0
Henry74 Posted 14 years ago
Grammar
Conditional Clause + Relative Clause
Hi,
I'm having trouble deciding what the right tense is for some kind sentences that begin with a conditional.
Consider a sentence of the form:
If you printed it all in italics, you would have a paper that [look] like rye in the wind.
I've considered a few alternatives on how to conjugate look and I'll give you my thoughts on those below.
(I'm going to leave the conditional clause out in what follows, as it never changes):
a) [...] that looks like rye in the wind.
b) [...] that would look like rye in the wind.
c) [...] that looked like rye in the wind.
Here's my take on the above:
a) [...] that looks like rye in the wind.
It doesn't sound wrong to my ear, but I don't know if it is grammatically accepted. Is its being or not being grammatical somehow related to the objectivity of what is being stated in the relative clause?
For example, consider a sentence like the following:
If you somehow managed to erase planet Mars, you would have a Solar System that has the Earth next to Jupiter.
Under the condition stated in the conditional clause, here I would be stating an objective truth about the Solar System. A present tense would then seem more justified, if at all, than in the sentence about the newspaper, in which some people may object to viewing it as rye in the wind.
b) [...] that would look like rye in the wind.
I'm not entirely sure about this one. It would sound strange in my native language, but I think this is how I've heard it used in English, and it would probably be my first choice, if in doubt.
(Actually, I believe I've found a reason for it. You start with the sentence: If you print it all in italics, you will have a paper that will look like rye in the wind, and then you backshift everything one tense into the past).
c) [...] that looked like rye in the wind.
I'm not sure about this one either. If what I've just said above is correct though, then you can read this as a backshifting of if you print it all in italics, you'll have a paper that looks like rye in the wind. So, again, maybe the acceptability of this depends on the objectivity of what is being stated in the relative clause. If so, c) would also seem acceptable, depending on context.
So, that's it.
Could you please tell me what you think? Does any of that make sense at all?
Sorry for the verbose post.
Thank you!
H.
I'm having trouble deciding what the right tense is for some kind sentences that begin with a conditional.
Consider a sentence of the form:
If you printed it all in italics, you would have a paper that [look] like rye in the wind.
I've considered a few alternatives on how to conjugate look and I'll give you my thoughts on those below.
(I'm going to leave the conditional clause out in what follows, as it never changes):
a) [...] that looks like rye in the wind.
b) [...] that would look like rye in the wind.
c) [...] that looked like rye in the wind.
Here's my take on the above:
a) [...] that looks like rye in the wind.
It doesn't sound wrong to my ear, but I don't know if it is grammatically accepted. Is its being or not being grammatical somehow related to the objectivity of what is being stated in the relative clause?
For example, consider a sentence like the following:
If you somehow managed to erase planet Mars, you would have a Solar System that has the Earth next to Jupiter.
Under the condition stated in the conditional clause, here I would be stating an objective truth about the Solar System. A present tense would then seem more justified, if at all, than in the sentence about the newspaper, in which some people may object to viewing it as rye in the wind.
b) [...] that would look like rye in the wind.
I'm not entirely sure about this one. It would sound strange in my native language, but I think this is how I've heard it used in English, and it would probably be my first choice, if in doubt.
(Actually, I believe I've found a reason for it. You start with the sentence: If you print it all in italics, you will have a paper that will look like rye in the wind, and then you backshift everything one tense into the past).
c) [...] that looked like rye in the wind.
I'm not sure about this one either. If what I've just said above is correct though, then you can read this as a backshifting of if you print it all in italics, you'll have a paper that looks like rye in the wind. So, again, maybe the acceptability of this depends on the objectivity of what is being stated in the relative clause. If so, c) would also seem acceptable, depending on context.
So, that's it.
Could you please tell me what you think? Does any of that make sense at all?
Sorry for the verbose post.
Thank you!
H.
Top answer
] that looks like rye in the wind. -- It is said, but it cannot be grammatically defended except as narrative present: a more lucid image for the listener. ] that would look like rye in the wind.
- ] that looks like rye in the wind.
- -- It is said, but it cannot be grammatically defended except as narrative present: a more lucid image for the listener.
- ] that would look like rye in the wind.
- I'm not entirely sure about this one.
- -- It is said, but bad choice: the choice of learners, but native speakers normally use simple present for future in such dependent clauses, so you start with the sentence: If you print it all in italics, you will have a paper that looks like rye in the wind, and then you backshift everything one tense into the past ( looked ).
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
9 Answers
0
a) [...] that looks like rye in the wind.
Is its being or not being grammatical somehow related to the objectivity of what is being stated in the relative clause?-- It is said, but it cannot be grammatically defended except as narrative present: a more lucid image for the listener.
b) [...] that would look like rye in the wind.
I'm not entirely s
Is its being or not being grammatical somehow related to the objectivity of what is being stated in the relative clause?-- It is said, but it cannot be grammatically defended except as narrative present: a more lucid image for the listener.
b) [...] that would look like rye in the wind.
I'm not entirely s
00
Thank you for your reply Mr. Micawber.
I understand your answers. I guess I'll just have to learn to stick to c)
To be honest though, the fact that you rejected b) still puzzles me a little. I understand the reasoning behind it, if the conditional clause was in the Present, you would use looks rather than will look. And yet, for some reason, when it all goe
I understand your answers. I guess I'll just have to learn to stick to c)
To be honest though, the fact that you rejected b) still puzzles me a little. I understand the reasoning behind it, if the conditional clause was in the Present, you would use looks rather than will look. And yet, for some reason, when it all goe
00
Henry74a) [...] that looks like rye in the wind.I accept them all as grammatical, but if it were my choice, I would choose c) because it is a very uncomplicated backshift of the most common pattern we see in the analogous sentence in the pres
b) [...] that would look like rye in the wind.
c) [...] that looked like rye in the wind.
00
Thanks again, CJ.
Just to clarify,
In your second example, would you object to any kind of future tense for the relative clause, e.g. [...] that they will be needing for the next step, or [...] that they are going to need for the next step?
Thank you.
H.
Just to clarify,
In your second example, would you object to any kind of future tense for the relative clause, e.g. [...] that they will be needing for the next step, or [...] that they are going to need for the next step?
Thank you.
H.
00
Sorry for my drunk underlining. Something funny went on there, I'm not sure what.
H.
H.
00
Henry74In your second example, would you object to any kind of future tense for the relative clause, e.g. [...] that they will be needing for the next step, or [...] that they are going to need for the next step?No. I would not object. All those variants seem fine to me.
CJ
00
I see.
Did I, buy any chance, misinterpret your question mark when you wrote "(...) that they [need / ?will need] for the next step.", or the problem is really caused only by will need there, seeing that the other two variants have your approval?
Thank you
H.
Did I, buy any chance, misinterpret your question mark when you wrote "(...) that they [need / ?will need] for the next step.", or the problem is really caused only by will need there, seeing that the other two variants have your approval?
Thank you
H.
00
Henry74Did I, buy any chance, misinterpret your question mark when you wrote "(...) that they [need / ?will need] for the next step."I don't know how you interpreted it, but I meant that, in my opinion, some people will use "will need" and some won't, and further, that it's not necessary because the first choice in brackets is perfectly fine.
00
Related Questions