If glaciers <started> re-forming, they <have> a great deal more water now

qandq

Member
Korean
Here’s an interesting thought. If glaciers started re-forming, they have a great deal more water now to draw on ― Hudson Bay, the Great Lakes, the hundreds of thousands of lakes of Canada, none of which existed to fuel the last ice sheet.

Why is "have" in the present tense while "started" in 'if' clause is put in the subjunctive mood? Shouldn't it be "would have"? I would like to know how this is so in grammar.
 
  • much_rice

    Senior Member
    English - American
    If I were editing this piece, I would have changed "have" to "would have." I don't think it's perfectly grammatical, but this is the kind of error that native speakers commit all the time.
     

    qandq

    Member
    Korean
    Here’s an interesting thought. If glaciers started re-forming, they have a great deal more water now to draw on ― Hudson Bay, the Great Lakes, the hundreds of thousands of lakes of Canada, none of which existed to fuel the last ice sheet.

    Why is "have" in the present tense while "started" in 'if' clause is put in the subjunctive mood? Shouldn't it be "had"? I would like to know how this is so in grammar.
    If I were editing this piece, I would have changed "have" to "would have." I don't think it's perfectly grammatical, but this is the kind of error that native speakers commit all the time.
    Thanks for your answer, <...>
    [off-topic comment removed. DonnyB - moderator]
     
    Last edited by a moderator:

    boozer

    Senior Member
    Bulgarian
    Why is "have" in the present tense while "started" in 'if' clause is put in the subjunctive mood?
    There is no subjunctive mood here. Just a conditional sentence.
    Shouldn't it be "would have"?
    I agree with you here. It must be some editing error or a carelessly written sentence.

    [Response to off-topic content removed. DonnyB - moderator]
     
    Last edited by a moderator:
    < Previous | Next >
    Top