Timeline for If that won't happen, we'll have no choice
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 19, 2016 at 22:47 | history | bumped | CommunityBot | This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed. | |
| May 22, 2016 at 21:16 | comment | added | WS2 | @StoneyB I still think I'd say possibly Unless there is an intent for it to happen... I would never expect to see won't in this context and if I did I would puzzle over it. | |
| May 22, 2016 at 15:36 | comment | added | StoneyB on hiatus | @WS2 I agree that it's unlikely in this context. I'm merely pointing out a context in which it would be acceptable--think of it as bearing a strong emphasis on won't: "If (as you say) that won't happen, we'll have no choice". | |
| May 22, 2016 at 15:32 | comment | added | WS2 | @StoneyB It is an unlikely structure in my view. Would I say I'm seeking the intervention of the Mayor. If that won't happen permission will not be granted? I think not. I would say something like: I'm seeking the intervention... If that does not happen then... It does not seem idiomatic to say If that won't happen... | |
| May 20, 2016 at 22:48 | comment | added | StoneyB on hiatus | @bart-leby It amounts to "All we ask is that Zaccagnini intervene. You tell me that he will not, so we will have no choice but to execute the sentence" | |
| May 20, 2016 at 22:08 | comment | added | bart-leby | @StoneyB - So the speaker expects "an immediate positive intervention of Zaccagnini" will not happen. But it does not make much sense… | |
| May 20, 2016 at 21:57 | answer | added | Steve Cooper | timeline score: 1 | |
| May 20, 2016 at 21:48 | comment | added | StoneyB on hiatus | @JohnLawler I think not. This looks to me like a different situation which licenses will in the protasis, what Declerck and Reed call a "closed condition". Here, what the protasis expresses is not a contingency but an accepted fact, and if does not mean "in the event that" but given the fact that. | |
| May 20, 2016 at 20:38 | comment | added | WS2 | @John Lawler I can accept what you say about the deontic sense of will, and that it is the only one allowed in an if clause. On that basis I am going to delete my earlier comment. But what I don't understand is how an inanimate pronoun it, can be willing. | |
| May 20, 2016 at 20:12 | comment | added | John Lawler |
This is the deontic sense of will, meaning be willing. It's the only interpretation of will allowed in if-clauses. We have asked for one thing to happen; if this won't happen -- i.e, if they won't allow it to happen -- then, ...
|
|
| May 20, 2016 at 20:10 | comment | added | bart-leby | I thought that in my sentence fits your second version, i.e. If it doesn't happen = In the event that it doesn't. | |
| May 20, 2016 at 19:56 | comment | added | FumbleFingers | @WS2: You could say If that won't happen = Since it won't happen in some contexts, whereas If it doesn't happen = In the event that it doesn't... | |
| May 20, 2016 at 19:35 | comment | added | FumbleFingers | If (we accept that the current situation is that) that won't happen, we have no choice but to [blah blah]. | |
| May 20, 2016 at 19:11 | history | edited | bart-leby | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| May 20, 2016 at 19:04 | history | asked | bart-leby | CC BY-SA 3.0 |