And I would have been pleased too, because theIf I had owned a GPS, I would have had more time to study the subjunctive, the understanding of which would have led to peace among all nations, ample food supplies throughout the civilized world, and the end of global warming.I left home early to make sure I would have extra time in case I were to get lost.
I never promised the end of the subjunctive.And I would have been pleased too, because the
subjunctive is such an important concept to
Just thought I'd post a link and quote from it:OK, but "I should get lost" or "I were to get lost" make the sentence sound very wordy, even in writing. I much prefer "I got", which is clear, concise and gramatically correct. (And maybe getting lost wasn't so unlikely!)Sap's example is just an alternative construction--which is still the subjunctive, but which stresses the unlikely nature of the situation. Both 'should' and 'were to' are used for this.
Sluggo's point (with which I agree) was that "I had extra time" is justified as past indicative if we say "in case" rather than "if". In other words, I left home early to ensure that I did (in fact) have some spare time; I would be able to use this in the event of my getting lost. If "I had" is indicative, then "in case" is not a conditional; it is equivalent to something like "for the eventuality that". "Got" would still be past subjunctive.
While if expresses a condition (1), in case is used to express a possibility (2).
(1) I need painkillers if I'm in severe pain.
(2) I need painkillers in case I'm in severe pain.
http://www.englisch-hilfen.de/en/gramma ... ing_if.htm
It is wordy, but still, if one wants to express that 'getting lost' is very unlikely, these are acceptable and almost necessary.I much prefer "I got", which is clear, concise and gramatically correct. (And maybe getting lost wasn't so unlikely!)
To me, sentence 1 means that, every time I am in severe pain, I need pain killers.(1) I need painkillers if I'm in severe pain.
(2) I need painkillers in case I'm in severe pain.
Would a simple comma after painkillers do the same here?I also think the first sentence would be improved by saying "I need pain killers when I'm in severe pain," which suggests that I have a pain threshold that always requires medicine after a certain level of pain.(1) I need painkillers if I'm in severe pain.
I don't think so. I would call both adverbial clauses restrictive, which means that they would not be separated from their main clause by commas unless they preceded them.Would a simple comma after painkillers do the same here?
Aye, I thought about simply reversing the order, but I thought I'd give it a try without doing so. I agree, "If I'm in severe pain, I need painkillers" works better.I don't think so. I would call both adverbial clauses restrictive, which means that they would not be separated from their main clause by commas unless they preceded them.Would a simple comma after painkillers do the same here?
A semicolon has only two uses.Aye, I thought about simply reversing the order, but I thought I'd give it a try without doing so. I agree, "If I'm in severe pain, I need painkillers" works better.I don't think so. I would call both adverbial clauses restrictive, which means that they would not be separated from their main clause by commas unless they preceded them.Would a simple comma after painkillers do the same here?
I was thinking of suggesting the semi-colon, but after looking at the result, I decided it just didn't feel right.