Is “has or will read” grammatical?How to agree verb with has and will in same sentence?Is “I have and always will eat food” proper English? Can you conjugate eat for the future only?We will and we have in the same sentenceCould “that have and will be” be correct?Is “field field” a correct phrase?Is “ .. the war on drugs has not, and cannot, be won.” correctly punctuated?I will or will be?Future tense in conditional clausesDoes conjugation reduction require a hyphen in the affected words?Is it grammatical to say of some potential meaning that it is “able to be said” or “trying to be said”?“Have you heard?” vs “Did you hear?” and “Sally broke/has broken her leg”“I've gotten better-looking as I get older” When did “gotten” re-enter the BrEng vernacular?Simple Past and Present Perfect togetherFunction of participleUsing “literary present” with past perfect“Don't mind what she does tomorrow” but not “Don't know what she does tomorrow” Why?Real past conditional with a single event and its conclusion in the past

Storage of electrolytic capacitors - how long?

How to reduce predictors the right way for a logistic regression model

Why does a 97 / 92 key piano exist by Bösendorfer?

Overlapping circles covering polygon

Does Doodling or Improvising on the Piano Have Any Benefits?

"Oh no!" in Latin

Alignment of six matrices

How to preserve electronics (computers, iPads and phones) for hundreds of years

The Digit Triangles

Should I assume I have passed probation?

Personal or impersonal in a technical resume

How do I prevent inappropriate ads from appearing in my game?

Can I run 125kHz RF circuit on a breadboard?

Sigmoid with a slope but no asymptotes?

Language involving irrational number is not a CFL

Why would five hundred and five be same as one?

Is there a way to play vibrato on the piano?

Why does the Persian emissary display a string of crowned skulls?

Is there a distance limit for minecart tracks?

Check if object is null and return null

What is the meaning of the following sentence?

Is there a RAID 0 Equivalent for RAM?

Difference between shutdown options

How do I Interface a PS/2 Keyboard without Modern Techniques?



Is “has or will read” grammatical?


How to agree verb with has and will in same sentence?Is “I have and always will eat food” proper English? Can you conjugate eat for the future only?We will and we have in the same sentenceCould “that have and will be” be correct?Is “field field” a correct phrase?Is “ .. the war on drugs has not, and cannot, be won.” correctly punctuated?I will or will be?Future tense in conditional clausesDoes conjugation reduction require a hyphen in the affected words?Is it grammatical to say of some potential meaning that it is “able to be said” or “trying to be said”?“Have you heard?” vs “Did you hear?” and “Sally broke/has broken her leg”“I've gotten better-looking as I get older” When did “gotten” re-enter the BrEng vernacular?Simple Past and Present Perfect togetherFunction of participleUsing “literary present” with past perfect“Don't mind what she does tomorrow” but not “Don't know what she does tomorrow” Why?Real past conditional with a single event and its conclusion in the past













14















I just wrote [he] has or will read [some text] in an ELL chat room. But looking at it (or more accurately, listening to my "inner voice" trying to "read it aloud"), I find it bothers me a lot.



A quick check on Google Books finds a claimed 432 written instances of has or will read, and 910 instances of has read or will read, which suggests a significant minority of writers don't have a problem with the fact that the two different read's don't sound the same.



When I check the same construction with other verbs that don't have the same written form for past participle and present tense, it seems people nearly always include both (e.g. has worked or will work:1230, has or will work:8; has arrived or will arrive:357, has or will arrive:7).



I'm not usually a big fan of "grammatical rules", but it seems to me there "ought" to be a rule that you shouldn't delete one instance of the verb unless it's "the same" as the one you're keeping. And it also seems to me that since language is primarily spoken, "the same" ought to mean "sounds the same when spoken", not "looks the same when written".



Can anyone who knows more than me about formal rules of grammar settle this one?




As an aside, offhand I can't think of any verb where the past participle and present tense sound the same but are written differently (maybe there aren't any), but would deletion be okay in that case?










share|improve this question



















  • 1





    I think your instinct is right, buthe "rule" is pragmatic, not grammatical: the Adamantine Law that Whatever can be misunderstood will be. When you're writing you don't get a chance to correct misunderstandings, so you have to take the extra effort to forestall them by avoiding ambiguity. --Which is one reason why the written language has so many "rules" and conventions which are disregarded in speech.

    – StoneyB
    Jul 31 '13 at 21:59






  • 1





    @FumbleFingers Actually, I didn't even notice. But after months on ELL I've sort of trained myself not to see things like that unless specifically invited to.

    – StoneyB
    Jul 31 '13 at 22:12






  • 7





    I asked a similar question (english.stackexchange.com/questions/48165) and learned that this is called non-parallel ellipsis. Fowler states bluntly that a sentence such as 'No state has or can adopt' is (however common) an elementary blunder. But reading around a bit on the topic it appears that some types of non-parallel ellipsis are more acceptable to readers than other. Your sentence is an interesting variation due to the identical spelling of infinitive and past participle, but I am usually brought to a dead halt when reading such constructions and avoid them myself.

    – Shoe
    Aug 1 '13 at 14:04







  • 1





    Your aside made me think that it should really even be possible to make a sort of garden-pathish, antanaclatic non-parallel ellipsis, and one finally dawned on me (though it only works if spoken in a non-rhotic accent): “Surely someone has or will sort him out!” (To be read as: “Surely has sought him out or will sort him out!”)

    – Janus Bahs Jacquet
    Aug 1 '13 at 15:11







  • 1





    to address the offhand remark at the end, consider run. Those who have or will run in Boston marathon... also sounds awkward, so I don't think that the appropriateness of ellipsis is based on sound. the verbs have to be of the same inflectional category.

    – jlovegren
    Aug 2 '13 at 0:10















14















I just wrote [he] has or will read [some text] in an ELL chat room. But looking at it (or more accurately, listening to my "inner voice" trying to "read it aloud"), I find it bothers me a lot.



A quick check on Google Books finds a claimed 432 written instances of has or will read, and 910 instances of has read or will read, which suggests a significant minority of writers don't have a problem with the fact that the two different read's don't sound the same.



When I check the same construction with other verbs that don't have the same written form for past participle and present tense, it seems people nearly always include both (e.g. has worked or will work:1230, has or will work:8; has arrived or will arrive:357, has or will arrive:7).



I'm not usually a big fan of "grammatical rules", but it seems to me there "ought" to be a rule that you shouldn't delete one instance of the verb unless it's "the same" as the one you're keeping. And it also seems to me that since language is primarily spoken, "the same" ought to mean "sounds the same when spoken", not "looks the same when written".



Can anyone who knows more than me about formal rules of grammar settle this one?




As an aside, offhand I can't think of any verb where the past participle and present tense sound the same but are written differently (maybe there aren't any), but would deletion be okay in that case?










share|improve this question



















  • 1





    I think your instinct is right, buthe "rule" is pragmatic, not grammatical: the Adamantine Law that Whatever can be misunderstood will be. When you're writing you don't get a chance to correct misunderstandings, so you have to take the extra effort to forestall them by avoiding ambiguity. --Which is one reason why the written language has so many "rules" and conventions which are disregarded in speech.

    – StoneyB
    Jul 31 '13 at 21:59






  • 1





    @FumbleFingers Actually, I didn't even notice. But after months on ELL I've sort of trained myself not to see things like that unless specifically invited to.

