Conversation started Oct 17, 2014 at 15:13.
Anonymous
Oct 17, 2014 15:13
It doesn't appear to have past time reference
Anonymous
It does appear to use past tense forms, although these forms have uses other than expressing past time meaning
user116848
@snailboat Exactly! I think it uses past to refer to present.
user116848
Like subjunctive.
Cerberus
Cerberus
@Arrowfar This is complicated.
As Terdon says, the had is not right.
Anonymous
I do like it better without backshifting
user116848
Oct 17, 2014 15:16
@Cerberus Because here in this paragraph we are giving advice to the client about what they should do. So I bet they are talking about present stuff.
Anonymous
Would be would also be nice, I think
user116848
You are right, I like "would be" and "would have" versions.
Cerberus
Cerberus
In an hypothetical sentence, one with a main clause with would and a conditional clause with if, the if clause is in the past subjunctive, and it does not refer to the past (unless you use the perfect subjunctive). However, other clauses dependent on the conditional clause are often written in the simple past, not the past subjunctive; nevertheless, those clauses, too, do not refer to the past.
user116848
nods
Cerberus
Cerberus
> I would kill him if he cheated on me with that woman because he was lonely.
user116848
Oct 17, 2014 15:19
@Cerberus Yeah, that is what I know from the grammar books :)
user4550
user4550
@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 what?
i don't have six
user116848
@Cerberus We are using "was" here with present time reference, right?
Cerberus
Cerberus
So you see a main clause with would, a conditional clause with the past subjunctive cheated, and a dependent clause with the simple-past form was.
Anonymous
You don't have . . . six?
Cerberus
Cerberus
@Arrowfar Yes: it has the exact same time of reference as the past subjunctive cheated. There is no logic in it, alas...
Some people use the past subjunctive in such dependent clauses, but that is usually not recommended. Informally, many other tenses are used, such as the present tense.
Mr. Shiny and New 安宇
Mr. Shiny and New 安宇
Oct 17, 2014 15:22
@user4550 um. Why are you replying to that old msg?
terdon
terdon
@user4550 It was I who said, that not Mr Shiny. You have now or have had in the past many accounts. Please don't do that. This is usually done by people who are trying to game the system in one way or another. Either to get around a ban or to vote themselves. As far as I know, you have done neither of those but still, please avoid having multiple accounts. It confuses things.
Ice Boy
Ice Boy
25 mins ago, by Ice Boy
are you lonely?
user116848
@Cerberus Yeah, I agree. So in my question they are talking about the present time, right? I mean it looks like a hypothetical sentence.
Cerberus
Cerberus
@Arrowfar Yes, all clauses refer to the hypothetical present.
user116848
okay, nods.
Ice Boy
Ice Boy
Oct 17, 2014 15:26
@user4550 well, are you?
terdon
terdon
@Cerberus Ugh, in that case, that's horrible. I really don't read it that way, not without would have.
I would have gone for one of:
> This could be made a ‘standing item’ on the agenda so that it _has_ to be considered before each time that assessments were considered.

>This could be made a ‘standing item’ on the agenda so that it _would have_ to be considered before each time that assessments were considered. (or _would be_)
Anonymous
@terdon With has I would prefer are later in the sentence
Anonymous
There was a comment on that question before which confused me, but it seems to be gone
terdon
terdon
@snailboat Indeed, me too.
Anonymous
Oh wait, the comment was elsewhere. My mistake! :-)
user116848
Oct 17, 2014 15:33
Thanks for explaining guys!
user116848
Much appreciated :)
user116848
I don't get it why people write this ambiguous in formal writings sometimes.
Anonymous
@Arrowfar People don't always write very carefully.
user116848
Yeah, that. I guess I'd have to get used to this all.
Anonymous
I think sometimes the way you're thinking about a sentence changes as you're writing it, and you end up with two halves that don't quite fit together the way you meant them to
 
Conversation ended Oct 17, 2014 at 15:35.