Hi everyone,
I would agree with Joanna that "could" belongs there. The "if" demands the
subjunctive, and it seems to me that this should extend to the "that" clause
that follows, given that neither condition is yet met.
I would like to know more, however, about how the "is" establishes the
legitimacy of "can." Since we are talking about mood, not tense, would not
tense sequence have no bearing here?
Len (finally out of the lurking shadows) Wyatt
Terry Fox Secondary School
Port Coquitlam
BC, Canada.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Herb Stahlke" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 9:31 AM
Subject: Re: Verb form of if-subjunctive
> Joanna,
>
> I find it grammatical. The context for "can" is established by
> the "is" of the first clause. Of course, I may have been
> influenced by Liz Riddle, our resident expert on sequence of
> tenses. I suspect that in this case, as Liz has shown in her
> work, choice of form is pragmatically conditioned, not
> grammatically.
>
> But I haven't been following this thread, and so I may have
> repeated what everyone else has already said.
>
> Herb
>
> >>> [log in to unmask] 09/19/00 12:01PM >>>
> "(1)The little child is lonely; he would be happier if he had
> someone that
> he can play with."
>
> Do any of the native speakers on this list find this sentence
> grammatical? I can't imagine this being acceptable to anyone, but
> maybe
> I'm wrong. The 'that' clause requires 'could'.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Johanna Rubba Assistant Professor, Linguistics
> English Department, California Polytechnic State University
> One Grand Avenue San Luis Obispo, CA 93407
> Tel. (805)-756-2184 Fax: (805)-756-6374 Dept. Phone.
> 756-259
> E-mail: [log in to unmask] Home page:
> http://www.calpoly.edu/~jrubba
> **
> "Understanding is a lot like sex; it's got a practical purpose,
> but that's not why people do it normally" - Frank
> Oppenheimer
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
