That and when

“For the first six weeks that Ashenden was at the sanatorium he stayed in bed.” --W. Somerset Maugham. I wonder whether “that” in the sentence can be replaced by “when”?

Am I right in thinking that “that” in the sentence is a relative adverb?

Yes, it is a relative adverb, and yes, it can be replaced by “when”.

1 Like

Thank you, Elric.

I’m glad you are discovering Maugham’s short stories. I think he is one of the best. I prefer his short stories over his novels.

Another novelist whose short stories I much more prefer reading than his novels is Kurt Vonnegut. Check out ‘Welcome To the Monkey House.’ It’s amazing how much story Vonnegut can pack into a single paragraph.

The ultimate American story-teller was Mark Twain. But I cannot say that I prefer his short stories over his novels and other books, even though his short stories are amazing. Just about everything he wrote was great.

And don’t miss out on the inventor of the modern short story genre: Edgar Allan Poe.

2 Likes

Sorry, this is not correct. To use “when,” you would need to recast the sentence: “When Ashenden was at the sanatorium, he stayed in bed for the first six weeks.”

4 Likes

Yes, of course you’re right. I only thought of the meaning and didn’t consider the structure of the sentence.

I completely agree with kewms.

‘When’ describes an undetermined period of time. You would never want to say the period of time “when” someone was somewhere, but rather the period of time “that” someone was somewhere.


When I was in Tokyo, I visited four different karaoke bars. (period of time undetermined)

I was in Tokyo for a month. (period of time determined)

The month that I was in Tokyo, I visited four different karaoke bars.


Ashenden was at the sanatorium for an undetermined period of time.

When Ashendon was at the sanatorium, he stayed in bed for a determined period of time: six weeks, which was less than the entire time that he was at the sanatorium. And we know which six weeks it was: the first six weeks.

When Ashenden was at the sanatorium (period undetermined), he stayed in bed for the first six weeks (period determined).

Ashendon stayed in bed for the first six weeks that he was at the sanatorium.

For the first six weeks that Ashenden was at the sanatorium he stayed in bed.

And of course in English ‘that’ is often implied, so, if anything, ‘that’ could have been left out of the sentence altogether:

For the first six weeks Ashenden was at the sanatorium he stayed in bed.

7 Likes

“For the first six weeks that Ashenden was at the sanatorium he stayed in bed.”

  1. Ashenden was at the sanatorium for six weeks.
  2. For six weeks, Ashenden stayed in bed.
  3. For the first six weeks when (or, that) Ashenden was at the sanatorium, he stayed in bed.

Can’t you think in this way?

P.S.
According to the story, he was there for more than six weeks.

“that” could not be replaced by “when” without changing the meaning.

In the original sentence, the phrase “For the first six weeks” clearly and definitively refers to the time that Ashenden was at the sanatorium.
If you replace “that” with “when,” the sentence becomes:

                 -- "For the first six weeks when Ashenden was at the sanatorium he stayed in bed." --

In this case, the phrase “For the first six weeks” could refer to the time when Ashenden was at the sanatorium, but more likely would refer to some other process or occurrence previously discussed.

For example:
“Ashenden’s recovery was a two-year process full of ups and downs. For the first six weeks when Ashenden was at the sanatorium he stayed in bed.”

1 Like

I agree with jsousa.

Using ‘when’ would make ‘for the first six weeks’ sound like it is referring to part of a longer period of time mentioned in a previous statement, in which case I would set off the ‘when’ statement with commas.

Yutaka visited Russia for half a year. For the first three weeks, when he was in Sochi, he attended as many Olympic events as he possibly could.

“For the first three weeks” refers to the first three weeks that Yutaka was in Russia. During which time he was in Sochi.

If you said, on the other hand, “for the first three weeks that he was in Sochi,” it would give you the impression that Yutaka was in Sochi for a longer period of time.

Bottom line: that and when are not interchangeable.

