+0
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.
+0
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
Comments  
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
English 1b3It is a different construction, still the subjunctive, which is used frequently by both 'should' and 'were to,' but stresses the unlikely nature of the situation.

The above makes little sense to me, both grammatically and conceptually. Given that, it is a weakly constructed -run-on sentence. It's my opinion that the relative pronoun (which is) is essential in connecting the rest of the sentence to the main clause.

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.Emotion: indifferent

I agree with CB. Although you've managed to successfully integrate the two sentences, it would be better to use an agentless passive construction using the preposition 'with': '....used frequently with both should and were to'.

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