Timeline for Grammatically, why does it seem that 'that' can't follow the verb expressing propositional attitude in this sentence?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 24, 2014 at 23:11 | comment | added | Janus Bahs Jacquet | @Questor, there is no subjunctive here. This can be seen clearly if the logical subject is singular: “the event that he claims justifies the exemption” is unambiguously indicative. Even if it were a subjunctive, though, that would not preclude the equal possibility of an infinitive construction. | |
| Apr 24, 2014 at 17:43 | comment | added | Questor | Having the 'to' in there is readable, and (iinm) would be an infinitive clause. But I see a slight problem, namely in cases such as this I have always taken the verb in the subordinate clause to be in the subjunctive mood. I think using wish, want, etc - and claim - justifies this. We're talking present subjunctive, of course. Thus the 'to' should not be there. | |
| Apr 24, 2014 at 15:58 | comment | added | Colin Fine | You could, but it would be more normal to omit the to before justify. | |
| Apr 24, 2014 at 15:25 | comment | added | Vic | Could we also say:"Together with corroborant documentation, the petitioner must submit his own account of the events that he claims to justify the exemption"? | |
| Apr 24, 2014 at 15:13 | history | answered | Barrie England | CC BY-SA 3.0 |