1 Like

Yes, what jsousa and brucenator said.

  1. For the first six weeks, when Ashenden was at the sanatorium, he stayed in bed.

does not have the same meaning as

  1. For the first six weeks that Ashenden was at the sanatorium, he stayed in bed.

Sentence 1 implies that the six weeks is part of some longer interval that was spent doing other things: Ashenden was only at the sanatorium for six weeks. Sentence 2 implies that the six weeks is part of a longer interval during which Ashenden was at the sanatorium, but not in bed.

Sentence 1 without the comma is just incorrect.

To be all grammar-nerdy about it, I would say “when” as used in Sentence 1 is a subordinating conjunction, connecting the non-restrictive clause “when Ashenden was at the sanatorium” to the rest of the sentence. “That” as used in Sentence 2 is also a subordinating conjunction, but in Sentence 2 “that Ashenden was at the sanatorium” is a restrictive clause. But I had to look that up and think about it for a while: both usages are in the realm of things that “just sound right” to native speakers.

1 Like

“For the first six weeks that Ashenden was at the sanatorium he stayed in bed.” For the first six weeks, Ashenden stayed in bed. The story begins after he was able to leave his bed. Ashenden was, in fact, at the sanatorium for more than six weeks.

@kewms
"Sentence 1 without the comma is just incorrect. "
I think that without a comma, the clause becomes a restrictive clause beginning with the relative adverb “when.” On the other hand, “that” as a relative pronoun or a relative adverb is always used without a comma since it is the beginning word of a restrictive clause.

“That was the day that she left.”
In the above sentence, “that” implies “on which” or “when.” I wonder whether “that” can be replaced by “on which” or “when.”
That was the day when she left.

P.S.
以下は、ある辞典のthatに関する記述の一部。「 (~) 」は、thatが省略可という意味であろう。「に相当」という表現はどういう意味で使われいるのだろうか。置き換えることができるという意味ではないのだろうか。

That was the day (~) she left (on). それは彼女が出発した日だった《◆on があれば that は純粋の関係代名詞であるが, 省略するのがふつう. on がなければ when または on which に相当》 I didn't like the way (~) he spoke to us. 私たちに対する彼の口のきき方は気に入らなかった《◆in which に相当》

『ジーニアス英和辞典〈第4版〉』
© KONISHI Tomoshichi, MINAMIDE Kosei & Taishukan, 2006-2008

  1. That was the day that she left on.
  2. That was the day she left on.
  3. That was the day that she left.
  4. That was the day she left.

In English, we just don’t normally form sentences like:

That was the day that she left. Or: That was the day on which she left.

It’s not natural to the English language. Most normally (the second) ‘that’ would be left out altogether:

That was the day she left.

Ever heard the expression “beating a dead horse,” Yutaka?

“Relative Adverbs — When, That”

Once again, in each of those examples, “that” can be left out altogether.

It was snowy the evening I went out with her for the first time.
During the month I was in L.A. she often invited me to her home for dinner.
For the four months I was in jail I really thought about myself.

“The evening I went out with her for the first time” is describing a particular evening. It was snowy that evening.

“The month I was in L.A.” is describing a particular month. She often invited me to her home for dinner that month. (Or a particular period of time equal to one month. It doesn’t necessarily mean a particular month. “The month I was in L.A.” could mean you were there from some time in December to some time in January equal to about a month.)

“The four months I was in jail” is describing a particular period of time. I really thought about myself during that time.

You’re not arguing with native speakers about how to use their own language, are you? :wink:

As brucenator said, “That was the day she left.” is a correct sentence as it stands. While “that,” “when,” and “on which” could all be added and would all mean the same thing, none of them would be natural usage.

“For the first six weeks that Ashenden was at the sanatorium he stayed in bed.”
I think that there are two interesting points here. The first one is the interchangeability of “that” as a relative adverb and “when,” and the second one is the omission of these words. I am originally interested in the first point as the title of this thread shows.