if

1 2

Share on Facebook

Diamondrg

#166588 Mon, 05 Dec 05 07:40 PM

dear Mr Pedantic, thank you very much for your contribution. but unfortunately we don't have any context as it was a question appearing in a nationwide exam. you seem to have found one. the answer is definitely E. but I just wonder whether B is acceptable in the eye of a native however hard it may be to find a suitable context.

If you ---- a car, you ---- its performance, not its appearance.

A) were buying / had been considering

B) were buying / would have considered

C) bought / had considered

D) have bought / would have been considered

E) are buying / should be considering

what I would like to know is that whether one can claim B is acceptable and equally correct.

I have found some similar mixed type sentences from the net. but they seem to be more contexualized.

FUTURE

PAST

EXAMPLES:

If I weren't going on my business trip next week, I would have accepted that new assignment at work.
(But I am going to go on a business trip next week, and that is why I didn't accept that new assignment at work.)

If my parents weren't coming this weekend, I would have planned a nice trip just for the two of us to Napa Valley.
(But my parents are going to come this weekend, and that is why I didn't plan a trip for the two of us to Napa Valley.)

If Donna weren't making us a big dinner tonight, I would have suggested that we go to that nice Italian restaurant.
(But she is going to make us a big dinner tonight, and that is why I didn't suggest that we go to that nice Italian restaurant.)

Diamondrg

Joined on Fri, Dec 2 2005

Turkey

Contributing Member (1,041)

CalifJim

#166598 Mon, 05 Dec 05 08:26 PM

Given the context provided by MrP, B is perfectly acceptable grammatically.
"correctness" on an exam is a different matter. There, considerations of what is most probable come into play. Most native speakers are going to see E as much more probable than B as a real everyday utterance.

It's interesting that all three examples at the end of your post have a negative if-clause. I wonder if that is always necessary in that mix of future and past. Also, all three are counterfactual. I also wonder if that is always necessary.

"If you weren't buying a car soon, you would have spent all your savings on something else" fits the pattern.

"If you were buying a car, you would have considered its performance ..." does not fit the same pattern. I find it difficult to read this as counterfactual: "If you were buying a car (and you weren't), you would have considered ...".

Still, "If you were buying a car (next month, but you are not), you would have saved more money during the past two years" seems fine. And this one doesn't have a negative if-clause, though it is counterfactual.

An interesting set of issues you bring up here!

CJ

CalifJim

Joined on Mon, Aug 2 2004

California

Veteran Member (16,967)

"There are no facts, only interpretations" - Nietzsche

Clauses, Negatives

Diamondrg

#166621 Mon, 05 Dec 05 09:47 PM

that question was asked in November, 2005 in a national language exam in Turkey. that exam is famous for its controversial questions among test-takers. questions and answers were never declared. but somehow some people managed to write some of the questions down. Getting into trouble with law and protesting test-takers, the board had to declare that they would give the questions of and the answers to all the future exams the board will administer. another controversial question was "essential to/for" which has also been being discussed in this forum. thank you for your interest and contribution.

Diamondrg

MrPedantic

#166670 Tue, 06 Dec 05 12:38 AM

I'd agree with CJ about choices in exam questions.

I'd also agree that this sentence isn't counterfactual:

1. "If you were buying a car, you would have considered its performance ..."

The "were" here isn't subjunctive; if we put it into the 3rd person singular, we get:

2. "If he was buying a car, he would have considered its performance ..."

where "was" is indicative. A paraphrase would be:

3. Given that you were buying a car, you would surely have considered its performance!

Or even:

4. Given that you were buying a car, you must surely have considered its performance!

It isn't a mixed conditional: it belongs outside the standard "types 0 to 3" paradigm.

MrP

MrPedantic

Joined on Tue, Oct 12 2004

Veteran Member (12,053)

...opella forensis / adducit febris...

Subjunctives, Conditionals, Mixed conditionals

Diamondrg

#166894 Tue, 06 Dec 05 02:17 PM

Mr Pedantic,

what should I understand from

It isn't a mixed conditional: it belongs outside the standard "types 0 to 3" paradigm.

If you were buying a car, you would have considered its performance, not its appearance. (but you aren't going to buy a car and you didn't consider its performance ,let's say, when you put the emphasis on appearance rather than on performance during the discussion we had last night)

does this make sense? or is it improbable?

Diamondrg

Conditionals, Mixed conditionals

MrPedantic

#166907 Tue, 06 Dec 05 03:00 PM

Hello Diamond

By the "paradigm", I mean the list of conditional "types" that grammars usually provide.

There is another use of "if", where "if" means "in view of the fact that". If-statements of this kind are sometimes neglected by grammars.

In my context, for example, the buying of the car is not hypothetical: the car has been bought. And "would have" here implies "we can safely assume that", i.e.

1. In view of the fact that you were buying a car, we can safely assume that you considered its performance, etc.

In other words, real past event A implies past event B.

But there is a possible mixed type 2/type 3 version of your example, in another context. It might be easier to make it 3rd person, to bring out the subjunctive:

2. If he were buying a car, he would already have considered its performance, etc.

MrP

MrPedantic

Subjunctives, Conditionals

Diamondrg

#166918 Tue, 06 Dec 05 03:40 PM

thanks.

Diamondrg

1 2