Question #11 in that sample test of G-TELP Level 2 Grammar is as follows:
11. A cousin of mine recently gave me a hardbound collection of the 500 most outstanding short stories in English. Because the book is quite thick, I cannot carry it around to read outside the house. However, if I __________ to go out of town on a weekend, I would definitely take that book with me.
(a) were
(b) have
(c) am
(d) was
Answer: ⓐ ⓑ ⓒ ⓓ
The correct answer indicated for that test is Answer Choice “(b) have,” but you say that you’d have chosen “had” if that were an option.
The “had” option you are referring to would be correct if the conditional is in the past tense, but then the outcome statement would have to be changed to the past perfect conditional form “would have taken.” The sentence would then read as follows: “However, if I
had to go out of town on a weekend during that period in the 1950s, I
would have definitely taken that book with me.” (Here, I have added the time phrase “during that period in the 1950s” to definitely establish the past conditional as opposed to the present conditional.)
But then that past conditional sentence would be incompatible with the antecedent two sentences in that statement, which are clearly being made at the point of speaking right now: “A cousin of mine recently gave me a hardbound collection of the 500 most outstanding short stories in English. Because the book is quite thick, I cannot carry it around to read outside the house.” The “had” option is therefore not a correct option here.
If you actually had in mind that that sentence should be in the subjunctive mood, the correct option would be “were” for the conditional clause, but the conditional outcome statement would be unchanged: “However, if I
were to go out of town on a weekend, I would definitely take that book with me.” But again, like the past conditional sentence above using “had,” this subjunctive sentence would likewise be incompatible with the antecedent two sentences in that statement, which as I pointed out earlier are clearly being made at the point of speaking,
right now.
Indeed, the test sentence in question is neither past conditional nor subjunctive but is a so-called
first conditional or real possibility sentence, which talks about a high degree of possibility that a particular condition or situation will happen in the future as a result of a possible future condition. In a first conditional sentence, the “if” clause states the condition in the present simple tense, is followed by a comma, then followed by the result clause in the form “will/would + base form of the verb.” This is the case with the sentence in question if it uses the present tense “have.” It now becomes perfectly compatible with the antecedent two sentences in that statement that are being made at the point of speaking:
“A cousin of mine recently gave me a hardbound collection of the 500 most outstanding short stories in English. Because the book is quite thick, I cannot carry it around to read outside the house. However, if I have to go out of town on a weekend, I
would definitely take that book with me.”
We must keep in mind here that “would” is being used not as the past tense of “will” but in the auxiliary function in the conclusion of a conditional sentence to express a contingency or possibility.
For a detailed discussion of the four types of conditional sentences, click this link to
“Do better than a calculated guess in handling conditional sentences,” a posting I made in the Forum on January 11, 2011.
Now, as to your argument with your boss over his decision to correct the declarative statement “
Admissions for S.Y. 2013-2014 are ongoing” to “
Admission for S.Y. 2013-2014 is ongoing,” I suggest you desist from screaming if you still feel like it. Idiomatically, I think you’re right in insisting that the statement using the plural form “admissions” reads and sounds better than that using the singular form “admission.” I must tell you, though, that you’d have to move heaven and earth to convince your boss that his choice is grammatically or semantically wrong. Indeed, his version has perfect subject-verb agreement and there’s hardly anything about his grammar or semantics that you can quibble about. In short, you are taking issue with his personal choice of style, which is partial to using singular noun forms as opposed to using plural noun forms. So let that statement be. There’s no point in getting in the bad graces of your boss or being eased out of your job over such a stylistic trifle.
