It is a different construction, which is still the subjunctive, but which stresses the unlikely nature of the situation. Both 'should' and 'were to' are used for this.
1) Can this be reduced to this below? Why/why not?
2) Acceptable/or unacceptable in formal contexts? Why/why not?
(It is a different construction,which is still the subjunctive, and which is used frequently by both 'should' and 'were to,' but which stresses the unlikely nature of the situation)
It is a different construction, still the subjunctive, used frequently by both 'should' and 'were to,' but stresses the unlikely nature of the situation.
Thank you.
1) Can this be reduced to this below? Why/why not?
2) Acceptable/or unacceptable in formal contexts? Why/why not?
(It is a different construction,
It is a different construction, still the subjunctive, used frequently by both 'should' and 'were to,' but stresses the unlikely nature of the situation.
Thank you.
You can't make an agent out of both 'should' and 'were'. It doesn't make sense. You can leave out some words from the original: It is a different construction, still in the subjunctive, but it stresses the unlikely nature of the situation. Both 'should' and 'were to' are used for this.
CB
CB
Comments
I think you are either taking the "reduced" concept too far, or your grammar understanding steered you wrong. Sorry. This may not be the opinion you want to hear.
Regarding clause reduction, I see 'stresses the unlikely...' as a 'zero' relative clause (where the relative pronoun 'which' has been ellipted), not a 'reduced' relative clause, whereas I see 'used frequently...' as a reduced relative with its nonfinite verb. And, 'still the subjunctive' I see as a noun Complement to the subject 'It', meaning 'It is still the subjunctive'.
BillJ