I heard someone British use the phrase "She was that afraid of the dark she always kept a light on."

Why use the word "that" instead of "so"?

I would have said "She was so afraid of the dark she always kept a light on."

Or perhaps, "She was so afraid of the dark that she always kept a light on."

Or perhaps again, "She was that afraid of the dark so she always kept a light on."

quote:

Originally posted by Caterwauller:
I heard someone British use the phrase "She was that afraid of the dark she always kept a light on."

Why use the word "that" instead of "so"?

I would have said "She was so afraid of the dark she always kept a light on."

I can't help with why but I can verify that that's a colloquial usage in the Midlands and the north.

Yes, 'that Adj' meaning 'so Adj', 'Adj to so great an extent' is a regional usage, not standard British; but quite commonly heard.

quote:

not standard British; but quite commonly heard.

But as Bob says,in the Midlands and north thereof. It would be unusual south of London.

Was is that bad?
Is is that difficult to understand.

Are the above uses really that uncommon?

I'm certainly aware that this is an incorrect use of language but as I've mostly lived in the North I confess that I never think twice about it now and even use it myself from time to time.

It was not untill I started socializing with my inlaws that it was pointed out that I frequently use "me" instead of "my". Another northern coloquialism I guess.

quote:

Originally posted by Quark:
It was not untill I started socializing with my inlaws that it was pointed out that I frequently use "me" instead of "my". Another northern coloquialism I guess.

I say "me" instead of "my" as well (but then I lived "oop north" for many years).

I lived in Leicestershire for four years and they also say "that" instead of "so". You regularly hear phrases like "Ee, she were that mardy!"

"Mardy" is a very useful word. It's one of those single words that encompasses a whole collection of ideas. It can mean "bad-tempered", "obstinate", "unreasonable", "unco-operative", "grumpy" and similar sentiments depending on context.

quote:

Originally posted by Graham Nice:
Was is that bad?
Is [it] that difficult to understand.

Are the above uses really that uncommon?

These two uses are somehow different from the regional one under discussion. These two are standard English, and what I would say (not meaning to be funny). Now, what's the difference? Hmm...

I think the non-regional usage is a deictic. It points out an amount. Someone evinces badness or difficulty (say, by groaning, or by hitting the bottle), and you say 'Is it that bad?', the 'that' referring to what is shown or seen. It's there to be pointed out.

Whereas the regional usage is a quantifier introducing a clause: the amount of adjective is given not by something external but by a following comparison: 'It was that bad I had to have another drink.'