certify or certify that

[hhtt21]

Certify:formal to say in a formal or official way that something is true or correct. [+that].

I would like to ask what it means by [+that] ?

Which one is correct?

1. I certify that the information I have given is true. [original]
2. I certify the information I have given is true. [offer]

Source: Cambridge Learner's Dictionary.

Thank you.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

Certify:formal to say in a formal or official way that something is true or correct. [+that].

I would like to ask what is meant by [+that](no space, no question mark).

Which one is correct?

1. I certify that the information I have given is true. [original]
2. I certify the information I have given is true. [offer]

Source: Cambridge Learner's Dictionary.

Thank you.

In American English both are fine and natural and mean the same thing. The second is more informal.

The that tells the listener what is being certified. Without that, the literal meaning is that you're certifying the information itself: I certify the information. And that doesn't really make sense, because you can't certify information. So leaving that out isn't accurate. But since the meaning is still clear without ​that, it's fine to save breath by skipping it.

 

[hhtt21]

In American English both are fine and natural and mean the same thing. The second is more informal.

The that tells the listener what is being certified. Without that, the literal meaning is that you're certifying the information itself: I certify the information. And that doesn't really make sense, because you can't certify information. So leaving that out isn't accurate. But since the meaning is still clear without ​that, it's fine to save breath by skipping it.

This is really confusing because at first you claim both are fine in AE, but then you the second one is incorrect or at least seems incorrect. (You used accurate)

Thank you.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

This is really confusing because at first you claim both are fine in AE, but then you the second one is incorrect or at least seems incorrect. (You used accurate)

Thank you.

Good question. Words don't have to be accurate to be understood. In sentences like these, leaving out that is common shorthand (that) everyone understands.

 

[hhtt21]

Good question. Words don't have to be accurate to be understood. In sentences like these, leaving out that is common shorthand (that) everyone understands.

Does accurate in the above mean "correct" ?

Thank you.

 

[Phaedrus]

1. I certify that the information I have given is true.
2. I certify the information I have given is true.

To add to what Charlie Bernstein has said, many verbs, including "certify," can be complemented by "that"-clauses or noun phrases. (Other verbs in that category: "say," "think," "find," etc.) When complemented by "that"-clauses, such verbs need not actually be followed by "that," which is omissible in that context. However, "that" helps to clarify that a verb is being complemented by a "that" clause. And that is important when there is a risk of ambiguity. For example:

(a) He found the ball that he played with when he was growing up was damaged.
(b) He found that the ball that he played with when he was growing up was damaged.

Both (a) and (b) are correct, but sentence (b) is better than (a), because (a) will mislead readers. In (a), it is not until one reaches "was" that one realizes that "found" is being complemented by a "that"-clause (with an omitted "that") rather than by a noun phrase. But with shorter sentences, there is no such risk:

(c) He found it was damaged.
(d) He found that it was damaged.

Neither of those sentences is better than the other. No one will be misled by the omitted "that" in (c).

 

[hhtt21]

For example:

(a) He found the ball that he played with when he was growing up was damaged.
(b) He found that the ball that he played with when he was growing up was damaged.

Both (a) and (b) are correct, but sentence (b) is better than (a), because (a) will mislead readers. In (a), it is not until one reaches "was" that one realizes that "found" is being complemented by a "that"-clause (with an omitted "that") rather than by a noun phrase. But with shorter sentences, there is no such risk:

Does this "found" mean "learn" or "encounter" ?

For example:
1. "after meeting his childhood friend, he found that the ball that he played with when he was growing up was damaged"
2. "When he came to parent's house for years later, he found that the ball that he played with when he was growing up was damage"

Thank you.

 

[emsr2d2]

It means "discovered" in that context.

 

[hhtt21]

To add to what Charlie Bernstein has said, many verbs, including "certify," can be complemented by "that"-clauses or noun phrases. (Other verbs in that category: "say," "think," "find," etc.) When complemented by "that"-clauses, such verbs need not actually be followed by "that," which is omissible in that context. However, "that" helps to clarify that a verb is being complemented by a "that" clause. And that is important when there is a risk of ambiguity. For example:

(a) He found the ball that he played with when he was growing up was damaged.
(b) He found that the ball that he played with when he was growing up was damaged.