    – StoneyB
    Jul 31 '13 at 22:12






  • 7





    I asked a similar question (english.stackexchange.com/questions/48165) and learned that this is called non-parallel ellipsis. Fowler states bluntly that a sentence such as 'No state has or can adopt' is (however common) an elementary blunder. But reading around a bit on the topic it appears that some types of non-parallel ellipsis are more acceptable to readers than other. Your sentence is an interesting variation due to the identical spelling of infinitive and past participle, but I am usually brought to a dead halt when reading such constructions and avoid them myself.

    – Shoe
    Aug 1 '13 at 14:04







  • 1





    Your aside made me think that it should really even be possible to make a sort of garden-pathish, antanaclatic non-parallel ellipsis, and one finally dawned on me (though it only works if spoken in a non-rhotic accent): “Surely someone has or will sort him out!” (To be read as: “Surely has sought him out or will sort him out!”)

    – Janus Bahs Jacquet
    Aug 1 '13 at 15:11







  • 1





    to address the offhand remark at the end, consider run. Those who have or will run in Boston marathon... also sounds awkward, so I don't think that the appropriateness of ellipsis is based on sound. the verbs have to be of the same inflectional category.

    – jlovegren
    Aug 2 '13 at 0:10













14












14








14


1






I just wrote [he] has or will read [some text] in an ELL chat room. But looking at it (or more accurately, listening to my "inner voice" trying to "read it aloud"), I find it bothers me a lot.



A quick check on Google Books finds a claimed 432 written instances of has or will read, and 910 instances of has read or will read, which suggests a significant minority of writers don't have a problem with the fact that the two different read's don't sound the same.



When I check the same construction with other verbs that don't have the same written form for past participle and present tense, it seems people nearly always include both (e.g. has worked or will work:1230, has or will work:8; has arrived or will arrive:357, has or will arrive:7).



I'm not usually a big fan of "grammatical rules", but it seems to me there "ought" to be a rule that you shouldn't delete one instance of the verb unless it's "the same" as the one you're keeping. And it also seems to me that since language is primarily spoken, "the same" ought to mean "sounds the same when spoken", not "looks the same when written".



Can anyone who knows more than me about formal rules of grammar settle this one?




As an aside, offhand I can't think of any verb where the past participle and present tense sound the same but are written differently (maybe there aren't any), but would deletion be okay in that case?










share|improve this question
















I just wrote [he] has or will read [some text] in an ELL chat room. But looking at it (or more accurately, listening to my "inner voice" trying to "read it aloud"), I find it bothers me a lot.



A quick check on Google Books finds a claimed 432 written instances of has or will read, and 910 instances of has read or will read, which suggests a significant minority of writers don't have a problem with the fact that the two different read's don't sound the same.



When I check the same construction with other verbs that don't have the same written form for past participle and present tense, it seems people nearly always include both (e.g. has worked or will work:1230, has or will work:8; has arrived or will arrive:357, has or will arrive:7).



I'm not usually a big fan of "grammatical rules", but it seems to me there "ought" to be a rule that you shouldn't delete one instance of the verb unless it's "the same" as the one you're keeping. And it also seems to me that since language is primarily spoken, "the same" ought to mean "sounds the same when spoken", not "looks the same when written".



Can anyone who knows more than me about formal rules of grammar settle this one?




As an aside, offhand I can't think of any verb where the past participle and present tense sound the same but are written differently (maybe there aren't any), but would deletion be okay in that case?







grammaticality conjunction-reduction






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Mar 17 at 15:21







FumbleFingers

















asked Jul 31 '13 at 21:27









FumbleFingersFumbleFingers

120k33245429




120k33245429







  • 1





    I think your instinct is right, buthe "rule" is pragmatic, not grammatical: the Adamantine Law that Whatever can be misunderstood will be. When you're writing you don't get a chance to correct misunderstandings, so you have to take the extra effort to forestall them by avoiding ambiguity. --Which is one reason why the written language has so many "rules" and conventions which are disregarded in speech.

    – StoneyB
    Jul 31 '13 at 21:59






  • 1





    @FumbleFingers Actually, I didn't even notice. But after months on ELL I've sort of trained myself not to see things like that unless specifically invited to.

    – StoneyB
    Jul 31 '13 at 22:12






  • 7





    I asked a similar question (english.stackexchange.com/questions/48165) and learned that this is called non-parallel ellipsis. Fowler states bluntly that a sentence such as 'No state has or can adopt' is (however common) an elementary blunder. But reading around a bit on the topic it appears that some types of non-parallel ellipsis are more acceptable to readers than other. Your sentence is an interesting variation due to the identical spelling of infinitive and past participle, but I am usually brought to a dead halt when reading such constructions and avoid them myself.

    – Shoe
    Aug 1 '13 at 14:04







  • 1





    Your aside made me think that it should really even be possible to make a sort of garden-pathish, antanaclatic non-parallel ellipsis, and one finally dawned on me (though it only works if spoken in a non-rhotic accent): “Surely someone has or will sort him out!” (To be read as: “Surely has sought him out or will sort him out!”)

    – Janus Bahs Jacquet
    Aug 1 '13 at 15:11







  • 1





    to address the offhand remark at the end, consider run. Those who have or will run in Boston marathon... also sounds awkward, so I don't think that the appropriateness of ellipsis is based on sound. the verbs have to be of the same inflectional category.

    – jlovegren
    Aug 2 '13 at 0:10












  • 1





    I think your instinct is right, buthe "rule" is pragmatic, not grammatical: the Adamantine Law that Whatever can be misunderstood will be. When you're writing you don't get a chance to correct misunderstandings, so you have to take the extra effort to forestall them by avoiding ambiguity. --Which is one reason why the written language has so many "rules" and conventions which are disregarded in speech.

    – StoneyB
    Jul 31 '13 at 21:59






  • 1





    @FumbleFingers Actually, I didn't even notice. But after months on ELL I've sort of trained myself not to see things like that unless specifically invited to.

    – StoneyB
    Jul 31 '13 at 22:12






  • 7





    I asked a similar question (english.stackexchange.com/questions/48165) and learned that this is called non-parallel ellipsis. Fowler states bluntly that a sentence such as 'No state has or can adopt' is (however common) an elementary blunder. But reading around a bit on the topic it appears that some types of non-parallel ellipsis are more acceptable to readers than other. Your sentence is an interesting variation due to the identical spelling of infinitive and past participle, but I am usually brought to a dead halt when reading such constructions and avoid them myself.

    – Shoe
    Aug 1 '13 at 14:04







  • 1





    Your aside made me think that it should really even be possible to make a sort of garden-pathish, antanaclatic non-parallel ellipsis, and one finally dawned on me (though it only works if spoken in a non-rhotic accent): “Surely someone has or will sort him out!” (To be read as: “Surely has sought him out or will sort him out!”)

    – Janus Bahs Jacquet
    Aug 1 '13 at 15:11







  • 1





    to address the offhand remark at the end, consider run. Those who have or will run in Boston marathon... also sounds awkward, so I don't think that the appropriateness of ellipsis is based on sound. the verbs have to be of the same inflectional category.

    – jlovegren
    Aug 2 '13 at 0:10







1




1





I think your instinct is right, buthe "rule" is pragmatic, not grammatical: the Adamantine Law that Whatever can be misunderstood will be. When you're writing you don't get a chance to correct misunderstandings, so you have to take the extra effort to forestall them by avoiding ambiguity. --Which is one reason why the written language has so many "rules" and conventions which are disregarded in speech.

