# Once officials <ran> the DNA...<they'd realize>...



## Phoebe1200

NCIS LA, TV show
Context: Nell reports the death of the kingpin of a Mexican drug cartel, Barbosa, in a police shootout. However, by bizarre means, the body of the victim disappears from the morgue as soon as it arrives. The team has to investigate. And later in the episode, they figure out that Barbosa staged his own death.

*Callen*: We think Barbosa may have staged his own death. He had a limited window of time. Once officials *ran* the DNA and the prints on this body, they*'d realize* it wasn't the real deal.
*Sam*: So they steal the body from the morgue. < --- > 

Is there an implied "He knew" in the sentence with highlighted parts, like "(He knew) that once officials *ran* the DNA and the prints on this body, they*'d realize* it wasn't the real deal."?


< Edited to comply with 4-sentence limit on quotation.  Cagey, moderator >


----------



## The Newt

Phoebe1200 said:


> [...]
> 
> Is there an implied "He knew" in the sentence with highlighted parts, like "(He knew) that once officials *ran* the DNA and the prints on this body, they*'d realize* it wasn't the real deal."?



That's his presumed reasoning, yes.


----------



## Glasguensis

I don't agree. Although you can insert "he knew", it is not required : the sentence is logically and grammatically correct without it.


----------



## SevenDays

Phoebe1200 said:


> NCIS LA, TV show
> Context: Nell reports the death of the kingpin of a Mexican drug cartel, Barbosa, in a police shootout. However, by bizarre means, the body of the victim disappears from the morgue as soon as it arrives. The team has to investigate. And later in the episode, they figure out that Barbosa staged his own death.
> 
> *Callen*: We think Barbosa may have staged his own death. He had a limited window of time. Once officials *ran* the DNA and the prints on this body, they*'d realize* it wasn't the real deal.
> *Sam*: So they steal the body from the morgue. It's gotten to be so routine with the cartels that no one thinks twice about it.
> 
> Is there an implied "He knew" in the sentence with highlighted parts, like "(He knew) that once officials *ran* the DNA and the prints on this body, they*'d realize* it wasn't the real deal."?



By "he knew," do you mean "Barbosa knew"? As in "Barbosa knew that once officials ran the DNA ..." That, unfortunately, is beyond syntax; we can't tell just by looking at the words used in the dialogue. Presumably, Barbosa staged his own death to fool the authorities (like Hannibal Lecter in _Silence of the Lambs_), but, because he had little time, perhaps he also understood that his plan _might _fail. We can't get inside his head to see what he was actually thinking. Of course, in the plot, that's not important. What's important is that the body was stolen, meaning (I assume) that Barbosa is actually alive. Or is he indeed "dead"?


----------



## lingobingo

I agree with The Newt. "Once officials ran the DNA and the prints on this body, they'd realize it wasn't the real deal" is the reason why there was only a limited window of time, and it is indeed *implied* that Barbosa was well aware of that.


----------



## agreva3

I agree with The Newt and lingobingo. Callen is explaining that Barbosa was aware of the limited time window, thus backing up they're proposal that "Barbosa may have staged is own death."


----------



## Glasguensis

Just to be clear, my answer refers to the linguistics. Clearly the overall meaning of the statement implies that Barbosa knew about the limited time window, but the sentence itself does not require sn implicit "he knew". If you think it does you are saying that this or a similar sentence would *not be possible* in a context where the person didn't know.


----------



## lingobingo

Nobody is suggesting that "he knew" should _actually_ be inserted anywhere in Callen's line. The question was simply whether it is _implied_ in the 3rd sentence, and we're all agreed that it is.

But in fact, you could equally say that it's implied in the 2nd sentence: [_He knew] he had a limited window of time._


----------



## wandle

Glasguensis said:


> the sentence itself does not require sn implicit "he knew"


That is correct. We need to distinguish between grammatical implication and situational implication. It is implied in the situation that Barbosa knew he had a limited window of time.
However, that implication is not required to make the sentence grammatical.


Phoebe1200 said:


> Once officials *ran* the DNA and the prints on this body, they*'d realize* it wasn't the real deal.


This is a standard closed future conditional, also called second conditional ('once' is doing the job of 'if' in this case).

It is different in a case of implied indirect speech:
'Jones flew into a rage: he would not tolerate such behaviour; anyone who did that again would be sacked on the spot'.
In this case, we can only explain 'would' and 'did' as the past tense required by backshifting in indirect speech.


----------



## VicNicSor

wandle said:


> This is a standard closed future conditional, also called second conditional ('once' is doing the job of 'if' in this case).


I think the point in adding "he knew" was to show that it was "future in the past" (would being the past tense of will) rather than a conditional... Do you disagree that it could be the case then?...


----------



## wandle

VicNicSor said:


> Do you disagree that it could be the case then?...


The construction is a standard closed future or second conditional sentence.
It is true that the time frame is past and that the sentence refers to a possible event which would have been future from that perspective (though we cannot say that that future is now past, because the event was unrealised: it did not happen).

It is also true that the closed future conditional remains unaltered in past indirect statement, but in this case the grammar does not require any implied 'he knew', whereas in the example in post 9, it does require an implied 'he said' after 'Jones flew into a rage'.


----------



## The Newt

Glasguensis said:


> Just to be clear, my answer refers to the linguistics. Clearly the overall meaning of the statement implies that Barbosa knew about the limited time window, but the sentence itself does not require an implicit "he knew". [...]



Agreed.


----------



## VicNicSor

wandle said:


> The construction is a standard closed future or second conditional sentence.
> It is true that the time frame is past and that the sentence refers to a possible event which would have been future from that perspective (though we cannot say that that future is now past, because the event was unrealised: it did not happen).
> 
> It is also true that the closed future conditional remains unaltered in past indirect statement, but in this case the grammar does not require any implied 'he knew', whereas in the example in post 9, it does require an implied 'he said' after 'Jones flew into a rage'.


But why didn't you include 'he said' after 'Jones flew into a rage' there?...

To me, "*once *officials ran the DNA and the prints on this body" is a typical *time *clause, similar to "*when/as soon as *officials ran the DNA and the prints on this body". It is not like a hypothetical *if*-clause that is used in conditionals. And to me, it pretty much sounds like reported speech. I.e., Barbosa was thinking at that moment:
"Once officials *run* the DNA and the prints on this body, they*'ll realize* it *is*n't the real deal."
Do you disagree?...


----------



## wandle

VicNicSor said:


> It is not like a hypothetical *if*-clause that is used in conditionals. ... And to me, it pretty much sounds like reported speech


I agree it sounds like reported speech.


wandle said:


> the closed future conditional remains unaltered in past indirect statement


However, implied indirect speech requires the speaker (or thinker) to be the subject of the sentence, or of the preceding sentence. In this case, the subject is 'we', not Barbosa.


Phoebe1200 said:


> We think Barbosa may have staged his own death. He had a limited window of time. Once officials *ran* the DNA and the prints on this body, they*'d realize* it wasn't the real deal.


The third sentence here ('Once officials ran ...') is certainly hypothetical, because it expresses a past unrealised possiblity.
There is overlap between 'if' on the one hand and temporal conjunctions on the other, so that temporal conjunctions such as 'when' and 'once' can introduce a conditonal clause.
Since we are dealing with a past hypothetical sentence in this case, and since the established subject is 'we', we have to see this as a conditional construction.

Another point is that


----------



## VicNicSor

wandle said:


> However, implied indirect speech requires the speaker (or thinker) to be the subject of the sentence, or of the preceding sentence. In this case, the subject is 'we', not Barbosa.


But why do you think the subject is we? The closest pronoun is "he". Besides, the sentence in question obviously represents Barbosa's thinking. And by the way, actually there's a lot of other talk between these two sentences in the movie:

"_We think Barbosa may have staged his own death. (.........................) He had a limited window of time. Once officials ran the DNA and the prints on this body, they'd realize it wasn't the real deal._" 

So, "we" is quite far from the sentence in question.


wandle said:


> The third sentence here ('Once officials ran ...') is certainly hypothetical, because it expresses a past unrealised possiblity.


But why must it be hypothetical only because it didn't happen in the past?... Isn't it just Barbosa's reasonong in the past? I still don't understand how it differs from your "Jones flew into a rage" example...


----------



## wandle

VicNicSor said:


> I still don't understand how it differs from your "Jones flew into a rage"


In my example, Jones is the subject of 'Jones flew into a rage' and is the same person as the subject of the implied 'he said'. That is a key requirement for implied indirect statement.
In the original post:


Phoebe1200 said:


> We think Barbosa may have staged his own death. He had a limited window of time. Once officials *ran* the DNA and the prints on this body, they*'d realize* it wasn't the real deal.


'We' is the subject of 'We think Barbosa may have staged his own death'. If there is any implied indirect speech, it is '[We think] he had a limited window of time. [We think that] once officials ran the DNA ...' However, 'He had a limited window of time' is better understood as a declaratory statement of fact.
After that, to make the hypothetical sentence into a reported statement by Barbosa, we would need to supply, for example: 'Barbosa must have thought that once etc.'
That is too much to be implied. It would have to be expressed.


