more astounding coordination
cwaigl at FREE.FR
Thu Nov 10 00:13:10 UTC 2005
Benjamin Zimmer wrote:
>On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 15:43:43 -0800, Arnold M. Zwicky wrote:
>>from David Fenton, on soc.motss, 11/9/05:
>>Oberlin has legacies.
>>Were I to have a child and sent the child to Oberlin, she would be a
>>that counterfactual clause almost got past me, and then i had what
>>the Language Loggers call a WTF experience and realized that its two
>>parts were not a matched pair, the first part being an inverted
>>counterfactual clause, the second the VP of an ordinary counfactual
>>(with "if": "if I sent the child to Oberlin"). the full
>>counterfactual certainly could not have been
>> *were I to have a child and sent I the child to Oberlin
>> *were I to have a child and did I send the child to Oberlin
>>and even an uninverted second conjunct (with a subject) is not
>>perfect, though it's a lot better than these:
>> ?were I to have a child and I sent the child to Oberlin. (1)
>>to get fully parallel conjuncts, you need to use the ordinary
>>counterfactual in the first conjunct:
>> if I were to have and child and (I) sent the child to Oberlin.
>One option you didn't mention:
> were I to have a child and send the child to Oberlin
>That would be parallel ("were I to have" + "were I to send"). Were I to
>construct such a sentence and try to say it, that's how it would turn out.
This is how I read David Fenton's sentence when I first saw it (after
some wondering about his syntax).
More information about the Ads-l