– StoneyB
Jul 31 '13 at 21:59





I think your instinct is right, buthe "rule" is pragmatic, not grammatical: the Adamantine Law that Whatever can be misunderstood will be. When you're writing you don't get a chance to correct misunderstandings, so you have to take the extra effort to forestall them by avoiding ambiguity. --Which is one reason why the written language has so many "rules" and conventions which are disregarded in speech.

– StoneyB
Jul 31 '13 at 21:59




1




1





@FumbleFingers Actually, I didn't even notice. But after months on ELL I've sort of trained myself not to see things like that unless specifically invited to.

– StoneyB
Jul 31 '13 at 22:12





@FumbleFingers Actually, I didn't even notice. But after months on ELL I've sort of trained myself not to see things like that unless specifically invited to.

– StoneyB
Jul 31 '13 at 22:12




7




7





I asked a similar question (english.stackexchange.com/questions/48165) and learned that this is called non-parallel ellipsis. Fowler states bluntly that a sentence such as 'No state has or can adopt' is (however common) an elementary blunder. But reading around a bit on the topic it appears that some types of non-parallel ellipsis are more acceptable to readers than other. Your sentence is an interesting variation due to the identical spelling of infinitive and past participle, but I am usually brought to a dead halt when reading such constructions and avoid them myself.

– Shoe
Aug 1 '13 at 14:04






I asked a similar question (english.stackexchange.com/questions/48165) and learned that this is called non-parallel ellipsis. Fowler states bluntly that a sentence such as 'No state has or can adopt' is (however common) an elementary blunder. But reading around a bit on the topic it appears that some types of non-parallel ellipsis are more acceptable to readers than other. Your sentence is an interesting variation due to the identical spelling of infinitive and past participle, but I am usually brought to a dead halt when reading such constructions and avoid them myself.

– Shoe
Aug 1 '13 at 14:04





1




1





Your aside made me think that it should really even be possible to make a sort of garden-pathish, antanaclatic non-parallel ellipsis, and one finally dawned on me (though it only works if spoken in a non-rhotic accent): “Surely someone has or will sort him out!” (To be read as: “Surely has sought him out or will sort him out!”)

– Janus Bahs Jacquet
Aug 1 '13 at 15:11






Your aside made me think that it should really even be possible to make a sort of garden-pathish, antanaclatic non-parallel ellipsis, and one finally dawned on me (though it only works if spoken in a non-rhotic accent): “Surely someone has or will sort him out!” (To be read as: “Surely has sought him out or will sort him out!”)

– Janus Bahs Jacquet
Aug 1 '13 at 15:11





1




1





to address the offhand remark at the end, consider run. Those who have or will run in Boston marathon... also sounds awkward, so I don't think that the appropriateness of ellipsis is based on sound. the verbs have to be of the same inflectional category.

– jlovegren
Aug 2 '13 at 0:10





to address the offhand remark at the end, consider run. Those who have or will run in Boston marathon... also sounds awkward, so I don't think that the appropriateness of ellipsis is based on sound. the verbs have to be of the same inflectional category.

– jlovegren
Aug 2 '13 at 0:10










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















11





+25









The relevant grammatical rules involved here are



  1. The Perfect auxiliary have must be followed by the past participle form of the next verb.

  2. Modal auxiliary verbs like will must be followed by the infinitive form of the next verb.

  3. Conjunction Reduction optionally deletes the first of two identical verbs following auxiliaries.

The question is what counts as "identical" for conjunction reduction.
And the answer is that "identical" means "identical in sound". Nobody would ever say this sentence, for precisely the reasons described in the answers and comments here. That is, this isn't a question about English; this is about English spelling and reading, which is technology, not linguistics.



The problem with this sentence is that it looks like it should be OK, but it doesn't sound like it is.

Take a verb like sing, sang, sung, with different infinitive (sing) and past participle (sung) forms.

Then both



  • *He has or will sing that song

  • *He has or will sung that song

are ungrammatical, no matter which form is used.



And that's why



  • *He has or will read that book

is ungrammatical. It could only happen in writing; it's a cheat, like a sight rhyme. It really should be




  • He has red or will reed that book

    (spelled funnetikly)

because words pronounced differently can't do conjunction reduction.

And spelling doesn't count. No English grammar rule has anything to do with spelling.



If you try verbs with identical infinitive and past participle forms, like the set of

monosyllabic final-t verbs like set, set, set; cut, cut, cut; or put, put, put:



  • He has or will set the plan in motion.

  • He has or will cut them some slack.

  • He has or will put it on display in the main gallery.

These sound perfectly grammatical (if needlessly complex), to me. This despite the facts that



  • the set, cut, or put following will must be an infinitive,

but



  • the set, cut, or put following has must be a past participle.

The abstract grammatical category of the deleted verb seems to be irrelevant -- as long as they sound the same, they're identical. And as long as that's the case, you can delete the first one.






share|improve this answer




















  • 2





    Just thought of a differently-weird example: He has or will lead the band this year.

    – John Lawler
    May 4 '16 at 23:03


















10














I must say I couldn't even understand what "has or will read" even meant for a minute or so. I had to skip the phrase itself and read further into the context to begin to understand what you were talking about.



My answer, therefore, is that I am not merely uncomfortable with the deletion, I find it incomprehensible. "Has or will read" for me is simply unacceptable.



For what it's worth, here is something which might shed some light (or at least some interesting color) on the matter. Neurophysiologists have found that if you have two friends named Gandalf, the wave pattern generated in your brain is consistently the same for each one, and not at all the same as the other, even though the words sound the same to the ear and look the same to the eye. In other words, "read" and "read" are very much different words, their visual appearance notwithstanding.






share|improve this answer


















  • 1





    Poles apart indeed! StoneyB (to whom the original was addressed) didn't even notice the "awkwardness" at the time, but to you it's so bad it actually prevented you from parsing the words at first. Admittedly, he had the benefit of more context, but even so... And I suppose I must fall somewhere in the "temperate zone" between those two poles, given that I wrote it without any qualms, but only had misgivings after I'd clicked Post Comment, and tried to read back my own text using my "inner voice".

    – FumbleFingers
    Aug 1 '13 at 19:55







  • 3





    People differ in what they notice when they read. They react to things like spelling failures (read, reed, rede /rid/; read, red /rɛd/; lead, lede /lid/; lead, led 'lɛd/; _dead, head, bread, etc) with quite a lot of different strategies. Some hear the sounds; others don't. For the record, I do, and since (a) Conjunction Reduction requires exact identity, and (b) /rid/ and /rɛd/ are not identical, I would star that particular sentence.

    – John Lawler
    Aug 1 '13 at 20:25






  • 3





    @John: When I read Riddley Walker I found the eye dialect/futuristic spelling/vocabulary quite strange at first, but unlike Finnegans Wake (which I just got fed up with and abandoned halfway through), I became quite fascinated by Hoban's "could-have-been-real" language after a couple of chapters. That was decades ago, but I only recently watched The Clan of the Cave Bear (1985), which also has some pretty interesting "pseudo-language". I think I "adapt" easily.

    – FumbleFingers
    Aug 2 '13 at 1:28


















5














I just realized that a question I answered a while ago was about the same issue (How to agree verb with has and will in same sentence?). The sentence in that question used the format "has never and will never."



