Relative clauses and modals

Question

By grammar books say that modals don't follow the backshifting rule in reported speech, and I notice this rule has been discussed in this NG several times. (i.e. "I am tired" -> "She said she was tired", but "If I knew the answer, I would tell you" -> "She said If she knew (not 'had known') the answer, she would (not 'would have') tell me). But what about relative clauses? Specifically which tenses are correct in the following three?
1. You were preparing yourself for the upcoming event by not drinking asmuch beer as you would normally ( >do>have>have done), weren't you?
2. That was the kind of car she would (like>have liked) if she (were>hadbeen) alive.
3. I spent this morning playing video games because I couldn't think ofanything else I'd rather (do>have done).
Although I searched the archive and came with no definite answer, I apologize if this has been covered before.
Eamer

Usenet · Accepted Answer

[nq:1]By grammar books say that modals don't follow the backshifting rule in reported speech, and I notice this rule has ... yourself for the upcoming event by not drinking as much beer as you would normally ( >do>have>have done), weren't you?[/nq]
...as you normally would...
...as normal...
or any of your three options ("have" being elliptical for "have done").
[nq:1]2. That was the kind of car she would (like>have liked) if she (were>had been) alive.[/nq]
...have liked, if she had been... or
...have liked, if she were... or
...like, if she were...
"Had been alive" refers to a past time; "were alive" to the present or elliptically (for "were alive at that time") to the past. Here "would have liked" is probably elliptical for "would have liked to own (or be given)".
"She would like" sounds a bit creepy.
[nq:1]3. I spent this morning playing video games because I couldn't think of anything else I'd rather (do>have done).[/nq]
do
This one's easy. "Have done" would only be correct if the playing had taken place earlier than the thinking.
"I can't think of anything else I'd rather have done than spend this morning playing video games."
Adrian

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]By grammar books say that modals don't follow the backshifting ... beer as you would normally ( >do>have>have done), weren't you?[/nq]
[nq:1]...as you normally would... ...as normal... or any of your three options ("have" being elliptical for "have done").[/nq]
Thank you!
I think I understand sentences 2 and 3 but I am confused about 1. Why is it that both versions with or without a "have" are allowed? Do they mean different things or is it just a matter of taste or register?

Emaer

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]By grammar books say that modals don't follow the backshifting rule in reported speech, and I notice this rule has ... would (not 'would have') tell me). But what about relative clauses? Specifically which tenses are correct in the following three?[/nq]
I know of no 'backshifting rule' for sequence of tenses. Perhaps you're using a defective grammar book. There are many.
In English, as in German, one may use a preterit for contrary-to-fact conditionals (as opposed to present for mere hypotheticals), but since there is no distinctive subjunctive verb form in English, the system has fallen into abeyance. There really isn't a rule one can follow, and people fall into all kinds of habits.
In the sentence you cite, either a simple past or a perfect may be used:

She said if she knew, she'd ('would') tell me.
She said if she'd ('had') known, she'd've ('would have') told me.

They mean somewhat different things, though. The second refers only to some past event, and says that she denied having known, and claimed that she would otherwise have told me. The first can have that meaning, too, but it can also refer to the present or the future, and can constitute a promise to tell me if she ever finds out the answer.
[nq:1]1. You were preparing yourself for the upcoming event by not drinking as much beer as you would normally ( >do>have>have done), weren't you?[/nq]
This is not a relative clause. This is a comparative construction. Any of the four possibilities (including zero) that you cite are OK. This isn't sequence of tenses, though this is verb phrase elision. All of them (except zero) are tenseless infinitives, since they are complements of 'would'. And there's no difference in meaning, just style. Some like it longer.
[nq:1]2. That was the kind of car she would (like>have liked) if she (were>had been) alive.[/nq]
This *is* a relative (the relative 'that' is deleted between 'car' and 'she'), and 3 of the possible 4 combinations are OK. One can say

... that she would like if she were alive.
... that she would've liked if she were alive.
... that she would've liked if she'd been alive.
but I find
*... that she would like if she'd been alive.
distinctly odd.
[nq:1]3. I spent this morning playing video games because I couldn't think of anything else I'd rather (do>have done).[/nq]
This is also a relative (the relative 'that' is deleted after 'else') and here, again, either is OK, though 'do' is probably more likely.
[nq:1]Although I searched the archive and came with no definite answer, I apologize if this has been covered before.[/nq]
I wouldn't worry about it if I were you. You already know more about English grammar than most native speakers; that's good enough.

-John Lawler http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler Michigan Linguistics "Ordnung gibt es heutzutage meistens dort, wo nichts ist. Es ist eine Mangelerscheinung." Bertolt Brecht

Relative clauses and modals

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions