2

Consider the sentence structure:
S + V1 + "so that" + S + (aux. V) + V2
For example:

Mike went to the theater early so that he could find a seat.

What happens if I take out the auxiliary verb?

Mike went to the theater early so that he found/find a seat.

Should it be "found" or "find"?

Hellion
  • 59,365
Letherette Jmsn
  • 37
  • "..that he find a seat" is correct but sounds very archaic. That-clauses used as adverbs of reason/result take the subjunctive. – William Dec 10 '15 at 03:39
  • Mike went to the theater early so that he found a seat. would also be commonly heard. However I agree the construction is a little awkward, and it would be preferable to say: "Mike went to the theater early to make sure (or to ensure) he found (got / secured) a seat.". – Cargill Dec 10 '15 at 03:58
  • I believe this question comes about because of how it could be said in a Latin-based language like Spanish (Él fue al teatro temperano para que él hallara una silla), which comparatively words it the way it is worded in the question, using the past subjunctive "hallara" where it contains "found/found." – Benjamin Harman Jan 17 '16 at 07:15

2 Answers2

1

Neither. To make it more concise, you could write, "Mike went to the theater early to find a seat."

Mark Hubbard
  • 6,777
1

[1] "Mike went to the theater early so that he could find a seat".

[2] "Mike went to the theater early so that he found (*find) a seat".

If, as in [1], you include "could", (whose meaning here is 'potential ability') the subordinate clause is clearly a purpose adjunct. We understand that the purpose of Mike going to the theatre early was to give him a better chance of finding a seat.

But if you omit "could", as in [2], the meaning is different. This time it becomes a 'result' adjunct meaning that Mike went to the theatre early and as a result he found a seat. This meaning differs from the 'purpose' one in that it implies that Mike did actually find a seat, whereas in [1] Mike's finding a seat is only a possibility.

I'd say that [1] is the salient interpretation, so "could" should not be omitted.

BillJ
  • 12,832
  • if so precedes early in [2], will the that-clause still be considered an adjunct, or a complement of the adverb early? – Gestaltfilter Feb 20 '21 at 11:52
  • 1
    @Gestaltfilter It would then be an 'indirect' complement. Although the that clause follows the head "early", it is the adverb "so" that modifies "early" which licenses it. "Mike went to the theater [so early that he could find a seat. – BillJ Feb 20 '21 at 13:31