I would be inclined to say that this structure is grammatical, based on the evidence in your post that it is actually used.



I don't think there can be a general rule that "you shouldn't delete one instance of the verb unless it's 'the same' as the one you're keeping" because that would falsely suggest sentences like the following are ungrammatical:




I have never read that book, and I never will (read it).







share|improve this answer
































    3














    I greatly prefer "has read or will read" because I think someone reading this aloud could do so without skipping a beat. On the other hand, "has or will read" requires the reader unexpectedly to select a pronunciation; and presents a Hobson's choice because both pronunciations are incorrect for one of the verb tenses.



    May I be so reckless as to suggest using the heretical parenthetical? E.g.: "Tommy has (or will) read the assignment."






    share|improve this answer




















    • 3





      I puzzled over the parenthetical suggestion for a bit, Paul, and eventually decided that it is unable to solve the problem. What it does it set "read" as linked with "has," and then "will" must follow suit, which it can't. No? Wrong am I, Skywalker?

      – John M. Landsberg
      Aug 2 '13 at 0:06











    • What about a similar case where the two parallel words are pronounced the same ... "has or will come"?

      – GEdgar
      May 7 '16 at 17:43











    • It was over 5 years ago when I upvoted this answer. But looking at it again now I can't imagine why I did that, so I've made a "non-edit" just so I could reverse my vote. Because quite frankly I can't see how the "heretical parenthetical" makes any difference at all as regards the matter under consideration. (Which I still find interesting, even though I know there's no real "Answer" to be found! :)

      – FumbleFingers
      Mar 16 at 15:40










    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "97"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader:
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    ,
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );













    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f121037%2fis-has-or-will-read-grammatical%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    4 Answers
    4






    active

    oldest

    votes








    4 Answers
    4






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    11





    +25









    The relevant grammatical rules involved here are



    1. The Perfect auxiliary have must be followed by the past participle form of the next verb.

    2. Modal auxiliary verbs like will must be followed by the infinitive form of the next verb.

    3. Conjunction Reduction optionally deletes the first of two identical verbs following auxiliaries.

    The question is what counts as "identical" for conjunction reduction.
    And the answer is that "identical" means "identical in sound". Nobody would ever say this sentence, for precisely the reasons described in the answers and comments here. That is, this isn't a question about English; this is about English spelling and reading, which is technology, not linguistics.



    The problem with this sentence is that it looks like it should be OK, but it doesn't sound like it is.

    Take a verb like sing, sang, sung, with different infinitive (sing) and past participle (sung) forms.

    Then both



    • *He has or will sing that song

    • *He has or will sung that song

    are ungrammatical, no matter which form is used.



    And that's why



    • *He has or will read that book

    is ungrammatical. It could only happen in writing; it's a cheat, like a sight rhyme. It really should be




    • He has red or will reed that book

      (spelled funnetikly)

    because words pronounced differently can't do conjunction reduction.

    And spelling doesn't count. No English grammar rule has anything to do with spelling.



    If you try verbs with identical infinitive and past participle forms, like the set of

    monosyllabic final-t verbs like set, set, set; cut, cut, cut; or put, put, put:



    • He has or will set the plan in motion.

    • He has or will cut them some slack.

    • He has or will put it on display in the main gallery.

    These sound perfectly grammatical (if needlessly complex), to me. This despite the facts that



    • the set, cut, or put following will must be an infinitive,

    but



    • the set, cut, or put following has must be a past participle.

    The abstract grammatical category of the deleted verb seems to be irrelevant -- as long as they sound the same, they're identical. And as long as that's the case, you can delete the first one.






    share|improve this answer




















    • 2





      Just thought of a differently-weird example: He has or will lead the band this year.

      – John Lawler
      May 4 '16 at 23:03















    11





    +25









    The relevant grammatical rules involved here are



    1. The Perfect auxiliary have must be followed by the past participle form of the next verb.

    2. Modal auxiliary verbs like will must be followed by the infinitive form of the next verb.

    3. Conjunction Reduction optionally deletes the first of two identical verbs following auxiliaries.

    The question is what counts as "identical" for conjunction reduction.
    And the answer is that "identical" means "identical in sound". Nobody would ever say this sentence, for precisely the reasons described in the answers and comments here. That is, this isn't a question about English; this is about English spelling and reading, which is technology, not linguistics.



    The problem with this sentence is that it looks like it should be OK, but it doesn't sound like it is.

    Take a verb like sing, sang, sung, with different infinitive (sing) and past participle (sung) forms.

    Then both



    • *He has or will sing that song

    • *He has or will sung that song

    are ungrammatical, no matter which form is used.



    And that's why



    • *He has or will read that book

    is ungrammatical. It could only happen in writing; it's a cheat, like a sight rhyme. It really should be




    • He has red or will reed that book

      (spelled funnetikly)

    because words pronounced differently can't do conjunction reduction.

    And spelling doesn't count. No English grammar rule has anything to do with spelling.



    If you try verbs with identical infinitive and past participle forms, like the set of

    monosyllabic final-t verbs like set, set, set; cut, cut, cut; or put, put, put:



    • He has or will set the plan in motion.

    • He has or will cut them some slack.

    • He has or will put it on display in the main gallery.

    These sound perfectly grammatical (if needlessly complex), to me. This despite the facts that



    • the set, cut, or put following will must be an infinitive,

    but



    • the set, cut, or put following has must be a past participle.

    The abstract grammatical category of the deleted verb seems to be irrelevant -- as long as they sound the same, they're identical. And as long as that's the case, you can delete the first one.






    share|improve this answer




















    • 2





      Just thought of a differently-weird example: He has or will lead the band this year.

      – John Lawler
      May 4 '16 at 23:03













    11





    +25







    11





    +25



    11




    +25





    The relevant grammatical rules involved here are



    1. The Perfect auxiliary have must be followed by the past participle form of the next verb.

    2. Modal auxiliary verbs like will must be followed by the infinitive form of the next verb.

    3. Conjunction Reduction optionally deletes the first of two identical verbs following auxiliaries.

    The question is what counts as "identical" for conjunction reduction.
    And the answer is that "identical" means "identical in sound". Nobody would ever say this sentence, for precisely the reasons described in the answers and comments here. That is, this isn't a question about English; this is about English spelling and reading, which is technology, not linguistics.



    The problem with this sentence is that it looks like it should be OK, but it doesn't sound like it is.

    Take a verb like sing, sang, sung, with different infinitive (sing) and past participle (sung) forms.

    Then both



    • *He has or will sing that song

    • *He has or will sung that song

    are ungrammatical, no matter which form is used.



    And that's why



    • *He has or will read that book

    is ungrammatical. It could only happen in writing; it's a cheat, like a sight rhyme. It really should be




    • He has red or will reed that book

      (spelled funnetikly)

    because words pronounced differently can't do conjunction reduction.

    And spelling doesn't count. No English grammar rule has anything to do with spelling.



    If you try verbs with identical infinitive and past participle forms, like the set of

    monosyllabic final-t verbs like set, set, set; cut, cut, cut; or put, put, put:



    • He has or will set the plan in motion.

    • He has or will cut them some slack.

    • He has or will put it on display in the main gallery.

    These sound perfectly grammatical (if needlessly complex), to me. This despite the facts that



    • the set, cut, or put following will must be an infinitive,

    but



    • the set, cut, or put following has must be a past participle.

