Quotative [to be] + "that"

[sagehen]

>>How do we know the writer didn't mean to write "all agree that"?  Or
>>"all are >>agreed that"?
>
>>This kind of slip happens all the time.  Why assume it's a new linguistic
>>feature?
>
>>JL
 ~~~~~~~
 >what, *exactly*, kind of slip do you have in mind?  your first
>suggestion would have intended "all agree [or: believe/say/maintain...]
> that" surfacing as "all are that"; what's the mechanism?
>.. arnold
~~~~~~~~
At the risk of shutting off an interesting discussion, I have to say it
seems all-too-easy to account for an omission of this sort as an artifact
of keyboarding/emailing.  Meaning to substitute a better word for the first
one chosen, deleting the one & then forgetting to replace it with the
better.  Proofreading, as we all know, can overlook an error when we know
what we *meant* to say.
A. Murie
I had written the above & tried to send it but found the line in use, so
went on to read the rest of the accumulated posts, among which was Peter's
saying the same thing, in effect. Can't be the Ohio effect, since Peter & I
share that with arnold....maybe Oregon comes into it, somehow............?