Is the writing in pic related grammatically correct?

Incorrect.

>as a pastime
>second "if" in first line

I think, "in your pastime" is acceptable. Bit confused whether the second "if" in the first line is acceptable or not.

second 'if' doesn't exactly flow well, even if it would be grammatically correct. it sounds stupid. second 'if' seems absolutely redundant esp since you've tied two conditions together with 'and'

Right thanks!

>even if it would be grammatically correct.
B-but is it actually grammatically correct or acceptable?

there's nothing wrong with using it, there's nothing wrong with not using it.*

*most of the time. sometimes you actually can't use "that." for instance, take the sentence
"You think that someone likes John"
and try to question "someone."
You can't do it: "Who do you think that likes John?" is terrible.
But you can do it if you just don't use the "that":
"Who do you think likes John?"

there are also cases when "that" is obligatory, like in "it annoys me that he doesn't understand." you couldn't say "it annoys me he doesn't understand" where you omit the "that." when it's optional there's nothing wrong with choosing to use it or not though.

Is the second "if" in the first line grammatically acceptable, user? Also, Is in your pastime is acceptable?

even though it's awkward it is grammatically correct

>"in your pastime" is acceptable
It's not. Would you say "I play guitar in my hobby"?

I think it's better form to restructure the sentence around avoiding 'that'.

example:
"it annoys me that he doesn't understand."
better:
"it annoys me when he doesn't understand."
or:
"I become annoyed when he doesn't understand."

many different ways to compose around 'that'. I would argue 'that' is in most cases lazy, bland, and vague. it should only be used when specifically referencing something previously mentioned in writing. it's quite different when speaking to someone in person though, like when you're pointing out something, "look at that car over there."

avoiding 'that' in writing is good form, in my opinion

>"it annoys me that he doesn't understand."
>"it annoys me when he doesn't understand."

These two sentences do not mean the same thing, though. The first says two things: he doesn't understand, and it annoys me. The second says only that i am annoyed when he doesn't understand, but leaves open the possibility that he does, in fact, understand.

>"I become annoyed when he doesn't understand."

This has the same problem. It remains possible that he does understand.

yes. generally you can coordinate phrases of the same type. for instance if you can put a noun somewhere you could coordinate with another noun (eg "John slept" is good, so "John and Mary slept" is good).
same goes for other kinds of phrases. you can say "John will drink water" so you can coordinate the verb phrase with another verb phrase: "John will drink water and eat food."
you can say "I can't believe that John stole the CD" so you can coordinate the embedded sentence with another: "I can't believe that John stole the CD or that Mary ratted him out"
you can say "If you tell the truth, then I'll help you," so you can coordinate the if-phrase with another: "If you tell the truth and if you pay me, then I'll help you."
at the same time, you could instead coordinate the sentence "you tell the truth" with another: "If you tell the truth and pay me, then I'll help you."

I can't understand why you would have that opinion. "That" is part of English, people use it all the time, and I don't see why you would make an effort to restructure natural sentences just to avoid using it. And what makes it any more lazy, bland, or vague than other complementizers like "for?" Where did you get the idea that it should only be used when referencing something previously mentioned in writing?

>it's quite different when speaking to someone in person though, like when you're pointing out something, "look at that car over there."
the "that" in "look at that car" is a demonstrative; it's the singular counterpart of "those." the "that" in "I think that you should know better" is a complementizer like "for" in "it's easy for us to win."

>"I think that you should know better"
'that' is redundant in this case, like it literally adds nothing nor does it clarify anything in that sentence.
"I think you should know better"
is a much more clear and confident statement

yes it's true the meaning is changed, but depending on context I suppose, it's better to be more concise and precise in your writing. avoid vagueness as much as possible.

but the 'that' version would be suitable in a context such as:

person1: "he just doesn't understand"
person2: "I know. it annoys me that he doesn't understand."

in this case, 'that' is used to accentuate and it's not flabby filler

>"that" doesn't add anything to the sentence
in what sense? what does "for" add to the sentence "it's easy for us to win?" they're complementizers, they introduce functional structure.

