more astounding coordination

[Laurence Horn]

>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
>  >>legacy.
>...
>  >>
>>
>>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).
>
>Chris Waigl
>
Same here, except that I sorta gave him the benefit of the doubt:

Were I [to have a child] and [to have sent the child to Oberlin] ==>
Were I to have [a child and sent the child to Oberlin]

where the coordination is of course quite zeugmatic (since the former
is main verb have and the latter the auxiliary), plus what you end up
with is a conjunction of two conjuncts, one of which is an NP and the
other a VP.  But otherwise, it's fine.

Larry