employed in a comparative construction.
Was White House being aggressive at the
time that Chinese warships turned up off the coast of Alaska, within U.S. territorial waters at the same time as President Obama was on the ground here?
How do I know what is the best way to find out what other people have to say.