    The abstract grammatical category of the deleted verb seems to be irrelevant -- as long as they sound the same, they're identical. And as long as that's the case, you can delete the first one.






    share|improve this answer















    The relevant grammatical rules involved here are



    1. The Perfect auxiliary have must be followed by the past participle form of the next verb.

    2. Modal auxiliary verbs like will must be followed by the infinitive form of the next verb.

    3. Conjunction Reduction optionally deletes the first of two identical verbs following auxiliaries.

    The question is what counts as "identical" for conjunction reduction.
    And the answer is that "identical" means "identical in sound". Nobody would ever say this sentence, for precisely the reasons described in the answers and comments here. That is, this isn't a question about English; this is about English spelling and reading, which is technology, not linguistics.



    The problem with this sentence is that it looks like it should be OK, but it doesn't sound like it is.

    Take a verb like sing, sang, sung, with different infinitive (sing) and past participle (sung) forms.

    Then both



    • *He has or will sing that song

    • *He has or will sung that song

    are ungrammatical, no matter which form is used.



    And that's why



    • *He has or will read that book

    is ungrammatical. It could only happen in writing; it's a cheat, like a sight rhyme. It really should be




    • He has red or will reed that book

      (spelled funnetikly)

    because words pronounced differently can't do conjunction reduction.

    And spelling doesn't count. No English grammar rule has anything to do with spelling.



    If you try verbs with identical infinitive and past participle forms, like the set of

    monosyllabic final-t verbs like set, set, set; cut, cut, cut; or put, put, put:



    • He has or will set the plan in motion.

    • He has or will cut them some slack.

    • He has or will put it on display in the main gallery.

    These sound perfectly grammatical (if needlessly complex), to me. This despite the facts that



    • the set, cut, or put following will must be an infinitive,

    but



    • the set, cut, or put following has must be a past participle.

    The abstract grammatical category of the deleted verb seems to be irrelevant -- as long as they sound the same, they're identical. And as long as that's the case, you can delete the first one.







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited Mar 16 at 16:04

























    answered May 2 '16 at 20:50









    John LawlerJohn Lawler

    84.9k6118333




    84.9k6118333







    • 2





      Just thought of a differently-weird example: He has or will lead the band this year.

      – John Lawler
      May 4 '16 at 23:03












    • 2





      Just thought of a differently-weird example: He has or will lead the band this year.

      – John Lawler
      May 4 '16 at 23:03







    2




    2





    Just thought of a differently-weird example: He has or will lead the band this year.

    – John Lawler
    May 4 '16 at 23:03





    Just thought of a differently-weird example: He has or will lead the band this year.

    – John Lawler
    May 4 '16 at 23:03













    10














    I must say I couldn't even understand what "has or will read" even meant for a minute or so. I had to skip the phrase itself and read further into the context to begin to understand what you were talking about.



    My answer, therefore, is that I am not merely uncomfortable with the deletion, I find it incomprehensible. "Has or will read" for me is simply unacceptable.



    For what it's worth, here is something which might shed some light (or at least some interesting color) on the matter. Neurophysiologists have found that if you have two friends named Gandalf, the wave pattern generated in your brain is consistently the same for each one, and not at all the same as the other, even though the words sound the same to the ear and look the same to the eye. In other words, "read" and "read" are very much different words, their visual appearance notwithstanding.






    share|improve this answer


















    • 1





      Poles apart indeed! StoneyB (to whom the original was addressed) didn't even notice the "awkwardness" at the time, but to you it's so bad it actually prevented you from parsing the words at first. Admittedly, he had the benefit of more context, but even so... And I suppose I must fall somewhere in the "temperate zone" between those two poles, given that I wrote it without any qualms, but only had misgivings after I'd clicked Post Comment, and tried to read back my own text using my "inner voice".

      – FumbleFingers
      Aug 1 '13 at 19:55







    • 3





      People differ in what they notice when they read. They react to things like spelling failures (read, reed, rede /rid/; read, red /rɛd/; lead, lede /lid/; lead, led 'lɛd/; _dead, head, bread, etc) with quite a lot of different strategies. Some hear the sounds; others don't. For the record, I do, and since (a) Conjunction Reduction requires exact identity, and (b) /rid/ and /rɛd/ are not identical, I would star that particular sentence.

      – John Lawler
      Aug 1 '13 at 20:25






    • 3





      @John: When I read Riddley Walker I found the eye dialect/futuristic spelling/vocabulary quite strange at first, but unlike Finnegans Wake (which I just got fed up with and abandoned halfway through), I became quite fascinated by Hoban's "could-have-been-real" language after a couple of chapters. That was decades ago, but I only recently watched The Clan of the Cave Bear (1985), which also has some pretty interesting "pseudo-language". I think I "adapt" easily.

      – FumbleFingers
      Aug 2 '13 at 1:28















    10














    I must say I couldn't even understand what "has or will read" even meant for a minute or so. I had to skip the phrase itself and read further into the context to begin to understand what you were talking about.



    My answer, therefore, is that I am not merely uncomfortable with the deletion, I find it incomprehensible. "Has or will read" for me is simply unacceptable.



    For what it's worth, here is something which might shed some light (or at least some interesting color) on the matter. Neurophysiologists have found that if you have two friends named Gandalf, the wave pattern generated in your brain is consistently the same for each one, and not at all the same as the other, even though the words sound the same to the ear and look the same to the eye. In other words, "read" and "read" are very much different words, their visual appearance notwithstanding.






    share|improve this answer


















    • 1





      Poles apart indeed! StoneyB (to whom the original was addressed) didn't even notice the "awkwardness" at the time, but to you it's so bad it actually prevented you from parsing the words at first. Admittedly, he had the benefit of more context, but even so... And I suppose I must fall somewhere in the "temperate zone" between those two poles, given that I wrote it without any qualms, but only had misgivings after I'd clicked Post Comment, and tried to read back my own text using my "inner voice".

      – FumbleFingers
      Aug 1 '13 at 19:55







    • 3





      People differ in what they notice when they read. They react to things like spelling failures (read, reed, rede /rid/; read, red /rɛd/; lead, lede /lid/; lead, led 'lɛd/; _dead, head, bread, etc) with quite a lot of different strategies. Some hear the sounds; others don't. For the record, I do, and since (a) Conjunction Reduction requires exact identity, and (b) /rid/ and /rɛd/ are not identical, I would star that particular sentence.

      – John Lawler
      Aug 1 '13 at 20:25






    • 3





      @John: When I read Riddley Walker I found the eye dialect/futuristic spelling/vocabulary quite strange at first, but unlike Finnegans Wake (which I just got fed up with and abandoned halfway through), I became quite fascinated by Hoban's "could-have-been-real" language after a couple of chapters. That was decades ago, but I only recently watched The Clan of the Cave Bear (1985), which also has some pretty interesting "pseudo-language". I think I "adapt" easily.

      – FumbleFingers
      Aug 2 '13 at 1:28













    10












    10








    10







    I must say I couldn't even understand what "has or will read" even meant for a minute or so. I had to skip the phrase itself and read further into the context to begin to understand what you were talking about.



    My answer, therefore, is that I am not merely uncomfortable with the deletion, I find it incomprehensible. "Has or will read" for me is simply unacceptable.



