If the filibuster is eliminated for judicial nominations, Bush would enjoy greater latitude in filling vacancies on appellate courts.
Officials of the organization said that if the bill passes, it would prevent the agency from providing information to the public.No. If the filibuster is eliminated, Bush will enjoy greater latitude. If the filibuster were eliminated, Bush would enjoy greater latitude.
If the bill passes, it will prevent blah blah blah. If the bill passed, it would prevent blah blah blah.
The tenses have to match. Is that so difficult? Is/does/will. Was (were)/did/would. Get all conditional on us, by all means, in a sentence in which the conditionality is implied but the present tense never raises its ugly head (otherwise, Albom-breath, you're assuming a future event that may or may not happen):
Blah blah blah about what the bill would do. It would prevent the agency from providing information to the public.
12 comments:
Of course; it's fixed now. Thanks, Dave.
Man, davek beat me to the punch. I think one of the main things we fight is that as poor English becomes the norm, proper structure is sounding more and more wrong. It used to be the other way 'round. BTW, this was my tract on Gwen Stefani and her desecration of subjunctive mood.
All-righty then. If it rains tomorrow, I would not play tennis.
There are shades of meaning in those examples that I just don't see in my original sentences.
Mixed conditions were kosher in Latin and Greek; John Eastwood, In the Oxford Guuide to English Grammar (1994) says, "Verbs in conditional sentences *257* There are many different combinations of verb forms." (I wish he'd used the terms "protasis" and "apodosis"!)
I'd think that a "should-would" condition would be better for the filibuster sentence. The "were" gives it too much a sense of reality. "If the filibuster should be eliminated" seems closer to the situation. And the verb forms actually do match (whereas they didn't with "were" and "would be")! Not that I think they should.
By the way, in my last post, I meant "the 'were' gives it too much a sense of UNreality." Unfortunately, the nuclear option's prospect's are better than "were" implies.
This is already obvious to certain people, but I think learning those kinds of labels is a waste of time. Unless you're really, really good at wielding them, they're more likely to lead you astray than to enlighten you.
The fix for that other thing, Seattle:
Go to http://www.theslot.com/gifs/walshb.jpg. Select Tools / Internet Options / Advanced, and make sure Show Pictures is checked.
Another way to start, Seattle, would be to study German (or another Germanic language) and Latin, plus a little Anglo-Saxon.
Talking about myself, that's what I'd say. Lee's clever contribution demonstrates where the "wouldn't" in my reductio ad absurdum would be correct, but it's a different idea -- a way of giving advice to someone else.
Different idea; we're not talking about a bill that didn't pass. But here's how that would go:
If the bill had passed, it would have prevented ...
I had a preterite removed as a precaution once -- thank goodness it turned out not to be modal.
Post a Comment