+0
When I go from hence let this be my parting word, that what I have seen is unsurpassable.

I didn't understand the second part that what I have seen is unsurpassable.

Is that relative clause or conj?
1 2
Comments  
It's relative. The antecedent of "what" is "word."

It would be like reported speech. "What I have seen is unsurpassable."

He says that what he has seen is unsurpassable.

I'm telling you that what I have seen is unsurpassable.

Let it be said that what I have seen is unsurpassable.

My last word on this subject is that what I have seen is unsurpassable.

Let this be my last word: that what I have seen is unsurpassable.

I know this isn't common current usage. Do any of these constructions help you to see "that" as relative?
In European grammar that is a conjunction which begins a subordinate clause. What I have seen is an imbedded relative clause without an antecedent. The antecedent is contained in the relative pronoun what. Similar uses of what:

I didn't believe what he said.
Is anybody interested in what he told me?
What he said doesn't interest me in the least.

CB
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
Cool Breeze I didn't believe what he said. I didn't believe that which he said.

Is anybody interested in what he told me? Is anybody interested in that which he told me?
What he said doesn't interest me in the least. That which he said doesn't interest me in the least. Hi, CB.
I've always thought of "that" as a bastard child. I'm glad the Europeans finally decided to adopt it. They're welcome to it.
It's part of my life plan to devote a year or so to organizing the use of "that" in such a way that my brain can accept it - right after I master calculus and string theory. Emotion: smile

Edit. I can't believe the ***'s won't let me say "b.a.s.t.a.r.d"!

BTW, a relative clause without an antecedent fits very nicely into the concept of a " *** ."
(or a multi-trillion dollar unfunded budget) Emotion: geeked

AvangiEdit. I can't believe the ***'s won't let me say "b.a.s.t.a.r.d"!

Hi, Avangi !

I think I found a way to write b.a.s.d.a.r.d without the system turning it into a slew of asterisks.

bastаrd

Can you read it ?

Volcano1985 Is that relative clause or conj?
I think I got sandbagged by this question just a bit. It requires a little lattitude.
"I think that I'll take a break." "I'll take a break" is a relative clause without an antecedent, and "that" is a conjunction? Works for me! How beautiful. Really. So what is the meaning of the poster's question?
Are all the optional "that's" conjunctions?
"I think she's beautiful."
"I think it's beautiful."
"I think that's beautiful." (The only time "that" isn't a conjunction is when it's the subject of the clause, right?) Volcano's question is unanswerable.
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
MrPernickety bastаrd

Can you read it ? You've done it![Y]

Did you fly or take a plane?

Avangi"I think that I'll take a break." "I'll take a break" is a relative clause without an antecedent, and "that" is a conjunction? Works for me! How beautiful. Really. So what is the meaning of the poster's question?
Are all the optional "that's" conjunctions?
"I think she's beautiful."
"I think it's beautiful."
"I think that's beautiful." (The only time "that" isn't a conjunction is when it's the subject of the clause, right?) Volcano's question is unanswerable.

In all the other languages I studied in school or Helsinki University and my native language Finnish the conjunction and the relative pronoun are always completely different words. That's why I never have to think twice about what that is grammatically. That can also be an object when it's a relative - and it can be left out when it occurs in a restrictive relative clause:

This is the car [that/which] I bought yesterday.

That needs an antecedent when it's a relative. In the above relative clause I is the subject.

To sum up, that can be omitted when it's a conjunction and when it's a relative. You can't judge from omissions what the grammatical role of that is.

"I think she's beautiful." That omitted, conjunction.
"I think it's beautiful." Same.
"I think that's beautiful." This is different. That is a demonstrative pronoun here. We can add another that, which is a conjunction: I think that that's beautiful.The resultant sentence may not look pretty but it's perfectly grammatical.Emotion: smile

Grammatical terminology varies somewhat from country to country and even though I am getting accustomed to British/American terms, I prefer to use the terms I learned as a kid in school. Otherwise I might mess up just about everything - and use terms like "demostrative adjective" incorrectly. There's no such thing in Scandinavia, by the way. A Danish authority on English, Professor Otto Jespersen, doesn't use it, for example.

My apologies for being off topic but I just can't help adding that even though English and Finnish aren't related in the least, they do share an amazing lot of grammatical features. I never paid much attention to that until I learned that there are languages that have no verbs. And languages that have no plural forms for nouns. And... Emotion: smile (I know I'm boring you, Avangi.) I think I'd better go and finish my breakfast. It's 9.25a.m. in Helsinki.

CBEmotion: beer
You never bore me, my friend.
How about bull shots for breakfast? I had a buddy who swore by them. I think it was the only protein he got all day. Needless to say, he's no longer with us.
I still have a way to go before I make my peace with "THAT." It must be of Saxon origin. I'll check back with you on it from time to time.

- A. Emotion: beer [bah]
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
Show more