VicNicSor said:


> And by the way, actually there's a lot of other talk between these two sentences in the movie:
> "_We think Barbosa may have staged his own death. (.........................) He had a limited window of time. Once officials ran the DNA and the prints on this body, they'd realize it wasn't the real deal._"


If so, that lacuna makes a vital difference. My comments so far have been on the text and context presented by Phoebe1200. It appeared to be continuous text.
It is essential to know what was the text immediately preceding the sentences in question.


----------



## VicNicSor

wandle said:


> In my example, Jones is the subject of 'Jones flew into a rage' and is the same person as the subject of the implied 'he said'. That is a key requirement for implied indirect statement.
> In the original post:
> 'We' is the subject of 'We think Barbosa may have staged his own death'. If there is any implied indirect speech, it is '[We think] he had a limited window of time. [We think that] once officials ran the DNA ...' However, 'He had a limited window of time' is better understood as a declaratory statement of fact.


"We" represents the speaker. In the movie it's Callen who speaks on behalf of probably an investigation team. In your example in #9, there must also be an implied speaker. It could have been, for example, like this:
'Jones flew into a rage: I knew/was sure/believed he would not tolerate such behaviour; anyone who did that again would be sacked on the spot'.

The whole part "He had a limited window of time. Once officials ran the DNA and the prints on this body, they'd realize it wasn't the real deal." explains *the reason *why he/they (Barbosa and Co) stole the body. And the next sentence is "So *they *steal the body from the morgue.", which to me also proves that it represents what Barbosa thought, the subject is "Barbosa" or "they" (Barbosa with his people).


wandle said:


> After that, to make the hypothetical sentence into a reported statement by Barbosa, we would need to supply, for example: 'Barbosa *must have thought* that once etc.'
> That is too much to be implied. It would have to be expressed.


But indeed, "he knew" would be enough, to me, it's the most obvious option, as compared to perfect modal constructs.


wandle said:


> It is essential to know what was the text immediately preceding the sentences in question.


The missing part doesn't directly connect to what happened to the body in the morgue. Right before the sentence in question they mention Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein who used look-alikes as decoys too. I meant that grammatically, "we" is far from our sentence.


----------



## wandle

VicNicSor said:


> In your example in #9, there must also be an implied speaker.


The implied speaker has to be the subject of the preceding sentence: in my example, Jones. The implied indirect statement is the reported version of what Jones actually said. That is how the construction of implied indirect statement works. It is giving us that person's actual utterance in reported form.


VicNicSor said:


> It could have been, for example, like this:
> 'Jones flew into a rage: I knew/was sure/believed he would not tolerate such behaviour; anyone who did that again would be sacked on the spot'.


That is not possible to omit words such as yours in red in the case of an implied indirect statement. If the subject changes, it has to be made explicit.


VicNicSor said:


> The missing part doesn't directly connect to what happened to the body in the morgue. Right before the sentence in question they mention Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein who used look-alikes as decoys too. I meant that grammatically, "we" is far from our sentence.


According to your post 15, there is a gap between 'his own death' and 'He had':


> "_We think Barbosa may have staged his own death. (.........................) He had a limited window of time. Once officials ran the DNA and the prints on this body, they'd realize it wasn't the real deal._"


In other words, you are saying that *Phoebe1200* has omitted part of the text.

Because of the rule for the construction of implied indirect statement, we need to know the exact text immediately preceding the words 'He had ...'
Without that, we cannot reach a conclusion.


----------



## VicNicSor

wandle said:


> The implied speaker has to be the subject of the preceding sentence: in my example, Jones. The implied indirect statement is the reported version of what Jones actually said. That is how the construction of implied indirect statement works. It is giving us that person's actual utterance in reported form.
> That is not possible as an implied indirect statement. If the subject changes, it has to be expressed.


Sorry but how can the subject be the speaker at the same time if you're talking about Jones using the third person?
Compare:
'*Jones *flew into a rage: *he *would not tolerate such behaviour; anyone who did that again would be sacked on the spot'. (the speaker *is not* the subject)
'*I *flew into a rage: *I* would not tolerate such behaviour; anyone who did that again would be sacked on the spot'. (the speaker *is *the subject)



wandle said:


> According to your post 15, there is a gap between 'his own death' and 'He had':
> In other words, you are saying that Phoebe1200 has omitted part of the text.
> 
> Because of the rule for the construction of implied indirect statement, we need to know the exact text immediately preceding 'He had ...' and without it, we cannot reach any conclusion.


By the sentence in question I meant "_He had a limited window of time._", I just consider the two sentences as a whole, sorry if I was not clear. The missing part is only one -- the one in the brackets. 
Several preceding sentences, said by Sam, are not essential, just comments aside:


> Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein used look-alikes as decoys. It's not like he doesn't have the resources. Barbosa has a lot of money and a lot less overhead.


