Thanks, Bruce.

I understand now why it sounded strange to me. That is exactly how I meant it--an emphatic expression. but as you indicate I might have just said (written), "But upon thinking it over, I now decide that since presumably she still has the chip, 'have a chip is correct' after all."

Oh, my! I get so involved exploring and thinking how to say something that I can't always find my way back to what I was first thinking! In any case I looked up pro-verb and then pro-forms on Wikipedia. It's very interesting.

Thanks again, Bruce.

Martha

Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 06:58:38 -0800
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: is this phrasing awkward and also a grammar question
To: [log in to unmask]

Martha,
 
I think your reading is fine.  The expression "still does have" does have a variant form.  The normal rule is to form an emphatic using the pro-verb "do" in cases where there is no operator, as "she went" -> "she did go."  This is normal to bring out a contrast.  The unemphatic form of your example uses the full verb "have" (meaning "possess") and so, "she still has" -> "she still does have."  The custom in British English, however, is to let the full verb "have" be treated as though it were an auxiliary, which it is when used as a formative for the perfect aspect.  So in those dialects it is accepted to use "she still has" -> "she still has" with stress on the "has," not usually indicated in the written form.  This usage is parallel to BrE allowed/preferred form for questions using the full verb, "Has she still a chip?" or better "Has she a chip still?" where AmE prefers to say, "Does she still have a chip?"  I think if the person quoted were British, the absence of "do" would be considered quite normal.  But, even this practice seems to be waning a bit with the strong influence that the AmE dialects have there today.  [I think this difference in dialects is a matter of hypercorrection among the British that came about since the time that the American colonies were settled from their country.] 
 
Bruce

--- [log in to unmask] wrote:

From: Martha Galphin <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: is this phrasing awkward and also a grammar question
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2012 19:53:00 -0500

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/
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/