Acceptability of concessive parenthetical if clause

Question

Is the following sentence correct?

They might build a community that, if it could not change the depressing nature of the work, could at least make the workplace more bearable.

Is it okay to have the “it” in “…that, if it could not change…”?

Answer 1

A more conventional organization might be:

They might build a community that could at least make the workplace more bearable, even if it could not change the depressing nature of the work.

However, examples similar to the original are to be found without much effort, so it seems perfectly acceptable. The only difference being that in the original if has concessive meaning similar to though while the following are simply conditional.

I say' fleetingly' because he doesn't dwell upon the shortcoming of a system that if it served some well, was subsidised by the taxes and opportunity of those below. (Irish Examiner)

The smoke grew heavier from first pitch to last, a trend that if it continues might put Friday's series opener against the Angels in doubt. (Fan Nation)

Over the past few months, the onslaught of the Islamic State has wrought the systematic destruction of cultural artifacts from Palmyra to Nineva, all because they were deemed " offensive " by a minority that if it had its way, would ensure the entire world would adhere to a dark and revisionist existence. (AL.com)

The above all have the it in, so yes, it is acceptable. In fact, it is required and would produce an ungrammatical result if removed.

The clause introduced by if is part of (or at least positioned within) the relative clause introduced by that, which has a relativized subject. This may be why you initially worried that it should be omitted; however the relativized element is the subject of the relative clause, not the subject of the subordinate clause introduced by if inside the relative clause, so it still needs to be included.

If there were a coordination in the relative clause of two instances of could, having the same function in clause structure, then it could be omitted, as in:

They might build a community that could not change the depressing nature of the work, but could at least make the workplace more bearable.

The difference being:

They might build a community [that, if [it could not change the depressing nature of the work], could at least make the workplace more bearable.]

They might build a community [that [[could not change the depressing nature of the work], [but could at least make the workplace more bearable.]]

Answer 2

I don't know what "correct" means, but it is not a nice sentence. The whole thing is clunky. There's no way to read it that makes it sound good. And it takes too long to process, to understand.

Parenthetical portions are, if at all possible, normally surrounded by commas, not separated by them.

Having a comma before that seems very strange because you would not have a pause there used restrictively, and use non-restrictively you would want a comma-which, not a comma-that. You might want a which anyway.

Try this:

• They might build a community that could, if not change the work’s depressing nature, at least make the workplace where it takes place more bearable.