----------



## wandle

VicNicSor said:


> Sorry but how can the subject be the speaker at the same time if you're talking about Jones using the third person?


Jones (speaker of the original words) is not using the third person. The narrator uses the third person, because he is putting Jones' spoken words into indirect speech.

Let us change the implied indirect speech to direct speech:
(a) 'Jones flew into a rage. "I will not tolerate such behaviour", he said: "anyone who does that again will be sacked on the spot" '.

Now let us put that into ordinary indirect speech:
(b) 'Jones flew into a rage. He said he would not tolerate such behaviour and anyone who did that again would be sacked on the spot'.

And now into implied indirect speech once again:
(c) 'Jones flew into a rage: he would not tolerate such behaviour; anyone who did that again would be sacked on the spot'.

Now compare your suggestion in post 17:


VicNicSor said:


> 'Jones flew into a rage: I knew he would not tolerate such behaviour; anyone who did that again would be sacked on the spot'.


In this case, we are not told of anything that Jones said, either directly or indirectly: instead, we are told what the narrator thought, and that is expressed in ordinary indirect speech, complete with the introductory verb (knew) and its subject (I).

In implied indirect speech, there is no verb of thinking or speaking to introduce the indirect statement and therefore no subject for it. That is the difference in construction between sentences (b) and (c). Instead, the subject of the implied verb 'said' is understood from the preceding verb 'flew (into a rage)'.



VicNicSor said:


> The missing part is only one -- the one in the brackets.


If there is anything missing there, we need to be told what it is. That is the essential information we need and without it we cannot judge the status of the following words.


----------



## VicNicSor

wandle said:


> Jones (speaker of the original words) is not using the third person. The writer of the passage uses the third person, because he is putting Jones' spoken words into indirect speech.
> Let us change the implied indirect speech to direct speech:
> (a) 'Jones flew into a rage. "I will not tolerate such behaviour", he said: "anyone who does that again will be sacked on the spot" '.
> Now let us put that into ordinary indirect speech:
> (b) 'Jones flew into a rage. He said he would not tolerate such behaviour and anyone who did that again would be sacked on the spot'.
> And now into implied indirect speech:
> (c) 'Jones flew into a rage: he would not tolerate such behaviour; anyone who did that again would be sacked on the spot'.


Likewise, I see the underlined part as "implied indirect speech", "he" or "they" having the same function as "Jones" in your example


> -- *He *had a limited window of time. Once officials ran the DNA and the prints on this body, they'd realize it wasn't the real deal.
> *-- *So *they *steal the body from the morgue.





wandle said:


> In this case, we are not told of anything that Jones said, either directly or indirectly: instead, we are told what the narrator thought, and that is expressed in ordinary indirect speech, complete with the introductory verb (knew) and its subject (I).
> 
> In implied indirect speech, there is no verb of thinking or speaking to introduce the indirect statement and therefore no subject for it. That is the difference in construction between sentences (b) and (c). Instead, the subject comes by implication from the preceding verb: 'flew (into a rage)'.


Yes, but I still can't understand why you link the "we think" in the OP to the sentence in question.
Sorry, but I can't even understand what this phrase would mean:
"*We think that once *officials *ran *the DNA and the prints on this body, *they'd* realize it wasn't the real deal."
If it was supposed to be a conditional, wouldn't it least have had to be a third conditional?
"*We think that if *officials *had run *the DNA and the prints on this body, *they'd* *have realized *it wasn't the real deal." -- now it is an "unrealised" event in the past.
...


----------



## wandle

VicNicSor said:


> Likewise, I see the underlined part as "implied indirect speech", "he" or "they" having the same function as "Jones" in your example


It is impossible to comment on this now until you supply the words which you say are missing.


VicNicSor said:


> If it was supposed to be a conditional, wouldn't it least have had to be a third conditional?


No. A closed future conditional does not change in indirect speech.


----------



## VicNicSor

wandle said:


> It is impossible to comment on this now until you supply the words which you say are missing.


What "missing words"? In #19 I have already provided three preceding sentences if that's what you mean.


wandle said:


> No. A closed future conditional does not change in indirect speech.


If by "closed future conditional" you mean a "second conditional", and if the subject in this "implied indirect speech" is "we" (investigators), then why to use a *second conditional* (or "*future *closed") at all in the OP, if they are talking about the *past*?


----------



## wandle

VicNicSor said:


> What "missing words"?


You have stated that there are words missing immediately prior to 'He had ...'


VicNicSor said:


> And by the way, actually there's a lot of other talk between these two sentences in the movie:
> "_We think Barbosa may have staged his own death. (.........................) He had a limited window of time. Once officials ran the DNA and the prints on this body, they'd realize it wasn't the real deal._"





VicNicSor said:


> If by "closed future conditional" you mean a "second conditional", and if the subject in this "implied indirect speech" is "we" (investigators), then why to use a *second conditional* (or "*future *closed") at all in the OP, if they are talking about the *past*?


