An erudite reader has a complaint about Quaker grammar. We can't help her with syntax, but maybe one of you can? She writes: 'Can anyone explain the Quaker attachment to the conditional - in minute after minute it crops us - 'we would agree' 'we would encourage' 'we would hope'. Would needs to be followed by 'if' - 'if so and so agrees' 'if they want to go' 'if appropriate', but it never is. I am mystified. I don't know if any grammars refer to the suspended conditional, but it ought to be in the canon.'

Labels: conditional, grammar, syntax, would