>much more clear and confident
if that's your opinion fine but I don't see where you're drawing that conclusion other than idiosyncratic aesthetic preference.

Here is a another one:
"Never got a chance to watch Arrested Development? It is time you quench your thirst as Fox is showing episodes starting season one?"

Is this correct?

by your criterion of conciseness person2 would be better off saying "Yes, it annoys me." You shouldn't say "I know" because it means the same thing as "yes." You shouldn't say "it annoys me that he doesn't understand" because it's clear from context that "that he doesn't understand" is what is annoying.

>"that" is used to accentuate
what do you mean by accentuate? what would be another word which would similarly accentuate?

well I have diverged from discussing proper grammar and have been talking about form and aesthetics. 'that' is a 'complimentizer', but more specifically it is an 'empty complimentizer'. in other words it is redundant. redundancy has its uses, such as softening the tone of a sentence when you wish to be more polite or less harsh, but it is more useful to eliminate redundancy when you wish to be concise and more powerful in your communication. this is why I say using 'that' can be lazy, because many people lazily throw it about as filler. I call it filler because it takes a bit of extra thought to coax what 'that' is actually referring to instead of just leaving it dangling out there for the listener to make up their minds about it.

Assuming you don't intend the second sentence as a question
>It is time you quench your thirst as Fox is showing episodes starting season one
Then I could see it working if it means that Fox is going to start airing episodes from the start of the first season. Is that what's intended?
And I would want a comma before the "as" because if I don't put the pause there, I get an interpretation of the "as" as meaning "while" rather than "because." eg without the pause I'm reading it as "It's time you quench your thirst while Fox is showing episodes..." with the pause I'm reading it as "It's time you quench your thirst, because Fox is showing episodes..." I'm not sure whether other people would read it that way though.

well it's my own fault for subtly expanding the topic of argument. hopefully you can see the difference in effect between choosing to write concisely, avoiding redundancy, and choosing to write with a thoughtful use of redundancy in order to accentuate.

by accentuate, I mean to draw out and highlight particular aspects of meaning within a statement. filler words can accomplish this for sure, it's something people do in real life conversation. a person might draw out and pause for a time with 'um', or a redundant use of 'that', or even just pause for effect. in writing, redundancy can be used for similar effect, especially in narration or dialogue.

however it's not good form for objective writing. read academic papers in journals and count how many times 'that' is in the article. my main argument is, by extension, composing sentences to avoid a redundant 'that' imbues the statement with more concision and power, which is what OP is going for. he wants to sound condescending and like some cool smartass

>it means that Fox is going to start airing episodes from the start of the first season.
>Is that what's intended?
Yes.

Any corrections needed? Other than a "comma" before "as"? Also "from is missing. "as Fox is showing episodes starting "from" season one." Is "from" really necessary there?

>it means that Fox is going to start airing episodes from the start of the first season.
It doesn't mean that, though. It means Fox has already started airing episodes of Arrested Development. "showing" is present participle.

It sounds better to me if you use the "from." If you don't use the "from" it might mean something more like "Fox is showing some of the episodes which began first season," but if you use the "from," then it could mean something more like "Fox is showing episodes, and they will start with episodes from season one."

>read academic papers in journals and count how many times 'that' is in the article
I do read academic papers and journals, and from a quick survey of what I have on my hard drive, this use of "that" is ubiquitous in academic writing.

Actually Fox has already started airing the episodes from season one. (Episode 6 is on monday). So does this state what I said in this post?

I think you probably do want to have "from" in there.
"It is time you quench your thirst, as Fox is showing episodes starting from season one"

So:

"Never got a chance to watch Arrested Development? It is time you quench your thirst, as Fox is showing episodes starting from season one?"

Perfect English?

What if someone use "with" instead of "from?"

Pretty much the same thing

>Second "if" shouldnt be there
>should be "hehe",
>should be "as" your pastime

Pastime is a synonym for hobby, not a period of time. "As a" is correct