I use the term 'closed future conditional' for the sake of accuracy, because 'second conditional' is ambiguous (it could be present or future).
A closed future conditional does not change its form in indirect statement, even when the context is past.


----------



## VicNicSor

wandle said:


> You have stated that there are words missing immediately prior to 'He had ...'



But I don't understand why you keep ignoring my words that I have already provided some missing sentences (immediately before the phrase "He had a limited ...") in #19...


----------



## wandle

VicNicSor said:


> I have already provided some missing sentences


You did provide some text, but in post 19 you also say:


VicNicSor said:


> The missing part is only one -- the one in the brackets.


That means that the part which matters is still missing.


VicNicSor said:


> "_We think Barbosa may have staged his own death. (.........................) He had a limited window of time. Once officials ran the DNA and the prints on this body, they'd realize it wasn't the real deal._"


It is the text between the brackets that we need to have.


----------



## VicNicSor

I don't understand -- I provided the missing part that immediately precedes the second sentence in the OP, and this part is in the brackets. It looks like this:
CALLEN: We think Barbosa may have staged his own death. (.................)
SAM: Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein used look-alikes as decoys. It's not like he doesn't have the resources. Barbosa has a lot of money and a lot less overhead.
CALLEN: He had a limited window of time. Once officials ran the DNA and the prints on this body, they'd realize it wasn't the real deal.


----------



## wandle

VicNicSor said:


> It looks like this:


That is very different from the picture presented in post 15 and confirmed in post 19. 
The brackets have now been moved back (is there still something missing there?) and it seems at last we have the text immediately preceding the sentences in question.
it is also obviously different from the text in the original post. Assuming it is correct now, we can finally go ahead.

In this version it seems clear that 'He had a limited window of time' is a simple declaratory statement by Callen. The question is whether the sentence 'Once officials ran the DNA and the prints on this body, they'd realize it wasn't the real deal' should be seen as an implied indirect statement, taking 'he' from the preceding sentence as the implied subject and expressing Barbosa's thought, or simply as a sentence directly expressing the speaker's thought.

Grammatically speaking, it could be either. The question is which makes better sense in the context. Again, we can say that either makes good sense.

If it is an implied indirect statement, we have to understand it as:
'He had a limited window of time. He knew that once officials ran the DNA and the prints on this body, they'd realize it wasn't the real deal'.

I am inclined now to think (assuming that we have the correct text at last) that this makes better sense.


----------



## VicNicSor

wandle said:


> That is very different from the picture presented in post 15 and confirmed in post 19.


Why is it different? You asked "what was the text immediately preceding the sentences in question", and I gave three sentences that "immediately preceding the sentences in question"


----------



## wandle

VicNicSor said:


> Why is it different?


Do you really see no difference between (a):





VicNicSor said:


> "_We think Barbosa may have staged his own death. (.........................) He had a limited window of time. Once officials ran the DNA and the prints on this body, they'd realize it wasn't the real deal._"


and (b)?


VicNicSor said:


> CALLEN: We think Barbosa may have staged his own death. (.................)
> SAM: Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein used look-alikes as decoys. It's not like he doesn't have the resources. Barbosa has a lot of money and a lot less overhead.
> CALLEN: He had a limited window of time. Once officials ran the DNA and the prints on this body, they'd realize it wasn't the real deal.



In (a), there is text missing before 'He had ...'
In (b), the missing text has been added.

I was repeatedly asking for that missing text. Once you supplied it, things became clear.


----------



## VicNicSor

You didn't have to "repeatedly ask" for the text. Once you asked for it in #16, in #17 I told you what the text was about and in the next my post I gave the whole quote

But as you see, the missing part doesn't add anything essential to the context.

Anyway, we seem to agree after all as to what is implied in the OP.


----------



## wandle

VicNicSor said:


> You didn't have to "repeatedly ask" for the text.


Really?


wandle said:


> It is essential to know what was the text immediately preceding the sentences in question.





wandle said:


> we need to know the exact text immediately preceding the words 'He had ...'
> Without that, we cannot reach a conclusion.





wandle said:


> If there is anything missing there, we need to be told what it is. That is the essential information we need and without it we cannot judge the status of the following words.





wandle said:


> the part which matters is still missing.





wandle said:


> It is the text between the brackets that we need to have.


That makes five requests or hints, each individually expressed.


VicNicSor said:


> the missing part doesn't add anything essential to the context.


