grammargrammaticalityrelative-clausesthat
Am I using the that-clause in this sentence properly?
"Watching just the first episode of the anime will surely get you hooked that you would want to marathon the whole series in a day."
Or should I add to the point as in "will surely get you hooked to the point that you would want to marathon the whole series in a day"?
The phrase is "to be supposed to". The phrase is not "supposing to", or "to be supposing to", or any variation thereof. When something is supposed to be a macro, it's not supposing to be a macro. It is not doing the supposing itself. It is supposed, by someone else, to be a macro.
The head verb of the phrase "to be supposed " is "to be". You are looking for a present-participle form of that, which is "being". Thus, you are looking for
The whole point of this being supposed to be a macro is...
And yes, that's clumsy, but it's grammatical, and hey, you get what you ask for. Me, I would rewrite from scratch. But at that point it becomes a question of style, not grammar.
tldr: What’s written is ok, and I’ll show you what it means.
Grammar is something that falls out of the spoken language, not the written one. Punctuation is unrelated to grammar except in that rare circumstance when it signals an audible intonation change meant to alert the listener to some change in the actual underlying grammar. Those cases are hard to come up with, but do exist. All punctuation is just cues for hearing the real language in your head better.
Therefore by that metric, not only is there nothing wrong with the punctuation as written, there cannot be, and no matter how it is written.
So try saying your first example aloud in your head, which I will here write without commas because voices have no commas, just intonation:
This is a restrictive that here, which you can tell because it can be substituted by which with no change in meaning or permissibility:
We can’t use that in descriptive clauses but we can use both that and which in restrictive ones, so if you can swap them, you know what you have. And the other way around, too. This is grammatical whether with or without its comma:
But this is ungrammatical again no matter whether you write the comma or not:
That one is wrong because it tried to use that for a descriptive clause, and you can only use which for those. The native ear goes HUH? when it hears it, which is what makes it ungrammatical.
As you see, it’s never its punctuation which makes something grammatical or ungrammatical. It’s whether you the right worms oops I mean words have managed to put together right — which this sentence almost did not. Twice. :) It had almost managed not to put the right words together, twice.
As you observe, we do not usually use commas before restrictive clauses in English because there is no intonation change to signal there. Presuming that the writer was a competent one, this means the writer was trying to signal something else by including intonation dips. I believe that what he was signalling was an apocopated version of two appositives, which I’ll use em dashes to set off with a repeated things:
If you read his punctuation there, the commas, as an indicator of appositives the same way as they’re used for that in this sentence, his pauses will make much more sense. It’s not especially common, so it’s no wonder it caught your eye, but I believe that there is a legitimate reading where it makes perfect sense.
As for this one:
Here you have to read this for syntactic constituents. The phrase if I’m not mistaken is a parenthetical aside. It could have been written:
So the commas are the same as parens or dashes: they’re there to surround the parenthetical statement. Since in the spoken language you cannot hear any punctuation, this cannot change the grammar. They’re just there to help the reader.
These too are all ok:
All those are fine. About the only thing you can’t do is say:
Because which cannot function there to start the clause to serve as the object of a preposition.
Don’t allow some simple, perhaps simplistic, mnemonic tip for good writing style such as “don’t use a comma before that” confuse you about the larger surrounding issues or about a sentence’s actual grammar. Such tips exist to break a common pattern in beginning writers unfamiliar with the conventions normally observed in these things. But rest assured that the actual grammar remains intact no matter the punctuation, for any grammatical error will jump out to your ear without seeing the punctuation — just like in my very last bulleted example sentence above, the one with the extra asterisk.
Best Answer
You need to add 'so' to your example sentence for it to make sense: -
Your are using 'that' as a conjunction here, see this example (part 2.b): -
The verb marathon does work, although it is very rarely used, so some readers will find it a little unusual (which isn't necessarily bad in itself, but just something to be aware of).
Regarding the second part of your question "should I add to the point", I would recommend against that structure, it reads rather cumbersome compared to what you originally had which is more succinct, you just need to add 'so' as discussed above, before hooked, for it to make sense.