We need to take a deep dive today into the construction of one particular sentence in order to remind ourselves that beneath our common language—in its logical structure and its arrangement of words—lies the thinking by which we make sense of the world we have found ourselves in. And thinking, of course, together with the reflection that underlies it, is the best of reasons to care about language at all.
The sentence in question is this one I wrote recently to open a post entitled Space Without and Within: I read the other day that there is no known size to the universe, that as far as we know now, each time we come upon a planet or star or galaxy, we have every right to believe we will see another one past it. A student emailed me with two questions about it, one to do with punctuation and the other about its grammatical structure. Both illustrate important points we can learn from.
First, the punctuation question. Why is there no comma between the words that and as in the phrase that as far as we know now? My student said there should be one, and he defended his position well by noting that the phrase as far as we know now, was parenthetical, and when such phrases are written as an aside, unconnected grammatically to the larger word group of which they are a part, then two commas, a pair, are required in order to mark that hiatus for the reader. Thus: I read the other day that there is no known size to the universe, that, as far as we know now, each time we come upon a planet or star or galaxy…. And, indeed, that is legally correct and in conformance with the logical rules of punctuation.
But alas, punctuation follows both logical rules and rhetorical concerns, and when one wishes to preserve a more relaxed and accessible and conversational tone, the strict divisions that a comma indicates would not be in order, because when we are speaking in such a tone, we make fewer logical distinctions and favor the unimpeded flow of our words (which, if you look closely, is the same reason there is no comma between the first two words of this sentence: alas, being an interjection, should otherwise be logically set off by a pair of commas). Following strictly the logical rules, though, would have worked against the casual but still serious tone I had intended to convey.
Now to the grammar question: how does the word that function in the same phrase, that as far as we know now? My student recognized that the main verb of the entire sentence is read, a transitive verb whose first direct object is the noun clause that there is no known size to the universe; in this clause the word that is a subordinating conjunction. He stumbled, though, in not recognizing that the same main verb read has a second direct object in a second noun clause which is again introduced by the same subordinating conjunction: that as far as we know now, each time we come upon a planet or star or galaxy, we have every right to believe we will see another one past it. My sense is he tripped in this analysis because the phrase as far as we know now separates the conjunction that from the clause it introduces, and as his first question about punctuation illustrates, he was looking for a comma to isolate the conjunction.
There is also the important fact that this second clause is itself a conditional statement, which means there will be two clauses, one setting up the condition and another stating what will result upon that condition. These two clauses are often explicitly introduced by the words if and then respectively. To say, as I do, that each time we come upon a planet or star or galaxy means if we come upon. Likewise, to say we will see another one past it means then we will see another one past it, which now overtly states the result, or what will happen when the stated condition is fulfilled. These two clauses, condition and result, together comprise the noun clause introduced by the second that.
If one is given over to a philosophy of things are obviously what they appear to be, then the study of grammar and language and literature will pose a challenge at first. There is the objective, certainly, in these studies, but there is also the interior (let’s avoid the natural but conflicted contrary of subjective), which requires us to discern (the verb means originally to sift), not merely observe, the meaning the writer intends to convey. Language can hide as much as it can reveal, and for that reason it is a massively strong force in human culture. Is that not reason enough to keep learning how it works?
***