[Grammar] had been + p.p.

[Ashiuhto]

Is the following sentence grammatical?

If Cleopatra's nose had been shortened, the history of the world would have been rewritten.

 

[Barb_D]

It would mean that someone else shortened it, as some people have done today through cosmetic surgery.

If that's what you mean, then it's grammatical, but I don't know that I understand the meaning.

 

[billmcd]

Is the following sentence grammatical?

If Cleopatra's nose had been shortened, the history of the world would have been rewritten.

Grammatical? Only if the world has already ended and the history has been written. I just looked out my window and everything seems to be OK.

 

[Barb_D]

I don't have a problem interpreting that to mean the history of the world TO DATE. I don't infer it means all of "history" is over. Was that your first impression?

 

[Ashiuhto]

Sorry, I made a mistake by putting the word "shorter" replaced by "shortened". I revised the sentence as written. Is it grammatical?
Can the word "flatter" substitute for "shorter" ?

If Cleopatra's nose had been shorter, the history of the world would have been rewritten.

If Cleopatra's nose had been flatter, the history of the world would have been rewritten.

 

[philo2009]

Sorry, I made a mistake by putting the word "shorter" replaced by "shortened". I revised the sentence as written. Is it grammatical?
Can the word "flatter" substitute for "shorter" ?

If Cleopatra's nose had been shorter, the history of the world would have been rewritten.

If Cleopatra's nose had been flatter, the history of the world would have been rewritten.

Either sentence is grammatical, although, as assertions, both would probably be considered bizarre by most people!

I'm unclear about the focus of your query: are you enquiring specifically about conditional sentences, or simply about what kind of adjective can collocate with the noun 'nose'??

 

[Johnson_F]

Either sentence is grammatical, although, as assertions, both would probably be considered bizarre by most people!

[FONT=&quot]Pensées : [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Le nez de Cléopâtre, s'il eût été plus court, toute la face de la terre aurait changé.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The nose of Cleopatra, if it had been shorter, would have changed all the face of the earth’[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Blaise_Pascal[/FONT]

 

[Raymott]

[FONT=&quot]Pensées : [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Le nez de Cléopâtre, s'il eût été plus court, toute la face de la terre aurait changé.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The nose of Cleopatra, if it had been shorter, would have changed all the face of the earth’[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Blaise_Pascal[/FONT]

I can see how history might have been different if Cleopatra's nose had been shorter (assuming that Mark Antony liked long noses, etc.) But I think Pascal was wrong in claiming that, had Cleopatra's nose been shorter, history would have changed.
But that's a point of logic or semantics, not grammar. Does it make more sense in the original?

 

[Johnson_F]

. Does it make more sense in the original?

It makes sense to me in both the original and the English. I take it to be a whimsical thought, meaning something like: "If Cleo had been less attractive to M.A. and J.C., the two Romans might not have fought, J.C, might not have been assassinated, there might never have been a Roman Empire, ... etc". The writer below interprets the significance of the dimensions of the pharaonic proboscis somewhat differently, but the argument would be the same: the fate of nations can hang on tiny things.

[FONT=&quot]In the Pensées, Pascal remarks "Cleopatra's nose, had it been shorter, the whole face of the world would have been changed". Ironically, what he means is that, had her nose been smaller, she would have lacked the dominance and strength of character which, in the physiognomy of the seventeenth century (or, indeed, the nineteenth century), a large nose symbolized. It is a salutary reminder that the aesthetics of beauty change over time and place.[/FONT]
From The Beauty of Cleopatra

 

[billmcd]

I don't have a problem interpreting that to mean the history of the world TO DATE. I don't infer it means all of "history" is over. Was that your first impression?

I'm thinking or rethinking. Later:-?

 

[billmcd]

I don't have a problem interpreting that to mean the history of the world TO DATE. I don't infer it means all of "history" is over. Was that your first impression?

BarbD:I think I'm hung up on the history of the world being "rewritten" and I would expect that a history of anything could not be written, let alone rewritten, until the entity or event has ended/finished (without some qualification). Here is my example: "If the game had been tied, the game would have been replayed" i.e. the game was played, it wasn't tied but the game is over, so it wasn't replayed. Helllllp!:-?

 

[Johnson_F]

When I was at school I studied the history of Britain. Quite clearly it could only be the history of Britain up to a certain point, because Britain was still around then, as it is now. And histories are often re-written, while the entity or event is not finished. One example: when I was at school, history books generally presented British intervention in the affairs of other countries as 'a good thing'. Modern history books view such intervention more critically.

If Cleo's nose had been shorter (which it wasn't) then the history of the next 2000 years would have been rewritten (which it wasn't).

 

[Raymott]

If Cleo's nose had been shorter (which it wasn't) then the history of the next 2000 years would have been rewritten (which it wasn't).

But that is the problem I have with Pascal's quote. History would not be rewritten, or have been rewritten, or need to be rewritten. History as it was with Cleopatra having had a long nose would not have occurred in the first place if she had had a short nose, and hence that long-nosed history would not have existed to be rewritten.
It's like saying, "If I hadn't been born, I would have had to make serious changes to my memoirs... or ... my memoirs would have had to be extensively edited."

 

[Barb_D]

You are making my brain hurt.

... our history would have been different. How about that?

 

[bhaisahab]

You are making my brain hurt.

... our history would have been different. How about that?

I like that.

 

[billmcd]

You are making my brain hurt.

... our history would have been different. How about that?

BarbD: As my final response on this post (aren't you glad? ) and sleepless nights, I think I would have preferred to see, "If Cleopatra's nose had been shortened, the history of the world would have to have been rewritten".

 

[Raymott]

BarbD: As my final response on this post (aren't you glad? ) and sleepless nights, I think I would have preferred to see, "If Cleopatra's nose had been shortened, the history of the world would have to have been rewritten".

As a final response from me, I still can't fathom why history would need writing twice given only one nose. But occasionally things arise that I just can't grasp!

 

[philo2009]

As a final response from me, I still can't fathom why history would need writing twice given only one nose. But occasionally things arise that I just can't grasp!

Oh, surely not!