Both are grammatically correct and mean what you are trying to mean, though the first version is more natural divorced from context, I think.
I like either one. But I can imagine someone arguing it must be “had” in order to match tense with “knew” in the antecedent. I disagree, but there’s an inviting kind of “logic” to that argument, such that if you’re wanting to avoid criticisms you may as well use “had” to avoid the risk.
#1 is the idea of double object verbs. Some verbs take two objects and the order doesn’t matter, eg. He kicked the ball to me, he kicked to me the ball. In other verbs, the direct object must be stated first, eg. He whispered the information to me, X He whispered to me the information. Found would be in the doesnt matter category.
#2 is about meaning. Had impiles something that is no longer true, has is something that continues to be true. In the context of the sentence as stated, has is correct because it only references that current moment.
I’m inclined to agree with you bob++on #1 .
“She accidentally found it online” is a better construction.
But as for # 2, does the word “had” necessarily imply that the fortune teller no longer had the gift of foresight? I’m not so sure about that.
Thank you all.
There is only a single (direct) object in your sentences (i.e. the “ball” so kicked and the “information” so whispered). Rather than an indirect object, you constructed your sentence using the prepositional phrase “to me”. This is perfectly acceptable English, just not an example indirect “second” objects.
Examples of sentences using indirect object (“two object sentences”) would be:
[li]He gave **her **(indirect object) the information (direct object) - he didn’t give the girl away; he gave the information[/li][li]I gave **Sheila **(indirect) the ball (direct) - I didn’t give Sheila away; I gave the ball[/li][/ul]
The direct object is the object modified by the verb; the indirect is generally the recipient. The subject modifies the direct object with a verb, the indirect object benefits.
The reason this is confusing is that you are switching tenses in the middle. How about either:
All present: “If the fortune teller knows things about her customer that no one else knows, then the customer would naturally believe that the fortune teller has the gift of foresight.”
All past: “If the fortune teller knew things about her customer that no one else knew, then the customer would naturally have believed that the fortune teller had the gift of foresight.”