<p>My brain is foggy today. Can some of you experts tell me whether this sentence construction is correct:</p>
<p>"Should this be established, then it will be possible to … "</p>
<p>Thank you!</p>
<p>Yes, it’s fine.</p>
<p>Agreed, it’s just fine.</p>
<p>I am not an English expert by any stretch of the imagination, but I would remove the word “then”. If keeping the word “then”, I would remove the comma. If the meaning of “then” in this context is “after that”, I would place it after “it will”.</p>
<p>In this economic clime, tis only a matter of time before someone broached the subject of increasing the syntax. :D</p>
<p>Thank you all for the advice - and I like your idea, SamK, of moving “then” - makes it more clear.</p>
<p>And I love the pun, violadad. I only wish I were engaging in “sin” instead of “syntax.”!</p>
<p>Definitely take the “then” out.</p>
<p>Try to start over. “Should this be established” really sounds bad. Maybe something like the following. If this happens, then… Or even better make an active statement; e.g.: If we make this change, then…</p>
<p>The context is:</p>
<p>We will determine whether {something} can accurately predict {something else}. Should this be established, it will be possible to …</p>
<p>I guess I could say, “If this is found to be true, then…”? Much simpler?</p>
<p>Thanks again to all.</p>
<p>Keep the word “then” as this is an “if…,then” sentence. Also, keep the comma. Post #4 is totally inaccurate. Avoid split infinitives. Your first post was fine. I agree with posts #2 & #3.</p>
<p>Putting “then” between “will” and “be” would not split any infinitives. An infinitive is split (which, by the way, is NOT incorrect; check Fowler if you don’t believe me) only by putting words between “to” and the main verb – e.g. “To boldly go…” This is because in English, the infinitive in that sentence is “to go” and generally the infinitive is “to [MAIN VERB]”. “Will” is an auxiliary verb and there is no prohibition, real or trumped-up, on splitting an auxiliary verb off from the main verb.</p>
<p>Should this be established, it would then be possible to …</p>
<p>Good Lord, sorry I agreed with Post #2. Post #11 may have some anger issues.</p>
<p>No anger issues, just exasperation (and pedantry) issues. It’s a pet peeve of mine. Sorry you got caught in the cross-fire.</p>
<p>I agree that changing the construction to "If . . ., then . . . " would be an improvement. </p>
<p>Often, questions about whether something is “correct” aren’t so much a matter of up-or-down correctness as they are questions of style: Is this the clearest and most direct way of expressing the thought?</p>
<p>If a different construction makes it easier for the reader to understand your intended meaning more quickly, well, that’s probably the construction that should be used – right?</p>
<p>(A related dictum about effective writing comes to mind: Good writing makes us feel smart; bad writing makes us feel dumb.)</p>
<p>I don’t use the “Should…” construction much in my own writing because it sounds a little fussy, if not fustian, to me. But I don’t think it’s unclear. I agree that it’s a stylistic choice. Of course, a lot depends on the intended audience. Given the lead-in sentence the OP quotes in a later post, I doubt the intended audience will have trouble understanding it but reasonable minds may differ.</p>
<p>(By the way, epistrophy, I am listening to the Carter-Oppens disc you recommended. I was expecting something like Ligeti but it reminds me more of Cecil Taylor! These are both very loose analogies, I am sure.)</p>
<p>I would take out the “then” or change it to If/then.</p>