Both (a) and (b) are correct, but sentence (b) is better than (a), because (a) will mislead readers. In (a), it is not until one reaches "was" that one realizes that "found" is being complemented by a "that"-clause (with an omitted "that") rather than by a noun phrase. But with shorter sentences, there is no such risk

Would you please explain how can it be otherwise i.e how cannot it be complemented by "that-clause" in those sentence, a and b ?

Thank you.

 

[Phaedrus]

Would you please explain how can it be otherwise i.e how cannot it be complemented by "that-clause" in those sentence, a and b ?

Neither can be interpreted otherwise. But in (a) it's not clear that you're seeing a "that"-clause complement without "that" (as opposed to the structure "He found it") until you reach the verb phrase "was damaged," whereas in (b) the reader learns right from the get-go that he is dealing with a "that"-clause and not with the following, which does have the structure "He found it":

(e) He found the ball that he played with when he was growing up.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

Does accurate in the above mean "correct" ?

Thank you.

I guess so. I like precise better. (It's more precise!)

 

[hhtt21]

Neither can be interpreted otherwise.

It is easy to understand that "to interpret" above means "to express" but "to interpret" do not mean "to express" in dictionaries, so is this a rare situation?

Thank you.

 

[GoesStation]

Neither can be interpreted otherwise.

It is easy to understand that "to interpret" above means "to express" but "to interpret" do not mean "to express" in dictionaries, so is this a rare situation?

"To interpret" does not mean to express. Please consult your dictionaries to confirm this.

In your original post, interpret​ means "understand after analysis".

 

[hhtt21]

"To interpret" does not mean to express. Please consult your dictionaries to confirm this.

In your original post, interpret​ means "understand after analysis".

I have made a search on to interpret. My original sentence is "Neither can be interpreted as otherwise." But it is actually belongs to Phaedrus in 10# of this thread. I understand it as "Neither of these sentences can be expressed/presented" by not complemented a that-clause." or "These sentences cannot be expressed/presented without not using that-clause."

If we deal with your definition "to understand after analysis." there is no reference to it as a definition for to interpret but it is simple and clear defintion which can fit for some cases such as this: How do you interpret his behavior which can mean how do you understand his behavior (after analysis in mind). I cannot determine what Phaedrus meant to say by "to interpret" in his sentence. But I think "to express/to present" would be betterbecause the process made seems to me as "to express a sentence in a way".

Thank you.

 

[Phaedrus]

My original sentence is "Neither can be interpreted as otherwise." But it is actually belongs to Phaedrus in 10# of this thread.

If you look carefully at my sentence, you'll see that I didn't use "as": "Neither can be interpreted otherwise."

I understand it as "Neither of these sentences can be expressed/presented" by not complemented a that-clause." or "These sentences cannot be expressed/presented without not using that-clause."

That isn't what it means. Look at the second definition in the second set of definitions at this link: "to construe or understand in a particular way."

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/interpret

I cannot determine what Phaedrus meant to say by "to interpret" in his sentence.

You had asked:

Would you please explain how can it be otherwise i.e how cannot it be complemented by "that-clause" in those sentence, a and b ?

Sentences (a) and (b) were these:

(a) He found the ball that he played with when he was growing up was damaged.
(b) He found that the ball that he played with when he was growing up was damaged.

I understood/interpreted your question "How cannot it be complemented by "that-clause" in those sentence, a and b ?," which uses very poor, ungrammatical, almost indecipherable English, to mean: "How is it possible to understand/interpret found as not being complemented by a that-clause in examples (a) and (b)?" I gave the following answer:

Neither can be interpreted otherwise.

In context, then, that means: "Neither example (a) nor example (b) can be understood/interpreted in a way that does not involve the verb "found" being complemented by a that-clause."