Timeline for Is the "doubly remote" conditional construction optional?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 2, 2020 at 6:58 | comment | added | HeWhoMustBeNamed | @BrianHitchcock, re: your comment, I don't see the sarcasm; I see the literal meaning ("If you hadn't asked me yesterday [and instead had asked tomorrow], I wouldn't have replied this way tomorrow"). Can you explain? | |
| Feb 27, 2015 at 7:37 | comment | added | Brian Hitchcock | It's sarcasm, my friend. | |
| Feb 27, 2015 at 4:00 | comment | added | JK2 | Regarding your last sentence, I understand why you used 'hadn't asked' in the protasis and 'wouldn't have replied' in the apodosis, purely tense-wise. That said, I'm having a hard time understanding the logical connection between the protasis and the apodosis. I mean, in the protasis, you go back to 'yesterday' and imagine a hypothetical world where I didn't ask you 'yesterday'. And in that imaginary world you are precluded from NOT replying this way 'tomorrow'? What does that mean? | |
| Feb 25, 2015 at 10:30 | comment | added | Brian Hitchcock | No, the construction is not impossible, but some of the examples given strain credulity, to put it mildly. But if you hadn't asked me yesterday, I wouldn't have replied this way tomorrow. | |
| Feb 25, 2015 at 3:05 | comment | added | JK2 | Are you suggesting that the doubly remote conditional construction as described in the OP is rarely used in everyday usage of English? So much so that even a native speaker might find these constructions unnatural or stilted or even "impossible"? | |
| Feb 24, 2015 at 8:45 | history | answered | Brian Hitchcock | CC BY-SA 3.0 |