The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

should used as "if" in an inversion Options
curiousb
Posted: Thursday, November 12, 2009 1:47:36 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/25/2009
Posts: 38
Neurons: 114
Location: United States
Is this considered a subordinate clause: He could face stern consequences should prosecutors decide to charge him. My issue is, I have never seen any grammar book where this inversion is discussed as a subordinate clause. Can anyone help real quick?
Shadowstar
Posted: Thursday, November 12, 2009 2:48:32 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/6/2009
Posts: 39
Neurons: 106
Location: United States
This is considered a subordinate clause. Here is a website that can help explain it. http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/grammar/learnit/learnitv48.shtml
englishpundit
Posted: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 3:27:20 PM
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 11/12/2009
Posts: 2
Neurons: 6
Location: Poland
Are there any restrictions of using inverted 'should' in conditionals? Is there sth about "in case of emergency" in its meaning then? What are the contexts, if there are any, when 'should' cannot be used in inversion in conditionals? Is there sth like this? Or maybe there are no special meanings of it and can simply be used interchangeably with 'if' without much difference in meaning?
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2008-2019 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.