1

It is found that the complainant, deterred by fear of the pollution which he would have suffered had he passed near the Pariahs, did not conduct the procession.

In the above sentence, why is the inversion "had he" used here? Could anyone please explain this to me?

tchrist
  • 134,759
nityananthan murugan
  • 41
  • 2
    The inversion is used as an alternative to using if. The clause means which he would have suffered if* he had passed near the Pariahs* – Araucaria - Him Apr 28 '23 at 09:58
  • Yes, in certain conditions, the protasis of a conditional adjunct can take the form of a content clause with subject-auxiliary inversion. Some consider it more formal than the usual if PP constuction. – BillJ Apr 28 '23 at 13:39

1 Answers1

0

Inversion:

...had he passed near...

Is a more formal way to say:

...if he had passed near...

KillingTime
  • 6,206
Danilo
  • 1
  • It's not more formal. It's merely an alternate way, like "were he to have" and "should he have" are also alternate ways. – Benjamin Harman Apr 28 '23 at 16:44
  • @BenjaminHarman I think many people think it sounds more formal, as it tends to be used in legal documents, but not much in casual speech. – Barmar Apr 28 '23 at 16:45
  • Sounding more formal isn't more formal, of course, but I don't think people think it sounds more formal at all. People use that construction all the time in day-to-day speech (e.g., "Had I known, I'd've..."). As for it tending to be used in legal documents, do you have any basis for that assertion? I ask because I saw no such tendency during my four years working in a law office. – Benjamin Harman Apr 28 '23 at 16:49