    For what it's worth, here is something which might shed some light (or at least some interesting color) on the matter. Neurophysiologists have found that if you have two friends named Gandalf, the wave pattern generated in your brain is consistently the same for each one, and not at all the same as the other, even though the words sound the same to the ear and look the same to the eye. In other words, "read" and "read" are very much different words, their visual appearance notwithstanding.






    share|improve this answer













    I must say I couldn't even understand what "has or will read" even meant for a minute or so. I had to skip the phrase itself and read further into the context to begin to understand what you were talking about.



    My answer, therefore, is that I am not merely uncomfortable with the deletion, I find it incomprehensible. "Has or will read" for me is simply unacceptable.



    For what it's worth, here is something which might shed some light (or at least some interesting color) on the matter. Neurophysiologists have found that if you have two friends named Gandalf, the wave pattern generated in your brain is consistently the same for each one, and not at all the same as the other, even though the words sound the same to the ear and look the same to the eye. In other words, "read" and "read" are very much different words, their visual appearance notwithstanding.







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered Aug 1 '13 at 19:45









    John M. LandsbergJohn M. Landsberg

    7,24721439




    7,24721439







    • 1





      Poles apart indeed! StoneyB (to whom the original was addressed) didn't even notice the "awkwardness" at the time, but to you it's so bad it actually prevented you from parsing the words at first. Admittedly, he had the benefit of more context, but even so... And I suppose I must fall somewhere in the "temperate zone" between those two poles, given that I wrote it without any qualms, but only had misgivings after I'd clicked Post Comment, and tried to read back my own text using my "inner voice".

      – FumbleFingers
      Aug 1 '13 at 19:55







    • 3





      People differ in what they notice when they read. They react to things like spelling failures (read, reed, rede /rid/; read, red /rɛd/; lead, lede /lid/; lead, led 'lɛd/; _dead, head, bread, etc) with quite a lot of different strategies. Some hear the sounds; others don't. For the record, I do, and since (a) Conjunction Reduction requires exact identity, and (b) /rid/ and /rɛd/ are not identical, I would star that particular sentence.

      – John Lawler
      Aug 1 '13 at 20:25






    • 3





      @John: When I read Riddley Walker I found the eye dialect/futuristic spelling/vocabulary quite strange at first, but unlike Finnegans Wake (which I just got fed up with and abandoned halfway through), I became quite fascinated by Hoban's "could-have-been-real" language after a couple of chapters. That was decades ago, but I only recently watched The Clan of the Cave Bear (1985), which also has some pretty interesting "pseudo-language". I think I "adapt" easily.

      – FumbleFingers
      Aug 2 '13 at 1:28












    • 1





      Poles apart indeed! StoneyB (to whom the original was addressed) didn't even notice the "awkwardness" at the time, but to you it's so bad it actually prevented you from parsing the words at first. Admittedly, he had the benefit of more context, but even so... And I suppose I must fall somewhere in the "temperate zone" between those two poles, given that I wrote it without any qualms, but only had misgivings after I'd clicked Post Comment, and tried to read back my own text using my "inner voice".

      – FumbleFingers
      Aug 1 '13 at 19:55







    • 3





      People differ in what they notice when they read. They react to things like spelling failures (read, reed, rede /rid/; read, red /rɛd/; lead, lede /lid/; lead, led 'lɛd/; _dead, head, bread, etc) with quite a lot of different strategies. Some hear the sounds; others don't. For the record, I do, and since (a) Conjunction Reduction requires exact identity, and (b) /rid/ and /rɛd/ are not identical, I would star that particular sentence.

      – John Lawler
      Aug 1 '13 at 20:25






    • 3





      @John: When I read Riddley Walker I found the eye dialect/futuristic spelling/vocabulary quite strange at first, but unlike Finnegans Wake (which I just got fed up with and abandoned halfway through), I became quite fascinated by Hoban's "could-have-been-real" language after a couple of chapters. That was decades ago, but I only recently watched The Clan of the Cave Bear (1985), which also has some pretty interesting "pseudo-language". I think I "adapt" easily.

      – FumbleFingers
      Aug 2 '13 at 1:28







    1




    1





    Poles apart indeed! StoneyB (to whom the original was addressed) didn't even notice the "awkwardness" at the time, but to you it's so bad it actually prevented you from parsing the words at first. Admittedly, he had the benefit of more context, but even so... And I suppose I must fall somewhere in the "temperate zone" between those two poles, given that I wrote it without any qualms, but only had misgivings after I'd clicked Post Comment, and tried to read back my own text using my "inner voice".

    – FumbleFingers
    Aug 1 '13 at 19:55






    Poles apart indeed! StoneyB (to whom the original was addressed) didn't even notice the "awkwardness" at the time, but to you it's so bad it actually prevented you from parsing the words at first. Admittedly, he had the benefit of more context, but even so... And I suppose I must fall somewhere in the "temperate zone" between those two poles, given that I wrote it without any qualms, but only had misgivings after I'd clicked Post Comment, and tried to read back my own text using my "inner voice".

    – FumbleFingers
    Aug 1 '13 at 19:55





    3




    3





    People differ in what they notice when they read. They react to things like spelling failures (read, reed, rede /rid/; read, red /rɛd/; lead, lede /lid/; lead, led 'lɛd/; _dead, head, bread, etc) with quite a lot of different strategies. Some hear the sounds; others don't. For the record, I do, and since (a) Conjunction Reduction requires exact identity, and (b) /rid/ and /rɛd/ are not identical, I would star that particular sentence.

    – John Lawler
    Aug 1 '13 at 20:25





    People differ in what they notice when they read. They react to things like spelling failures (read, reed, rede /rid/; read, red /rɛd/; lead, lede /lid/; lead, led 'lɛd/; _dead, head, bread, etc) with quite a lot of different strategies. Some hear the sounds; others don't. For the record, I do, and since (a) Conjunction Reduction requires exact identity, and (b) /rid/ and /rɛd/ are not identical, I would star that particular sentence.

    – John Lawler
    Aug 1 '13 at 20:25




    3




    3





    @John: When I read Riddley Walker I found the eye dialect/futuristic spelling/vocabulary quite strange at first, but unlike Finnegans Wake (which I just got fed up with and abandoned halfway through), I became quite fascinated by Hoban's "could-have-been-real" language after a couple of chapters. That was decades ago, but I only recently watched The Clan of the Cave Bear (1985), which also has some pretty interesting "pseudo-language". I think I "adapt" easily.

    – FumbleFingers
    Aug 2 '13 at 1:28





    @John: When I read Riddley Walker I found the eye dialect/futuristic spelling/vocabulary quite strange at first, but unlike Finnegans Wake (which I just got fed up with and abandoned halfway through), I became quite fascinated by Hoban's "could-have-been-real" language after a couple of chapters. That was decades ago, but I only recently watched The Clan of the Cave Bear (1985), which also has some pretty interesting "pseudo-language". I think I "adapt" easily.

    – FumbleFingers
    Aug 2 '13 at 1:28











    5














    I just realized that a question I answered a while ago was about the same issue (How to agree verb with has and will in same sentence?). The sentence in that question used the format "has never and will never."



    I would be inclined to say that this structure is grammatical, based on the evidence in your post that it is actually used.



    I don't think there can be a general rule that "you shouldn't delete one instance of the verb unless it's 'the same' as the one you're keeping" because that would falsely suggest sentences like the following are ungrammatical:




    I have never read that book, and I never will (read it).







    share|improve this answer





























      5














      I just realized that a question I answered a while ago was about the same issue (How to agree verb with has and will in same sentence?). The sentence in that question used the format "has never and will never."



