Eldin Raigmore wrote: On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 16:28:35 -0700, Paul Hartzer <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >This (and your other examples) is extremely hard to parse for me, even if it's >technically well-formed English. Here's something that work much better for >me: >"If you're going to want some pie if you finish your vegetables, you'd better >finish your vegetables while they're still warm." That's parsable (sp?) for me, but still awkward. I think I'd stick in a comma after "pie".... or substitute "provided (that)" for the second "if". Personally, I'd only use two ifs for humor-- "We could grill steaks, if we had any charcoal, if we had any matches..." The occasion hasn't arisen, but I suspect we'd have to rephrase, somehow, in Kash or my other 2 conlangs. ========================= > But, as far as natlangs go, I'm mostly concerned about those languages in which either the protasis or the apodosis or both must be put in a (the?) "conditional" mood. Of course in Spanish, the pro. is subjunctive, the apo. is conditional (or sometimes subjunctive too, just for fun). I think they can both be indicative in some cases ("if Obama had a news conference (si...dio una conferencia), I didn't listen to it (no la escuché)" implying that perhaps there was a news conference but in any case I didn't hear it; very different from "si...diera...., no la escucharía (if he _should_ give.... I wouldn't listen.... or, if he gives....I won't listen) ======================= > English doesn't require either the protasis or the apodosis to be put in a "conditional" mood. Modern English doesn't have a conditional mood;... No, but we can insert things like "should, were to..." as in the ex. above. And some of us still demand the "subjunctive" in "if I _were_ you, I wouldn't do that" and similar. ======================= > Speaking of such things, how about: "that that" "had had" "is is" the first two of which come up in "correct" written English, the third in informal colloquial spoken English? ================ Do you have in mind such things as "he said _that that_ would be wrong" ? That's a case of conjunction "that" plus dem.pron. "that". I can't think of a case where both "that"s are the conjuction...... "had had" is simply past perfect, isn't it?. No problem. "is is" I suppose from the famous "...what the meaning of is is" That's a case of "...what the meaning of is(NOUN) is(VERB)" perfectly normal if you substitute any other word in the NOUN slot (or, in writing, put quotes around it).