Is this an inversion? To V should S be . .


As always, while reading through I found a sentence whose structure confused me.


What I want to know is whether the first sentence is the inversion form of the second sentence.



1. If the reason was to avoid bad publicity should his error be discovered, then . . .
2. If the reason was his error be discovered to avoid bad publicity, then . . .



If not, how should I interpret the first sentence?


Thanks.



Answer



The sentences are not equivalent in meaning. That is, the first makes sense, the second doesn't.


Probably your confusion lies in the word should. Here it means if. I would expand it like this:



If the reason was to avoid bad publicity [if] his error [were to] be discovered, then . . .



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

verbs - "Baby is creeping" vs. "baby is crawling" in AmE

commas - Does this sentence have too many subjunctives?

grammatical number - Use of lone apostrophe for plural?

etymology - Where does the phrase "doctored" originate?

phrases - Somebody is gonna kiss the donkey

typography - When a dagger is used to indicate a note, must it come after an asterisk?

etymology - Origin of "s--t eating grin"