Whose presence is none the less welcome in that he serves to provide

[michael13]

From a usage book, an example sentence being discussed: Whose presence is none the less welcome in that he serves to provide the only element of humour.

IN THAT has a meaning similar to BECAUSE; according to the writer, who comments on the sentence, IN THAT cannot respond to the 'THE + LESS/MORE' structure(including NONE THE LESS), so IN must be omitted. Does it mean if IN is not changed, the intended will not get across?

 

[Beryl from Northallerton]

Please name the book, and clarify your question.

 

[michael13]

Sorry for this.

The book is Fowler's Dictionary; in it, he says IN THAT cannot respond to the 'THE + LESS/MORE' structure, so for the example:

Whose presence is none the less welcome in that he serves to provide the only element of humour.

IN must be omitted; but his explanation stops here; so my question is, if IN is not omitted, or omitted, what will be the change in meaning?

 

[Daican]

There would be no change in meaning. Fowler is just stating that the combination of none the less and in that is wrong and that it needs to be replaced by that.

Fowler's A Dictionary of Modern English Usage is considered an excellent guide to English; however, my 1994 edition states that it "is taken from the original 1926 publication". English grammar and style change over time, and now-a-days the rules are more flexible than they used to be.

The use of that in this way seems very unusual to me, although I did find a quote from 1866 in the Oxford English Dictionary in this format (under that II. 2. a. (a) ) : " She..thought of them all the more that she was discouraged from enlarging on them."

Given all the above, I would recommend that in this particular case you ignore Fowler.