Grammar Question

[shoenberg3]

What is right?
Only if enough viewers OBJECT to what may call "the vast wasteland of television" would the qualitiy of programming become acceptable.

Or

Only if enough viewers OBJECTED to what may call "the vast ........ acceptable.

And why?

Thanks in advance

[bernhard]

Now both are correct.

Only if enough viewers OBJECT to what [one] may call "the vast wasteland of television" WILL the quality of programming become acceptable.

Only if enough viewers OBJECTED to what [one]may call "the vast wasteland of television" WOULD the qualitiy of programming become acceptable.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[shoenberg3]

Thanks Bernhard,
So, my little SAT book was wrong!

It read that "only if enough viewers object to what many call..........would the quality of programming become accpetable" was correct, in fact when it should be "viewers objected...."

[bernhard]

Bear in mind that:

1. I am not a native speaker.

2. Language is created to confuse the non-natives. (it is a way for a group to communicate while leaving the others out - that is why language is full of idiossincracies and why there are so many different languages ).

3. So, who knows, maybe your book is right.

4. Then again it may be a typo.

5. In short: get a second opinion.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[shoenberg3]

Thanks anyways

[athykay]

I'd agree with Bernhard.  I think the "would" needs the past tense in "objected" while "will"  which supposes a future event would need the "object" implying a future event.

This is just my gut, common sense reading and I can't back it up beyond that.


I think you should submit it to the Court of Peeves.

https://www.uexpress.com/coveringthecourts/?uc_full_date=20031012

[musik_man]

Only if enough viewers OBJECT to what may call "the vast wasteland of television" would the qualitiy of programming become acceptable.

Isn't this also missing a comma after "television"?

[janice]

Now both are correct.

Only if enough viewers OBJECT to what [one] may call "the vast wasteland of television" WILL the quality of programming become acceptable.

Only if enough viewers OBJECTED to what [one]may call "the vast wasteland of television" WOULD the qualitiy of programming become acceptable.

Yes, Bernhard is correct here, I believe, because in the first sentence, both verbs are the same tense (present) and in his second sentence, both are the same (past tense).

BUT.........and I am lovingly correcting Bernie here:

you spelled idiosyncracies wrong!  

2. Language is created to confuse the non-natives. (it is a way for a group to communicate while leaving the others out - that is why language is full of idiossincracies and why there are so many different languages ).
 

[xvimbi]

I think the second sentence is wrong, and the first is correct. I consulted with my "Personal Languish Advisors", and that's what they said.

However, they concede that people colloquially use the construct in the first sample a lot, but according to grammar rules, it is not correct.

[Floristan]

This is not an event that is definitely going to happen (future tense), but an event that is conjectural in nature.  The condition is stated in the present tense because it is a statement of a factual condition (and not a subjunctive condition, as the past tense would suggest).

"If X IS true, then Y would happen" means if the condition is met, then there is a probability that Y happens.  As opposed to "If X IS true, then Y WILL happen," which asserts certainty about the event that results from the satisfaction of the condition.  While we routinely assert that if X is true, Y will happen, this construction can only properly be used to assert known caus and effect relationships, e.g., "If I hold my finger in the candle flame long enough, my finger will be burned."  It's irrefutable.  But when the effect is debatable, use of a conditional helper verb is, technically, more appropriate, e.g., "If George Bush starts reading the newspaper, he would be more informed."  Not "will."  We don't know that. 

So...

Only if viewers OBJECT to what many call "the vast wasteland of television" WOULD the quality of programming become acceptable.

Just my opinion on a day when I'm studiously avoiding a really boring but intense workload!

[athykay]

Just my opinion on a day when I'm studiously avoiding a really boring but intense workload!

You too, huh?

Sign me,

Mistress of avoidance (or was that ADD?)

[jgoo]

And never forget:

"Could" is the past tense of "can"
"Would is the past tense of "will"
"Might" is the past tense of "may"
"Should" is the past tense of "shall"

[shoenberg3]

Thanks everyone

[Floristan]

You too, huh?

Sign me,

Mistress of avoidance (or was that ADD?)

 

[Floristan]

OK, just because I'm an English grammar junkie, I found a pretty definitive set of examples of conditional statements on the Internet.  Look at the 5 examples at the bottom of the page.:

https://www.usingenglish.com/articles/english-conditionals.html

As it shows, the verb tense used in each clause is related to the degree of probability of the event happening as a result of the condition.  The third example, which illustrates a situation of "unlikely" probability, answers the SAT question above.  Although this is absolutely correct usage, it is NOT common usage.  It is exactly the sort of thing the SAT exam creators tend to go after, to see how detail-obsessed you are! 

[xvimbi]

Just to make things more complicated: the well-known phrase "If I were a rich man..." is wrong, too. Provided there is no subjunctive mood, the correct way would be "If I be a rich man". So, the "object" in the example above is actually an infinitive.

"If I think this is true..."
"If you think this is true..."
"If he think this is true..."

But who speaketh like this anymore?

BTW, well-done Floristan, that was the most concise and clear explanation I have ever seen. Seriously! 

[aquariuswb]

Just to make things more complicated: the well-known phrase "If I were a rich man..." is wrong, too. Provided there is no subjunctive mood, the correct way would be "If I be a rich man". So, the "object" in the example above is actually an infinitive.

This shocks me, actually! How sure are you about this? -- It's not that I don't believe you if you are certain, it just greatly surprises me! Thanks for the info.

Hmmm... Technically, then, would it be right or wrong to start a sentence with the phrase:

"Were I a rich man, ..." ?

This is a cool topic.

[xvimbi]

Just to make things more complicated: the well-known phrase "If I were a rich man..." is wrong, too. Provided there is no subjunctive mood, the correct way would be "If I be a rich man". So, the "object" in the example above is actually an infinitive.

"If I think this is true..."
"If you think this is true..."
"If he think this is true..."

Actually, I should have said "Provided there is a subjunctive mood ..."

I ust found this website that explains it:

https://www.bartleby.com/64/C001/061.html