On , Joe Touch <> wrote: > On 6/12/2013 8:32 AM, Brian Haberman wrote: >> Hi Bharat, >> >> On 6/12/13 11:06 AM, Bharat Joshi wrote: >>> Thanks for your reply. >>> >>> While reading, I felt that adding a 'to' here make things more >>> clearer. >> >> It does make things clearer, but the original wording is correct. > > FWIW, I disagree. > > Original: > > If it is desired to have a particular host be in multiple > virtual sites, > then that host must determine, for each packet, which virtual > site the > packet is associated with. > > "to have it be X" != "to have it to be X" > > The latter could be misinterpreted as: > > to have it become in a state of X > > The former means: > > to have it in a state of X > > > However, the original form is something we should avoid in the future > (though I doubt it's worth rewriting). > > It would have been preferable to say: > > If a host is a member of multiple virtual sites, then > that host must determine which site corresponds to > each packet transmitted or received. > > Joe
The subjunctive is explained well in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjunctive_mood -- Jakob Heitz.