      I would be inclined to say that this structure is grammatical, based on the evidence in your post that it is actually used.



      I don't think there can be a general rule that "you shouldn't delete one instance of the verb unless it's 'the same' as the one you're keeping" because that would falsely suggest sentences like the following are ungrammatical:




      I have never read that book, and I never will (read it).







      share|improve this answer



























        5












        5








        5







        I just realized that a question I answered a while ago was about the same issue (How to agree verb with has and will in same sentence?). The sentence in that question used the format "has never and will never."



        I would be inclined to say that this structure is grammatical, based on the evidence in your post that it is actually used.



        I don't think there can be a general rule that "you shouldn't delete one instance of the verb unless it's 'the same' as the one you're keeping" because that would falsely suggest sentences like the following are ungrammatical:




        I have never read that book, and I never will (read it).







        share|improve this answer















        I just realized that a question I answered a while ago was about the same issue (How to agree verb with has and will in same sentence?). The sentence in that question used the format "has never and will never."



        I would be inclined to say that this structure is grammatical, based on the evidence in your post that it is actually used.



        I don't think there can be a general rule that "you shouldn't delete one instance of the verb unless it's 'the same' as the one you're keeping" because that would falsely suggest sentences like the following are ungrammatical:




        I have never read that book, and I never will (read it).








        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:38









        Community

        1




        1










        answered May 2 '16 at 0:17









        sumelicsumelic

        49.8k8117223




        49.8k8117223





















            3














            I greatly prefer "has read or will read" because I think someone reading this aloud could do so without skipping a beat. On the other hand, "has or will read" requires the reader unexpectedly to select a pronunciation; and presents a Hobson's choice because both pronunciations are incorrect for one of the verb tenses.



            May I be so reckless as to suggest using the heretical parenthetical? E.g.: "Tommy has (or will) read the assignment."






            share|improve this answer




















            • 3





              I puzzled over the parenthetical suggestion for a bit, Paul, and eventually decided that it is unable to solve the problem. What it does it set "read" as linked with "has," and then "will" must follow suit, which it can't. No? Wrong am I, Skywalker?

              – John M. Landsberg
              Aug 2 '13 at 0:06











            • What about a similar case where the two parallel words are pronounced the same ... "has or will come"?

              – GEdgar
              May 7 '16 at 17:43











            • It was over 5 years ago when I upvoted this answer. But looking at it again now I can't imagine why I did that, so I've made a "non-edit" just so I could reverse my vote. Because quite frankly I can't see how the "heretical parenthetical" makes any difference at all as regards the matter under consideration. (Which I still find interesting, even though I know there's no real "Answer" to be found! :)

              – FumbleFingers
              Mar 16 at 15:40















            3














            I greatly prefer "has read or will read" because I think someone reading this aloud could do so without skipping a beat. On the other hand, "has or will read" requires the reader unexpectedly to select a pronunciation; and presents a Hobson's choice because both pronunciations are incorrect for one of the verb tenses.



            May I be so reckless as to suggest using the heretical parenthetical? E.g.: "Tommy has (or will) read the assignment."






            share|improve this answer




















            • 3





              I puzzled over the parenthetical suggestion for a bit, Paul, and eventually decided that it is unable to solve the problem. What it does it set "read" as linked with "has," and then "will" must follow suit, which it can't. No? Wrong am I, Skywalker?

              – John M. Landsberg
              Aug 2 '13 at 0:06











            • What about a similar case where the two parallel words are pronounced the same ... "has or will come"?

              – GEdgar
              May 7 '16 at 17:43











            • It was over 5 years ago when I upvoted this answer. But looking at it again now I can't imagine why I did that, so I've made a "non-edit" just so I could reverse my vote. Because quite frankly I can't see how the "heretical parenthetical" makes any difference at all as regards the matter under consideration. (Which I still find interesting, even though I know there's no real "Answer" to be found! :)

              – FumbleFingers
              Mar 16 at 15:40













            3












            3








            3







            I greatly prefer "has read or will read" because I think someone reading this aloud could do so without skipping a beat. On the other hand, "has or will read" requires the reader unexpectedly to select a pronunciation; and presents a Hobson's choice because both pronunciations are incorrect for one of the verb tenses.



            May I be so reckless as to suggest using the heretical parenthetical? E.g.: "Tommy has (or will) read the assignment."






            share|improve this answer















            I greatly prefer "has read or will read" because I think someone reading this aloud could do so without skipping a beat. On the other hand, "has or will read" requires the reader unexpectedly to select a pronunciation; and presents a Hobson's choice because both pronunciations are incorrect for one of the verb tenses.



            May I be so reckless as to suggest using the heretical parenthetical? E.g.: "Tommy has (or will) read the assignment."







            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited Mar 16 at 15:36









            FumbleFingers

            120k33245429




            120k33245429










            answered Aug 1 '13 at 13:28









            Paul WilsonPaul Wilson

            444




            444







            • 3





              I puzzled over the parenthetical suggestion for a bit, Paul, and eventually decided that it is unable to solve the problem. What it does it set "read" as linked with "has," and then "will" must follow suit, which it can't. No? Wrong am I, Skywalker?

              – John M. Landsberg
              Aug 2 '13 at 0:06











            • What about a similar case where the two parallel words are pronounced the same ... "has or will come"?

              – GEdgar
              May 7 '16 at 17:43











            • It was over 5 years ago when I upvoted this answer. But looking at it again now I can't imagine why I did that, so I've made a "non-edit" just so I could reverse my vote. Because quite frankly I can't see how the "heretical parenthetical" makes any difference at all as regards the matter under consideration. (Which I still find interesting, even though I know there's no real "Answer" to be found! :)

              – FumbleFingers
              Mar 16 at 15:40












            • 3





              I puzzled over the parenthetical suggestion for a bit, Paul, and eventually decided that it is unable to solve the problem. What it does it set "read" as linked with "has," and then "will" must follow suit, which it can't. No? Wrong am I, Skywalker?

              – John M. Landsberg
              Aug 2 '13 at 0:06











            • What about a similar case where the two parallel words are pronounced the same ... "has or will come"?

              – GEdgar
              May 7 '16 at 17:43











            • It was over 5 years ago when I upvoted this answer. But looking at it again now I can't imagine why I did that, so I've made a "non-edit" just so I could reverse my vote. Because quite frankly I can't see how the "heretical parenthetical" makes any difference at all as regards the matter under consideration. (Which I still find interesting, even though I know there's no real "Answer" to be found! :)

              – FumbleFingers
              Mar 16 at 15:40







            3




            3





            I puzzled over the parenthetical suggestion for a bit, Paul, and eventually decided that it is unable to solve the problem. What it does it set "read" as linked with "has," and then "will" must follow suit, which it can't. No? Wrong am I, Skywalker?

            – John M. Landsberg
            Aug 2 '13 at 0:06





            I puzzled over the parenthetical suggestion for a bit, Paul, and eventually decided that it is unable to solve the problem. What it does it set "read" as linked with "has," and then "will" must follow suit, which it can't. No? Wrong am I, Skywalker?

            – John M. Landsberg
            Aug 2 '13 at 0:06













            What about a similar case where the two parallel words are pronounced the same ... "has or will come"?

            – GEdgar
            May 7 '16 at 17:43





            What about a similar case where the two parallel words are pronounced the same ... "has or will come"?

