Thanks, Bruce.

I have to look up irrealis, apodosis, and protasis. These are new to me; (I'm not a linguist). But I understand what you mean about the idea of present relevance being important at the time the sentence was actually spoken. The statement's clauses could have been in reversed order, "If Petunia didn't have a chip in her, we wouldn't be with her now." On the other hand, the situation being referred to (the action taken) was from the deeper past and had (the past perfect) seems required because of that. If Petunia had not had a chip inserted in her, we wouldn't be here with her today because no one would have found us. So, after all I do think the past perfect is required.

My second issue: "she still does have" -- does that phrasing feel awkward to you? How might I express that better?

Thanks,
Martha


Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2011 10:33:53 -0800
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: is this phrasing awkward and also a grammar question
To: [log in to unmask]

I think your second thoughts were spot on.  The use of past perfect has be the topic of much discussion on this list in the past.  I think the idea of present relevance is important.  If the words of the utterance were given as reported speech, the tense would be back-shifted. 
 
Compare:
The owners reported, "We wouldn’t be here today with Petunia if she didn’t have a chip."
with:
The owners reported that they wouldn’t be here today with Petunia if she hadn’t had a chip.
 
The original speech was shifted to the past because of the (irrealis of the apodosis) and conditional mode (of the protasis).  I think that reported speech is one situation where the past perfect would be preferred so as to preserve the mode of the original.  (This is all the more important since the "would" cannot be shifted back any further.)  
 
Petunia has a chip.
She may not have had a chip.  
We wouldn't be here today with her in this case. 
 
Bruce 
 
--- [log in to unmask] wrote:

From: Martha Galphin <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: is this phrasing awkward and also a grammar question
Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2011 13:02:07 -0500




ATEG list members:

 

Please comment on the following sentence and on two things in my note about it: #1 my conclusion that “have a chip” is correct after all and #2 my use of the phrase “she still does have.”

 

The sentence: “We wouldn’t be here today with Petunia if she didn’t have a chip.” (A long lost dog was returned to her owners after she was found to have an implanted microchip identifying her. An MSNBC internet story.)

 

My note about the sentence: I would have said, “We wouldn’t be here today with Petunia if she hadn’t had a chip.”  But upon thinking it over, I now decide that since presumably she still does have a chip, “have a chip is correct” after all. What do you think?

 

Thanks for your help everybody.

 

Martha
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" 

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ 

 		 	   		  
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/