While can/could is modal, the modals historically had a tense
distinction, especially in their root senses.  As so often
happens, that tense distinction is preserved today only in
subordinate clauses, as in

He says that he can/will meet us for dinner.
He said that he could/would meet us for dinner.

This archaic tense contrast, non-functional as it is in main
clauses, is at the root of the problem in Joanna's sentence.
Normal sequence of tenses would require the (historically) past
form, could.  However, in ModE, that grammatical rule of sequence
of tenses can be overridden pragmatically by a present context,
which is what the "is" provides.

Herb Stahlke

<<< [log in to unmask]  9/19  7:45p >>>
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
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~