(Referring to Barry's comments.)Scott Lawson wrote: ↑August 4th, 2021, 4:11 pm But your comments are what I’ve been saying all along.
This is interesting, because I was perplexed about what Barry said, too, until now when I read it again carefully. He says
Now Barry can comment on that himself, but actually he doesn't say that the infinitive would get its time from the main verb. Only that it would show prior action. That's different than getting time from the main verb. A logical companion to "would show prior action" would be that "the main verb would show subsequent action", and that wouldn't mean that the main verb would get its time from the temporal clause, either.the aspect of the infinitive follows essentially the same rule as participles -- an aorist infinitive would then show action prior to that of the main verb.
So, if I now understand Barry correctly, this means that there's a grammatical clash because in this passage the infinitive shows subsequent action.