A new printer for the faculty room purchased as soon as the requisition slip is signed. (A) will be (B) would be (C) had been (D) has been Hi, Of course, I'd pick A for the above question. But B seems all

You might find this useful: I will ideed check it out, thank you! I wish it were available on my Kindle, but a used copy should suffice.

You might find this useful: Introduction to the Grammar of English by Rodney Huddleston, first published 1984, 470 pages, Cambridge University Press. Don't let the word "Introduction" fool you. It's actually rather advanced and

... it probably would not have, had it been ... It is a "third conditional", if you want the technical name. And the underlying if clause if it had been is rephrased with subject-verb inversion as had it been . CJ Thank you. Very

What I was asking is would it be possible for the construction to be correct , but yes, a whole sentence is better. It would be possible for that sequence of words to be correct. Yes. Calling that sequence "a construction" confused the

You do need a comma between "have" and "had." The word sequence itself is okay.

I understand that this sentence is difficult, possibly even tortured. Were I to publish it, I would probably rewrite it to something like: " played on rock radio. I believe rock radio would not have played it if the song had been performed

" played on rock radio, which it probably would not have had it been a soul song performed by a heavy-set black woman." Geez, if it hadn't been for the anonymous post just before mine, I wouldn't have understood that sentence at

My humble contribution: after "which," remove "it." "Which" is a relative pronoun referring to the whole sentence "A soul ...rock radio." It means "which fact," i e., the fact that "A soul

Fair enough. What I was asking is would it be possible for the construction to be correct , but yes, a whole sentence is better. " played on rock radio, which it probably would not have had it been a soul song performed by a heavy-set black