Oh yes, it does. The missing part, now that we have it, makes all the difference. Here is the text presented in the original post:


Phoebe1200 said:


> *Callen*: We think Barbosa may have staged his own death. He had a limited window of time. Once officials *ran* the DNA and the prints on this body, they*'d realize* it wasn't the real deal.
> *Sam*: So they steal the body from the morgue. It's gotten to be so routine with the cartels that no one thinks twice about it.


Callen's words are presented as a continuous whole. This means that we have to read them as a single connected sequence.
Here is the final text (unless there are more additions to be made):


VicNicSor said:


> CALLEN: We think Barbosa may have staged his own death. (........*?.*........)
> SAM: Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein used look-alikes as decoys. It's not like he doesn't have the resources. Barbosa has a lot of money and a lot less overhead.
> CALLEN: He had a limited window of time. Once officials ran the DNA and the prints on this body, they'd realize it wasn't the real deal.


What is still missing between the brackets? It is not likely to be relevant, but you never know.

Now we see that the words 'We think Barbosa may have staged his own death' belong to an earlier line of dialogue and are not continuous with the words 'He had a limited window of time. Once officials ran the DNA and the prints on this body, they'd realize it wasn't the real deal'. Therefore these latter words must be considered on their own.

The question was whether we had an implied indirect statement. As I pointed out:


wandle said:


> Because of the rule for the construction of implied indirect statement, we need to know the exact text immediately preceding the words 'He had ...'
> Without that, we cannot reach a conclusion.


Now we know that in this part of Callen's dialogue there is nothing immediately preceding the words 'He had ...'
Apart from anything else, that makes it very unlikely that the sentence beginning 'He had ...' is part of an implied indirect statement.


VicNicSor said:


> we seem to agree after all as to what is implied in the OP.


That was not possible before we had the minimum information necessary.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Wow, so many replies and I was only offline for a day. Thanks so much everyone.

I apologize for omitting part of the original text but I had to cut some lines in order to comply with the rule of providing only four lines and I honestly thought they were not essential to the context.



SevenDays said:


> What's important is that the body was stolen, meaning (I assume) that Barbosa is actually alive. Or is he indeed "dead"?


Barbosa is alive.
I also want to add that the body that was stolen was not Barbosa's but his lookalike and that's why Barbosa's men had to steal it so the officials wouldn't know that it was not actually Barbosa's body.

I have one more question though.

Could the sentence in question be viewed as a closed unreal past conditional (third conditional) and be like this "Once officials *had run* the DNA and the prints on this body, they* would have realized* it wasn't the real deal."?


----------



## wandle

Phoebe1200 said:


> Could the sentence in question be viewed as an unreal past conditional (third conditional) and be like this "Once officials *had run* the DNA and the prints on this body, they* would have realized* it wasn't the real deal."?


If it were a closed (unreal) past conditional, then it would be like that, but it isn't.

Could the author have used a closed past conditional here? Yes: but then it would be expressed from the detective's present viewpoint, not from the suspect's past viewpoint.
As things stand, it is grammatically correct, and it makes better sense, to take it as an implied indirect statement, rather than a general statement from a present viewpoint.


wandle said:


> If it is an implied indirect statement, we have to understand it as:
> 'He had a limited window of time. He knew that once officials ran the DNA and the prints on this body, they'd realize it wasn't the real deal'.


If we ask 'What did Barbosa know?' we can reconstruct the original direct statement (the thought in his mind) as:
'Once officials run the DNA and the prints on this body, they'll realise it's not the real deal'.

In the text, what we see is that original thought converted to a past indirect statement by shifting the tenses of the verbs one step back in time.


----------



## Phoebe1200

wandle said:


> Could the author have used a closed past conditional here?


Oh, sorry, yes. I meant to ask this. 
So, Callen could have said this sentence "Once officials *had run* the DNA and the prints on this body, they* would have realized* it wasn't the real deal.", right?


----------



## wandle

Yes.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Thank you so much for replying.


----------



## VicNicSor

wandle said:


> Really?


Yes. I meant -- there was no need to repeatedly ask because I immediately provided the missing text, but in spite of that you did.


wandle said:


> What is still missing between the brackets? It is not likely to be relevant, but you never know.


It's sure not relevant


wandle said:


> Now we know that in this part of Callen's dialogue there is nothing immediately preceding the words 'He had ...'


Even if these comments about Gaddafi and Hussein had been said by Callen instead of Sam, it would not change anything -- they would still be comments aside, not relevant to the main plot.


Phoebe1200 said:


> I apologize for omitting part of the original text but I had to cut some lines in order to comply with the rule of providing only four lines and I honestly thought they were not essential to the context.


