I'm sorry, but isn't "could" required because of "would" (not "can" because
if "is")? This is clealy conditional to me. I think I would trip over myself
if I used (or heard/read) "can" in this context.

Paul E. Doniger
The Gilbert School

----- 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
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>