[Grammar] had not undertaken / does not undertake

[LaMelange]

Hello teachers,

Greetings!

I have a question with regard to tense in the following sentence:

Such a values-based approach would stand in the way of closer EU–China economic relations as long as China had not undertaken fundamental political reform, which the present Chinese leadership is not contemplating.

Is the italicized verb form correct? Should it not be does not undertake?

(The book is in the manuscript stage. It is about politics and is written very well, by a native speaker.)

Thank you very much.

 

[Raymott]

It means basically the same. "It won't work if China does not undertake reform." This is looking to the future.
"It won't work if China has not undertaken reform." This is looking at the situation from the hypothetical time that the approach is tried.
Similar:
1. "You won't pass if you don't study." Viewing the situation now.
2. "You won't pass if you haven't studied." Viewing the situation from the future, when you take the exam.

 

[Roman55]

Except it isn't, 'China has not undertaken', it's, 'China had not undertaken'.

I think that is wrong.

 

[Raymott]

Yes, though my examples didn't use 'would'.

"You won't pass your exam if you haven't studied."
"You wouldn't pass you exam if you hadn't studied."
"The approach won't work if China has not undertaken reform."
"The approach wouldn't work if China had not undertaken reform." Cognate of the original.

 

[Roman55]

The original is wrong, IMO. The situation under discussion is current, as evidenced by the last clause, 'which the present Chinese leadership is not contemplating.'

'Such a values-based approach will stand in the way of closer EU–China economic relations as long as China does not undertake fundamental political reform…', is OK as a description of a current reality.

'Such a values-based approach would stand in the way of closer EU–China economic relations until China undertook fundamental political reform…', would be OK as a description of a past state of affairs.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

I'd say "has not undertaken" or "does not undertake."

"Had not undertaken" is wrong. It shifts away from the present tense of the first part, so it makes no sense.

Good question, LaMelange!

 

[jutfrank]

It's wrong. It doesn't make sense. The book hasn't been proofed yet.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

It's fine, as long as you take 'as long as' to mean 'provided that, on condition that, if', a meaning given in several dictionaries at www.onelook.com.

Hm. I see what you mean. I'd be happier with "provided that," exactly because of the confusion that "as long as" creates.

Jutfrank is right. Send it back for some real editing!

 

[LaMelange]

Thank you for the simple examples, Raymott, which make it very clear. From you explanation I take it that had not undertaken would still be wrong.

 

[Raymott]

Thank you for the simple examples, Raymott, which make it very clear. From you explanation I take it that had not undertaken would still be wrong.

Well, I wasn't attempting to demonstrate that. But since there is no consensus, and since there are clearer ways to express it, I'm not heavily invested in whether it's right or wrong.

 

[LaMelange]

Well, I wasn't attempting to demonstrate that. But since there is no consensus, and since there are clearer ways to express it, I'm not heavily invested in whether it's right or wrong.

Sorry! I answered to your first post without first reading all the rest! I get the point.

Thanks, everyone!