There's nothing wrong with cutting lines, but it's always better to indicate that there's an omitted part, like (.........). Here, it would have helped to avoid such a long discussion at least


----------



## Phoebe1200

VicNicSor said:


> There's nothing wrong with cutting lines, but it's always better to indicate that there's an omitted part, like (.........).


Thanks. I'll do that in the future.


----------



## wandle

VicNicSor said:


> I immediately provided the missing text,


I was asking for it repeatedly from post 16:


wandle said:


> If so, that lacuna makes a vital difference. My comments so far have been on the text and context presented by Phoebe1200. It appeared to be continuous text.
> It is essential to know what was the text immediately preceding the sentences in question.


It was not until post 27, after five appeals or strong hints, that you provided the text requested:


VicNicSor said:


> It looks like this:
> CALLEN: We think Barbosa may have staged his own death. (.................)
> SAM: Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein used look-alikes as decoys. It's not like he doesn't have the resources. Barbosa has a lot of money and a lot less overhead.
> CALLEN: He had a limited window of time. Once officials ran the DNA and the prints on this body, they'd realize it wasn't the real deal.


That is the first time we were shown the real dialogue that occurred.


VicNicSor said:


> they would still be comments aside, not relevant to the main plot.


That misses the point. They make a decisive difference to the grammar. It is a whole missing line of dialogue, spoken by a different person! It is a complete break in sense.
Besides, since I was explicitly asking for these words so many times, it would have been considerate at least to respond.


----------



## boozer

Phoebe1200 said:


> *Callen*: We think Barbosa may have staged his own death. He had a limited window of time. Once officials *ran* the DNA and the prints on this body, they*'d realize* it wasn't the real deal.


I admit I have not read the whole discussion but...
No conditional is implied at all. 'Once' means 'as soon as', not 'if' and there is no uncertainty as to whether it would have happened. The speaker knows for a fact that they would have run the DNA.
And then, even if a conditional was implied, it would not at all be the 2nd conditional, but a simple 1st conditional reported in the past tense
If they run the DNA, they will realise --> if they ran the DNA they would realise
The verb forms correspond to the ones used in type 2 conditionals, but the difference is that type 2 conditional refers to the non-past (present/future, unlikely), whereas a reported 1st conditional in the past tense refers to the past.


----------



## wandle

boozer said:


> I admit I have not read the whole discussion


We have had lengthy exchanges turning on the fact that the text in post 1, which you are quoting, is not the real dialogue that occurred.


> 'Once' means 'as soon as', not 'if'


Temporal conjunctions such as 'when' and 'once' are regularly used in conditional sentences in place of 'if'.


> there is no uncertainty as to whether it would have happened. The speaker knows for a fact that they would have run the DNA.


That is certainly a reasonable expectation, but it takes nothing away from the conditional nature of the sentence.
A conditional sentence expresses the proposition that B follows logically from A. It makes no difference whether A is inevitable, probable, possible, improbable or impossible.

Contrary to my initial opinion, I now see it (since we have had the true text established) as an open future conditional within an implied past indirect statement, as explained in post 34.


----------



## VicNicSor

wandle said:


> I was asking for it repeatedly from post 16.
> It was not until post 27, after five appeals or strong hints, that you provided the text requested:


In post 19 I made it explicitly clear that the missing part I provided precedes the sentence "He had a limited ..." and was said by Sam.. In fact, post 27 was not necessary at all.


----------



## wandle

VicNicSor said:


> the missing part I provided


But at that stage you had not provided it. You had indicated a gap without giving the text. You did not give the missing text until post 27.





VicNicSor said:


> post 27 was not necessary


Post 27, giving the real dialogue for the first time, was essential. We need to see the exact text before we can make useful comments.
It is the most basic requirement. Please see the Forum Guidelines:


> The text coming immediately before and immediately after the word or phrase under discussion - the sentence containing the word or phrase - may be enough.
> Ideally, please quote two sentences before, and one sentence after (the maximum quoted text allowed by Rule #4).


----------



## SevenDays

Phoebe1200 said:


> Wow, so many replies and I was only offline for a day. Thanks so much everyone.
> 
> I apologize for omitting part of the original text but I had to cut some lines in order to comply with the rule of providing only four lines and I honestly thought they were not essential to the context.
> 
> 
> Barbosa is alive.
> I also want to add that the body that was stolen was not Barbosa's but his lookalike and that's why Barbosa's men had to steal it so the officials wouldn't know that it was not actually Barbosa's body.
> 
> I have one more question though.
> 
> Could the sentence in question be viewed as a closed unreal past conditional (third conditional) and be like this "Once officials *had run* the DNA and the prints on this body, they* would have realized* it wasn't the real deal."?



