'Were' in this case is the +past+ subjunctive, here used to express
hypothetical condition. Therefore it needs to be taken up by the +past+
tense, 'might'. You might want to be a bit less formal in this example and
say 'if it *was* the latter', and that'd be perfectly ok, especially in
speech, but you would still need to follow it with a verb in the past tense.
'May' is incorrect simply because it's present tense. Even if you're
thinking of 'may' as being present rather than conditional here, you'll
still need the +past+ conditional, which like the *imperfect* tense used
above is (guess what?) 'might'.
I think that's the correct explanation. If anyone can pin the thing down
tighter I'll be glad to know. I get a bit bogged down sometimes between
subjunctives and gerunds in English, because the truth is I do it by ear.
Hey, that's probably why I can't do arithmetic!
joanna
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Cudmore" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 2:57 PM
Subject: Re: rip hyphens
> Oops. I had no idea that there was a syntactic distinction to be made
> between might and may. Instinctively, I reached for Fowler, the stentorian
> patron saint of pedants; however, he has nothing to say on the matter --
> not
> under those heads, anyway. 'Maybe', he notes, became "the recognized
> rustic
> or provincial substitute for 'perhaps'." So maybe 'may' is the rustic
> version of 'might'.
>
> Can you explain the syntactic basis for one being correct and the other
> not?
>
> P
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Poetryetc: poetry and poetics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
>> Behalf Of Joanna Boulter
>> Sent: 24 September 2007 13:57
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: rip hyphens
>>
>> I was all set to pitch in here and say that 'if it *were*' should be
>> followed by and completed by 'the hyphens *might* be unnecessary' *Not*
>> 'may'. This is an error of syntax which is becoming almost universally
>> prevalent, and which irritates the hell out of me. (Nearly as bad as 'for
>> you and I'!) And then you disarm me by saying you're not a good
> grammarian,
>> and I feel really mean.
>>
>> But I'm for ever amazed at how very many highly educated people
> consistently
>> get both of these wrong. I admit to being a pedant on this front. It's
>> probably to compensate for the fact that I can't do arithmetic, which I
>> am
>> sure you can. (And yet if I applied myself, I probably could learn to do
> so,
>> even at this late stage.)
>>
>> And you will all of course have noticed that in spite of the disclaimer
>> in
>> my first paragraph, I've said what I wanted to say anyway.
>>
>> joanna
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Peter Cudmore" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 1:25 PM
>> Subject: Re: rip hyphens
>>
>>
>> > Hey, it really works! I can get my thesis down to 100,000 words after
> all!
>> >
>> > I hadn't thought about it before, but the fast in hard-and-fast must be
> as
>> > in robust, unmoving rather than speedy or quick; if it were the latter
>> > then
>> > the hyphens may be unnecessary. The point is really more to do with
>> > thinking
>> > carefully about what one writes -- which of course we all do,
> hereabouts.
>> > I'm not a good grammarian, so the convenience of the 'no hyphen unless
>> > really necessary' rule suits me.
>> >
>> > P
>> >
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: Poetryetc: poetry and poetics [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> On
>> >> Behalf Of Joanna Boulter
>> >> Sent: 24 September 2007 12:24
>> >> To: [log in to unmask]
>> >> Subject: Re: rip hyphens
>> >>
>> >> I've just had occasion to use the term punch-drunk, and realised that
>> >> neither punchdrunk nor punch drunk seemed to be what I meant.So, is it
>> >> possible to make a hard-and-fast ruling? Which would not be the same
>> >> as
> a
>> >> hard and fast one, nor yet as hardandfast.
>> >>
>> >> Doesn't word-count have something to do with it? So much text these
> days
>> >> seems to be reckoned by number of words, and totals can be adjusted by
>> >> inserting or taking out hyphens. I've done it myself, when it wouldn't
>> > make
>> >> me feel compromised -- as indeed writing 'cooperate' (ouch!) does.
>> >>
>> >> joanna
>> >>
>> >> ----- Original Message -----
>> >> From: "Peter Cudmore" <[log in to unmask]>
>> >> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> >> Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2007 3:47 PM
>> >> Subject: Re: rip hyphens
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > I've long been a minimal hyphenator. I still wince every time I type
>> >> > 'cooperate', but I just grit my teeth and get on with it.
>> >> >
>> >> > Anyway, noting in passing that the New York Times' comment pages are
>> > once
>> >> > more free (no more premium content), I noticed this today:
>> >> >
>> >> >
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/opinion/23margolick.html?ref=opinion>
>> >> >
>> >> > The Day Louis Armstrong Made Noise
>> >> >
>> >> > Mr. Lubenow stuck initially to his editor's script, asking Mr.
>> >> > Armstrong
>> >> > to
>> >> > name his favorite musician. (Bing Crosby, it turned out.) But soon
>> >> > he
>> >> > brought up Little Rock, and he could not believe what he heard.
>> >> > "It's
>> >> > getting almost so bad a colored man hasn't got any country," a
> furious
>> > Mr.
>> >> > Armstrong told him. President Eisenhower, he charged, was "two
> faced,"
>> > and
>> >> > had "no guts." For Governor Faubus, he used a double-barreled
>> >> > hyphenated
>> >> > expletive, utterly unfit for print.
>> >> >
>> >> > I wondered, just for a moment whether it was the hyphen that made it
>> > unfit
>> >> > to print.
>> >> >
>> >> > P
>> >> >
>> >
>
|