"that" or "what"?

[drdeng]

In George Orwell's essay "A Nice Cup of Tea", which the author tells the reader what he considers to be the best method by which tea is made, the last sentence is as follows: "It is worth paying attention to such details as warming the pot and using water that is really boiling, so as to make quite sure of wringing out of one's ration the twenty good, strong cups of that two ounces, properly handled, ought to represent." I believe grammatically "�strong cups of that two ounces, properly handled, ought to represent" should read "strong cups of what two ounces, properly handled, ought to represent." I am right?

[heathfield]

'That' is better. But it's strange - the 'of' in front of it is a superfluous intrusion.

[Quizmonster]

The essay was written in 1946 when things such as tea were still rationed and one had to use coupons at the grocery-shop in order to get any at all. I imagine that the quantity one was allowed was two ounces and that is what Orwell was writing about when he wrote the words "one's ration". Accordingly, the phrase "that two ounces" refers back to the permitted quantity (ration) mentioned earlier. He could have used 'what', but then the back-reference would have been lost and he might then have been talking about any two ounces.

[drdeng]

Grammatically, to my mind, the preposition �of� is not supposed to be followed by a that-clause, though it is natural that it is followed by a how-, when-, why-, who-, or where-clause. That is why I believe that the original sentence is questionable, and Orwell should have written ��strong cups of what two ounces, properly handled, ought to represent�. I understand that Quizmonster considers the �that� here to be a determiner instead of a conjunction, but it is not supposed to be a grammatical sentence when the preposition �of� is followed by a noun-clause, either. Of course, with the �of� crossed out the �that� should be kept intact because �that two ounces, properly handled, ought to represent� becomes a defining attributive clause now
By the way, there were some slips of the pen in my last question. The first �which� should read �in which�, and �I am right?� should read �Am I right?� I�m sorry for the carelessness.

[Quizmonster]

If I have one pound of rice and split it into four separate little piles consisting of about four ounces each, I can - pointing to one of these piles and then another - say, "That four ounces looks bigger than this four ounces."
I can then go on to say, "I don't think I'll be able to cook two platesful from this four ounces but I will be able to cook two platesful from that four ounces."

Why, therefore, cannot Orwell refer to creating "twenty good, strong cups of that two ounces"?

[drdeng]

Quizmonster, thanks for your discussions. But don't you think the "of" should be delete?

[Quizmonster]

I've no doubt a case can be made for deleting the 'of'...I'm just trying to offer an explanation of what - rightly or wrongly - may have been in Orwell's mind when he wrote the words he did. (I'm rather puzzled, though, as to why it matters one way or the other!)

[drdeng]

Thank you again, Quizmonster. And sorry again for a typo ("...should be delete" ought to have been "...should be deleted").
I do agree with the use of "that" as a determiner in that sentence -- in fact I've never doubted its use. My question is whether Orwell's sentence is grammatically correct, and If not, how to correct it.