comma before 'in that' [conjunction]: may damage the trust, in that

Anais Ninn

Anais Ninn

Senior Member
London, UK
Korean
Which is incorrect and why?

1. Borrowing money might damage the trust between friends, in that unpaid loans can break trust especially when a large amount of money is involved.

2. borrowing money might damage the trust between friends in that unpaid loans can break trust especially when a large amount of money is involved.

Thanks!

Anais
 
    • Generally commas are not very popular in English (even if the clarity of the sentence is threatened) so #2 is more correct, but I couldn't say that #1 is incorrect.

    Wait for a native to confirm or to correct me.
     
    I probably use commas more than I should. That being said, I still like #2 more than #1. :) I think the "in that unpaid loans can break..." part is the point of the sentence. And the beginning part is too connected to be separated.

    I wonder if that makes sense???
     
    Thanks, Hakro and SSS. That makes a lot of sense. :)

    Anais

    SweetSoulSister said:
    I probably use commas more than I should. That being said, I still like #2 more than #1. :) I think the "in that unpaid loans can break..." part is the point of the sentence. And the beginning part is too connected to be separated.

    I wonder if that makes sense???
    Click to expand...
     
    I would use one with "since" but not with "in that."

    With "since," there's a slight pause.
    There is no such pause with "in that."

    It's subtle, but I can definitely hear a difference.
     
    I disagree. I would pause. Otherwise, there is the potential for a miscue with the following partial phrase:

    borrowing money might damage the trust between friends in that unpaid...

    Until you hit the word "loans" it is not clear that "in that" is a connector and not a phrase indicating a particular thing, such as:

    Borrowing money might damage the trust between friends in that "unpaid loan" kind of complication that seems to beset the best of friendships.

    (Not the best example, but I think it helps point out the potential confusion.)
     
    Well, since we're getting into the nitty-gritty of it :D...

    The two that's are not pronounced the same.

    1. Borrowing money might damage the trust between friends in that unpaid loans can break trust especially when a large amount of money is involved.
    "In that" is pronounced quickly and does not take stress.

    Borrowing money might damage the trust between friends in that unpaid loans...

    "In that" is pronounced as quickly as "between." The "a" is pronounced like a schwa and not like the "a" in "cat."

    2. Borrowing money might damage the trust between friends in that "unpaid loan" kind of complication that seems to beset the best of friendships.
    Here, "that" rhymes with "cat." The "a" is not pronounced like a schwa but like a normal short "a" sound. Also, this "that" seems to be uttered slightly more slowly than the other "that," perhaps because a short "a" sound is more "pronounced" than a schwa.

    Thus, intonation and pronunciation make it perfectly clear what is meant (even before I get to "loans") without the need for a pause in either sentence.

    Because I would not pause in speech, I would not use a comma in writing.
     
    If I were to put a comma after 'friends', I would also put one after 'trust', like a parenthesis. However, I don't think I would put a comma before 'in that', but perhaps before 'since', as others have said.

    I do like commas, though! (Can you tell?)
     
    Actually, I think I'd put one after "trust" in any case (but not before "in that").

    I think this conversation has shown us yet again how subjective comma placement can be in English.
     
    elroy said:
    Well, since we're getting into the nitty-gritty of it :D...

    The two that's are not pronounced the same.

    1. Borrowing money might damage the trust between friends in that unpaid loans can break trust especially when a large amount of money is involved.
    "In that" is pronounced quickly and does not take stress.

    Borrowing money might damage the trust between friends in that unpaid loans...

    "In that" is pronounced as quickly as "between." The "a" is pronounced like a schwa and not like the "a" in "cat."

    2. Borrowing money might damage the trust between friends in that "unpaid loan" kind of complication that seems to beset the best of friendships.
    Here, "that" rhymes with "cat." The "a" is not pronounced like a schwa but like a normal short "a" sound. Also, this "that" seems to be uttered slightly more slowly than the other "that," perhaps because a short "a" sound is more "pronounced" than a schwa.

    Thus, intonation and pronunciation make it perfectly clear what is meant (even before I get to "loans") without the need for a pause in either sentence.

    Because I would not pause in speech, I would not use a comma in writing.
    Click to expand...

    I understand that you find it clear by the way you would speak it. I would not pronounce the "that" in "in that" differently in these two sentences. I would definitely not use a schwa sound in either case. You may pronounce them differently, but it's a far step from there to a "rule" that they are not pronounced the same, period.

    I still maintain that it is a potential source of confusion, possibly because we pronounce things differently. We simply disagree. :)
     
    Indeed, we do. Of course, commas can be used in English anytime to avoid confusion - but I have to say that in this case confusion is highly unlikely, especially because "that" is followed by a plural noun ("loans" - the adjective is irrelevant) and you need to make "unpaid loans" an adjectival phrase modifying a singular noun (as in your example) for there to even be a possibility of confusion. Let's just say I don't think the possibility of confusion is high enough to necessitate a comma.

    As for the pronunciation, even if you don't pronounce the that's differently you surely intonante the two differently - and that would be enough to clarify the meaning (in speech).
     
    elroy said:
    As for the pronunciation, even if you don't pronounce the that's differently you surely intonante the two differently - and that would be enough to clarify the meaning (in speech).
    Click to expand...

    Actually, no, I don't. I think we must just say things differently, elroy. Not a problem at all - just a difference. I would say "in that" in both sentences with an even cadence and equal stress on both words. From your detailed explanation, I can tell that you would have more of a distinction between the two. It's just a difference in speech patterns.
     
    Indeed, I wouldn't pronounce the "that" in the first sentence to rhyme with "cat" unless I were trying to enunciate every word very, very clearly. And I'm told I enunciate quite well! :rolleyes:
     
    Sorry everyone; I know it's long past this thread's bedtime, but a couple of points are begging to be made.

    What are the words "in that" doing?

    There are two very clear statements:
    Borrowing money might damage the trust between friends.
    Unpaid loans can break trust especially when a large amount of money is involved.

    They can't really be separate sentences because the sense of the second relies very heavily on its relation with the first. You could use a conjunction - in which case as or because would be good.
    You could use punctuation, but a comma will not do.

    My own preference, which I know others will not agree with, is to use a colon:
    Borrowing money might damage the trust between friends: unpaid loans can break trust especially when a large amount of money is involved.

    Why?

    Here is a quote from my favourite punctuation guide:
    The colon is used to indicate that what follows it is an explanation or elaboration of what precedes it. That is, having introduced some topic in more general terms, you can use a colon and go on to explain that same topic in more specific terms. Schematically:
    More general: more specific.
    Click to expand...
    I also have a personal foible already aired in these forums.
    For some of us, since always has a time sense.
    If you must use something, use as or because.
     
    I am happy with the colon instead of "in that." In fact, I think it's a very appropriate use of the colon that I don't see as frequently as I'd like to.
     
    I agree that the colon is a handy solution, but I think I prefer a conjunction.

    Alternatives to what we suppose is the function in this sentence of in that include longer phrases using in, such as inasmuch as and in view of the fact that, as well as as and since. With any of these options I would put commas after 'friends' and 'trust'.

    I do agree, though, that most of what we are discussing here comes down to personal preferences (with some reference to style guides...).

    :)
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.
    Back
    Top