Not one of the potential investors is expected to make an offer to buy First Interstate Bank until a merger agreement is signed that includes a provision for penalties if he deal were not to be concluded.
(A)is expected to make an offer to buy First Interstate Bank until a merger agreement is signed that includes a provision for penalties if the deal were
(B)is expected to make an offer to buy First Interstate Bank until they sign a merger agreement including a provision for penalties if the deal was
(C)is expected to make an offer to buy First Interstate Bank until a merger agreement be signed by them with a provision for penalties if the deal were
(D)are expected to make an offer for buying First Interstate Bank until it signs a merger agreement with a provision for penalties included if the deal was
(E)are expected to be making an offer for buying First Interstate Bank until they sign a merger agreement including a provision for penalties if the deal were
Nope -- just because the subjunctive is used in one of the verbs, it doesn't have to be used in all of them.
you're thinking of the "command subjunctive". this form is used only in certain structures -- and ALL of those structures are preceded by "that".
For instance:
it is important that you be on time.the boss demanded that his employees be at work half an hour before the start of the shift.
etc.
also, not only does this construction not satisfy the grammatical requirements of the command subjunctive; it doesn't satisfy the contextual requirements, either. Usually, the command subjunctive is used only in contexts involving some kind of demand, request, or statement of importance. This context is none of the above, and therefore does not merit the use of the command subjunctive.
actually, the problem isn't that there's no referent - it's that the existing referent doesn't make any sense.
grammatically, "they/them" could refer to "potential investors". but, in context, that wouldn't make any sense.
in context, we're talking about the bank (and possibly also the potential investor ... but definitely the bank) signing the agreement. that doesn't work with this pronoun.
(A)is expected to make an offer to buy First Interstate Bank until a merger agreement is signed that includes a provision for penalties if the deal were
(B)is expected to make an offer to buy First Interstate Bank until they sign a merger agreement including a provision for penalties if the deal was
(C)is expected to make an offer to buy First Interstate Bank until a merger agreement be signed by them with a provision for penalties if the deal were
(D)are expected to make an offer for buying First Interstate Bank until it signs a merger agreement with a provision for penalties included if the deal was
(E)are expected to be making an offer for buying First Interstate Bank until they sign a merger agreement including a provision for penalties if the deal were
aarthi.kunnath wrote:
Hello,
I had chosen option C
C. is expected to make an offer to buy First Interstate Bank until a merger agreement be signed by them with a provision for penalties if the deal were
I recognized that this needs the subjunctive - deal were but chose C over A because of be signed to go with the subjunctive deal were
Can the instructors plz explain what's wrong with my reasoning?
Thank you!
I had chosen option C
C. is expected to make an offer to buy First Interstate Bank until a merger agreement be signed by them with a provision for penalties if the deal were
I recognized that this needs the subjunctive - deal were but chose C over A because of be signed to go with the subjunctive deal were
Can the instructors plz explain what's wrong with my reasoning?
Thank you!
Nope -- just because the subjunctive is used in one of the verbs, it doesn't have to be used in all of them.
you're thinking of the "command subjunctive". this form is used only in certain structures -- and ALL of those structures are preceded by "that".
For instance:
it is important that you be on time.the boss demanded that his employees be at work half an hour before the start of the shift.
etc.
also, not only does this construction not satisfy the grammatical requirements of the command subjunctive; it doesn't satisfy the contextual requirements, either. Usually, the command subjunctive is used only in contexts involving some kind of demand, request, or statement of importance. This context is none of the above, and therefore does not merit the use of the command subjunctive.
poonammarwah23 wrote:
Hi Ron,
I have rejected B and C because they and them do not have any referent.
Am I correct?
Thanks!
I have rejected B and C because they and them do not have any referent.
Am I correct?
Thanks!
actually, the problem isn't that there's no referent - it's that the existing referent doesn't make any sense.
grammatically, "they/them" could refer to "potential investors". but, in context, that wouldn't make any sense.
in context, we're talking about the bank (and possibly also the potential investor ... but definitely the bank) signing the agreement. that doesn't work with this pronoun.