Sure, why not?
One thing, though; to me, this isn't a conditional sentence, so I don't think of it in terms of a "third conditional." The sentence is about _belief, supposition, assumption _on the part of Callen. Certainly, we also _assume _that officials would realize that Barbosa staged his own death, but what if the officials are not competent enough to figure it out, even with DNA tests? In a strict sense, a conditional sentence establishes a condition that "something" leads to "something else." A _belief/assumption _is not a _condition_. Oh, and if this were a conditional sentence, you should be able to use "if" instead of "once," but you can't. But all that isn't really important (and I'm sure some people would disagree).

As to your question, it's just two ways of expressing the same thing. In both cases, you have a "past" form expressing belief/assumption. The original sentence uses the simple past "ran" (_Once officials *ran*_); your version has a perfect past construction (_Once officials *had run*_). The difference in simply in terms of perspective, how the verb "run" is presented in the dialogue. With"ran," the verb is shown in its totality, as a whole; no single point is identified in the verb action. With "had run," a single point is identified and highlighted: the _end-point _of the verb action. In context, it doesn't really matter which form is used; the message is the same. And the overall perspective is always Callen's; after all, he is the one speaking (though he is making assumptions about _other _people).

And given that this is not a conditional sentence, you don't _have to _follow *had run* with *would have realized*. You could just as well say "Once officials *had run *the DNA prints on this body, they would realize it wasn't the real deal." But, you can use "would have realized" if you want to. Language is all about choices/constructions.


----------



## VicNicSor

wandle said:


> But at that stage you had not provided it. You had indicated a gap without giving the text. You did not give the missing text until post 27.


Please, have a look at the last sentence in #19 (the quoted one).


----------



## wandle

VicNicSor said:


> Please, have a look at the last sentence in #19 (the quoted one).


This is the last part of post 19:


VicNicSor said:


> The missing part is only one -- the one in the brackets.
> Several preceding sentences, said by Sam, are not essential, just comments aside:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein used look-alikes as decoys. It's not like he doesn't have the resources. Barbosa has a lot of money and a lot less overhead.
Click to expand...

This tells us (1) that the text between the brackets is missing and (2) that several sentences preceding the brackets are not essential. Then (3 ) it quotes the sentences preceding the brackets.

It does not tell us where those sentences come in the dialogue. They are not presented in their place as part of the text.  There is nothing to show where they belong, except that they precede the brackets.

Post 19 definitely does not say that those sentences were the missing part. It presents them as some other sentences from some other part of the text, and says they are not relevant to our question.

I replied in post 20 by taking up your statement that the part between the brackets was missing and then I repeated my call for that part to be given:


wandle said:


> VicNicSor said:
> 
> 
> 
> The missing part is only one -- the one in the brackets.
> 
> 
> 
> If there is anything missing there, we need to be told what it is. That is the essential information we need and without it we cannot judge the status of the following words.
Click to expand...


----------



## VicNicSor

I am confused now

In #18 you asked for "the exact text immediately *preceding the words 'He had ...'*", so in #19 I provided "several *preceding sentences*". Besides, I had already said there that the missing part was* only one* -- that in the brackets. Hence, it was to be only understood one way: the three sentences I provided immediately preceded the words "He had ...."


----------



## JulianStuart

VicNicSor said:


> I am confused now
> 
> In #18 you asked for "the exact text immediately *preceding the words 'He had ...'*", so in #19 I provided "*several* *preceding sentences*". Besides, I had already told there that the missing part was* only one* -- that in the brackets. Hence, it was to only understood one way: the three sentences I provided immediately preceded the words "He had ...."


(It did not occur to me either, that those "preceding sentences" were the ones specifically being requested by Wandle.  "Several" sounded to me as though they had occurred further back in the text than "immediately preceding". The absence of the word "immediately" or "requested" was confusing. It became clear in #27 )


----------



## wandle

VicNicSor said:


> The missing part is only one -- the one in the brackets.
> Several preceding sentences, said by Sam, are not essential, just comments aside:


I am sorry, but this does in effect say the opposite of what you meant. I was not trying to be pedantic. I genuinely understood your remarks as explained in post 47.

The fact is, if I may be blunt, you expressed your point wrongly.

(1) 'The missing part is only one -- the one in the brackets.'
The only thing that comes across clearly from this is that the part in brackets is missing: it says you have still not given us the part in brackets.

(2) 'Several preceding sentences'
Used in that way, the word 'preceding' always refers to the last thing mentioned: in this case, 'the brackets'. It says the sentences you quoted were preceding the brackets.

(3) The sentences 'are not essential'.
I had pointed out that the missing text was definitely needed. The conclusion I drew from 'not essential' was: you are saying these are not the sentences from within the brackets.


----------



## VicNicSor

Then I'm apologizing for those my comments that were misleading


----------



## wandle

No problem, as far as I am concerned.


----------

