Message from discussion Counterfactual conditions
Received: by 10.66.83.5 with SMTP id m5mr1067775pay.33.1353083676656;
Fri, 16 Nov 2012 08:34:36 -0800 (PST)
From: Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel...@yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: Counterfactual conditions
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 17:34:36 +0100
X-Trace: individual.net 8R/IeOOl8momPMnE3AaMkwk0OLHXVCE4NGgljxJlm/8Iu3wnqebXVzMGXbDjkG+MBM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
The other day I wrote the following sentence, and each time I re-read
it I have a doubt about the last word but three:
"In consequence, if a reaction in a biosynthetic pathway displays
negative cooperativity with respect to the concentration of its
substrate, and if the same metabolite acts as an effector of a reaction
in another pathway, then the flux through the second pathway will be
more sensitive to the flux through the first than it would be if there
was no negative cooperativity."
Don't worry about whether you find this an elegantly written sentence
or not, I'm just thinking about the final if clause. It seems to me to
be clearly counterfactual, and yet I can't persuade myself that the
"was" should be "were": it just seems wrong to me with "were".
Would "were" be better?