Hello. I would like to ask about the usage of "experience" as a transitive verb. I understand that some verbs can be followed by that-clauses. How about "experience"? Let me take the following two examples. (1) I want you to experience that anyone can be deceived in their long life. (2) I experienced that I saw something like a ghost yesterday. Is "experience" used correctly in the above two sentences? I would appreciate your answers.
It is in the first but not the second. The first may be more natural as "I want you to experience the fact that anyone can be deceived during their life". No need for "long" but if you want to emphasise that older people can be deceived you can put "no matter how long they live" instead of "during their life". The second one is better put as "I experienced what I thought was something like a ghost yesterday".
Thank you Retired-teacher. >It is in the first but not the second. That's what I thought. Also, thank you for your correction of my English.
I've just had a thought, not about the word construction, but about the fact that the sentence is illogical. No one can experience the fact that others can be deceived; they can only understand that it can happen. "I want you to understand that anyone can be deceived during their life" is now fine.
>No one can experience the fact that others can be deceived; they can only understand that it can happen. I see. My point here is whether "experience + that-clause" can be used in some contexts. Is the sentence below logical? "I want you to experience for yourself that you can be deceived during your life."
It is logical but peculiar. The only way someone can experience that you can be deceived, is actually by being deceived - and do you really want that to happen? I still think that what you mean requires "understand". Something like "I want you to experience that life can be fun" makes more sense.
I see what you mean. The sentence I brought here was from some story. "I want you to experience that life can be fun." seems more logical to me, too. Anyway, "experience + that-clause" is grammatically possible, isn't it? Thank you so much.
I think it makes sense if it's part of a lesson. You trick someone and then later explain how you tricked them to make them more aware of how a con works. In that case, they experience the deception, but it's deliberate deception as a learning experience. It would be especially useful for someone who thought he was too savvy to be tricked. That's how I read the dialogue and it made sense to me.
Thank you, kentix. With your comment, I’m more convinced that the sentence I put here is grammatically correct and makes sense.
There are two types of that clauses: that-noun clause and that-adjective clause. A that-noun clause functions like a noun, meaning that it can represent the direct object of a verb. A that-adjective clause modifies a noun. The difference between the two is that in a noun clause, the word "that" plays no function; it simply introduces the noun clause (in linguistics, this "that" is called a complementizer; traditionalg grammar calls it a "conjunction"). In (1), "that" introduces a noun clause/direct object, and "that" plays no role in the noun clause, so everything is fine. The problem with (2) is that it looks as if "that" is the complement of "saw" inside the clause (that I saw ~ I saw that), as it would in a that-adjective clause, but the that-clause in (2) really is a noun clause functioning as a direct object. Here's an adjective clause, with the noun experience: The experience that I had changed me (that I had = I had that = I had the experience). In "I experienced what I thought was something like a ghost yesterday," what I thought ... is a free relative clause. A relative clause is an adjective clause, but a "free relative clause" has no antecedent, which means that the free relative clause becomes a noun clause; that's how "what I thought was something like a ghost yesterday" functions like the direct object of the verb "experienced."