            – GEdgar
            May 7 '16 at 17:43













            It was over 5 years ago when I upvoted this answer. But looking at it again now I can't imagine why I did that, so I've made a "non-edit" just so I could reverse my vote. Because quite frankly I can't see how the "heretical parenthetical" makes any difference at all as regards the matter under consideration. (Which I still find interesting, even though I know there's no real "Answer" to be found! :)

            – FumbleFingers
            Mar 16 at 15:40





            It was over 5 years ago when I upvoted this answer. But looking at it again now I can't imagine why I did that, so I've made a "non-edit" just so I could reverse my vote. Because quite frankly I can't see how the "heretical parenthetical" makes any difference at all as regards the matter under consideration. (Which I still find interesting, even though I know there's no real "Answer" to be found! :)

            – FumbleFingers
            Mar 16 at 15:40

















            draft saved

            draft discarded
















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid


            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f121037%2fis-has-or-will-read-grammatical%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Færeyskur hestur Heimild | Tengill | Tilvísanir | LeiðsagnarvalRossið - síða um færeyska hrossið á færeyskuGott ár hjá færeyska hestinum

            He _____ here since 1970 . Answer needed [closed]What does “since he was so high” mean?Meaning of “catch birds for”?How do I ensure “since” takes the meaning I want?“Who cares here” meaningWhat does “right round toward” mean?the time tense (had now been detected)What does the phrase “ring around the roses” mean here?Correct usage of “visited upon”Meaning of “foiled rail sabotage bid”It was the third time I had gone to Rome or It is the third time I had been to Rome

            Slayer Innehåll Historia | Stil, komposition och lyrik | Bandets betydelse och framgångar | Sidoprojekt och samarbeten | Kontroverser | Medlemmar | Utmärkelser och nomineringar | Turnéer och festivaler | Diskografi | Referenser | Externa länkar | Navigeringsmenywww.slayer.net”Metal Massacre vol. 1””Metal Massacre vol. 3””Metal Massacre Volume III””Show No Mercy””Haunting the Chapel””Live Undead””Hell Awaits””Reign in Blood””Reign in Blood””Gold & Platinum – Reign in Blood””Golden Gods Awards Winners”originalet”Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Looks Back On 37-Year Career In New Video Series: Part Two””South of Heaven””Gold & Platinum – South of Heaven””Seasons in the Abyss””Gold & Platinum - Seasons in the Abyss””Divine Intervention””Divine Intervention - Release group by Slayer””Gold & Platinum - Divine Intervention””Live Intrusion””Undisputed Attitude””Abolish Government/Superficial Love””Release “Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer” by Various Artists””Diabolus in Musica””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””God Hates Us All””Systematic - Relationships””War at the Warfield””Gold & Platinum - War at the Warfield””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””Gold & Platinum - Still Reigning””Metallica, Slayer, Iron Mauden Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Eternal Pyre””Eternal Pyre - Slayer release group””Eternal Pyre””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Bullet-For My Valentine booed at Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Unholy Aliance””The End Of Slayer?””Slayer: We Could Thrash Out Two More Albums If We're Fast Enough...””'The Unholy Alliance: Chapter III' UK Dates Added”originalet”Megadeth And Slayer To Co-Headline 'Canadian Carnage' Trek”originalet”World Painted Blood””Release “World Painted Blood” by Slayer””Metallica Heading To Cinemas””Slayer, Megadeth To Join Forces For 'European Carnage' Tour - Dec. 18, 2010”originalet”Slayer's Hanneman Contracts Acute Infection; Band To Bring In Guest Guitarist””Cannibal Corpse's Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer's Guest Guitarist”originalet”Slayer’s Jeff Hanneman Dead at 49””Dave Lombardo Says He Made Only $67,000 In 2011 While Touring With Slayer””Slayer: We Do Not Agree With Dave Lombardo's Substance Or Timeline Of Events””Slayer Welcomes Drummer Paul Bostaph Back To The Fold””Slayer Hope to Unveil Never-Before-Heard Jeff Hanneman Material on Next Album””Slayer Debut New Song 'Implode' During Surprise Golden Gods Appearance””Release group Repentless by Slayer””Repentless - Slayer - Credits””Slayer””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer - to release comic book "Repentless #1"””Slayer To Release 'Repentless' 6.66" Vinyl Box Set””BREAKING NEWS: Slayer Announce Farewell Tour””Slayer Recruit Lamb of God, Anthrax, Behemoth + Testament for Final Tour””Slayer lägger ner efter 37 år””Slayer Announces Second North American Leg Of 'Final' Tour””Final World Tour””Slayer Announces Final European Tour With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Tour Europe With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Play 'Last French Show Ever' At Next Year's Hellfst””Slayer's Final World Tour Will Extend Into 2019””Death Angel's Rob Cavestany On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour: 'Some Of Us Could See This Coming'””Testament Has No Plans To Retire Anytime Soon, Says Chuck Billy””Anthrax's Scott Ian On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour Plans: 'I Was Surprised And I Wasn't Surprised'””Slayer””Slayer's Morbid Schlock””Review/Rock; For Slayer, the Mania Is the Message””Slayer - Biography””Slayer - Reign In Blood”originalet”Dave Lombardo””An exclusive oral history of Slayer”originalet”Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman”originalet”Thinking Out Loud: Slayer's Kerry King on hair metal, Satan and being polite””Slayer Lyrics””Slayer - Biography””Most influential artists for extreme metal music””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dies aged 49””Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer””Gateway to Hell: A Tribute to Slayer””Covered In Blood””Slayer: The Origins of Thrash in San Francisco, CA.””Why They Rule - #6 Slayer”originalet”Guitar World's 100 Greatest Heavy Metal Guitarists Of All Time”originalet”The fans have spoken: Slayer comes out on top in readers' polls”originalet”Tribute to Jeff Hanneman (1964-2013)””Lamb Of God Frontman: We Sound Like A Slayer Rip-Off””BEHEMOTH Frontman Pays Tribute To SLAYER's JEFF HANNEMAN””Slayer, Hatebreed Doing Double Duty On This Year's Ozzfest””System of a Down””Lacuna Coil’s Andrea Ferro Talks Influences, Skateboarding, Band Origins + More””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Into The Lungs of Hell””Slayer rules - en utställning om fans””Slayer and Their Fans Slashed Through a No-Holds-Barred Night at Gas Monkey””Home””Slayer””Gold & Platinum - The Big 4 Live from Sofia, Bulgaria””Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Kerry King””2008-02-23: Wiltern, Los Angeles, CA, USA””Slayer's Kerry King To Perform With Megadeth Tonight! - Oct. 21, 2010”originalet”Dave Lombardo - Biography”Slayer Case DismissedArkiveradUltimate Classic Rock: Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dead at 49.”Slayer: "We could never do any thing like Some Kind Of Monster..."””Cannibal Corpse'S Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer'S Guest Guitarist | The Official Slayer Site”originalet”Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Kerrang! Awards 2006 Blog: Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Kerrang! Awards 2013: Kerrang! Legend”originalet”Metallica, Slayer, Iron Maien Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Bullet For My Valentine Booed At Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer's Concert History””Slayer - Relationships””Slayer - Releases”Slayers officiella webbplatsSlayer på MusicBrainzOfficiell webbplatsSlayerSlayerr1373445760000 0001 1540 47353068615-5086262726cb13906545x(data)6033143kn20030215029