This one’s kind of about that

JUNE CASAGRANDE

I wish I had more clearly asked that people who read last week’s

column tell me that they do or that they do not have answers to a

question that I asked about “that.”

For those of you still reading, I promise this column won’t

contain any more sentences like the one above. I was just trying to

be adorable as I reintroduced the subject I brought up last week --

“that.”

For those of you just tuning in, I probably should just give a pop

quiz to punish you for missing last week’s column instead of

good-heartedly offering a debriefing. But this might be one of those

times when I’m failing to grasp the limitations of my own power, so

I’ll play it safe.

Last week, I bared my soul and confessed that I’m not clear on the

grammar rules governing the use of the word “that” in the following

two examples. “I believe that I’ve lost your respect,” and, “I

believe I’ve lost your respect.”

With an open mind and open arms, I turned to readers to seek

guidance, wisdom, a helping hand. And what I got was squat. Well,

that’s not exactly true. I got an e-mail tipping me off to the

following age-old noodle-scratcher:

“That that that that sentence contains is an adverb.”

When I first read this, I smiled prettily like some Monty Python

parody of a dull-witted American pleasantly pretending not to be

baffled. Then I realized I was the only one in the room and could

drop the vacant blondie smile.

Then, as if staring at one of those computer-generated images that

require you to change your focus in order to see a second image, I

thought I understood it for a moment. Then I lost it. Then I realized

that it was 2 a.m., and I’d been staring at the same nine words for

nearly six hours.

So, back to my brave quest for reader knowledge. The bad news is:

Nobody gave me an answer. The good news is: Nobody gave me an answer.

The reason that’s good news is because, if the 20 or 21 people who

read this column religiously every week don’t know the answer, then

no one does. So you and I can continue to choose to do whatever we

please -- write the “that” or don’t write the “that” -- without worry

that someone will notice we’re doing something wrong. They don’t

know, either.

Hmm, but now I discover another conundrum. It turns out that,

while I usually use about 600 words to explain a grammar concept,

apparently it only takes 400 words to defend my ignorance. So, in the

spirit of trying to come up with 200 words (now about 150) of news

you can use, I opened my little Strunk and White’s “The Elements of

Style” and turned randomly to the following entry:

“‘Kind of.’ Except in familiar style, not to be used as a

substitute for ‘rather’ or ‘something like.’ Restrict it to its

literal sense: ‘Amber is a kind of fossil resin.’ ... The same holds

true for ‘sort of.’”

“Kind of” is a term I use, well, kind of constantly. And while I

can kind of see the authors’ point, I kind of suspect that there’s no

way “kind of” will be ejected from my vernacular anytime soon.

Oh, and remember when I said I wasn’t going to include in this

column any more sentences like the first one? Well, I kind of lied.

* JUNE CASAGRANDE is a freelance writer. She can be reached at

[email protected].