if

MrPedantic wrote:

Taka wrote: MrP, Wouldn't another way of seeing it be that if both parents and psychologists at the time had the idea of the subjuncitve-if, then, because of the air of untruth that the subjunctive mood has, it would mean that they were both a bit pessimistic people who thought the removal of real fear and the better development of their children were not really possible, which is less likely? <>Well, I must admit, I don't associate the subjunctive with untruth, in type II conditionals: in discussions of possible courses of action, you will often hear "If X were the case, Y would be the case". MrP

Fully agree with that.

Making a hypothesis or a speculation doesn't have to be connected to untruth.

It's a mental (etc.) device.

My immediate reaction from reading the red part of the paragraph is "subjunctive". Aside from the context of the debated paragraph, consider the following:

John has already spent 4 year in college and he is still struggling with is grades to graduate because he spends too much time partying. I talked to him last night and said: "if you were a little more serious with graduating college, you would have been making money by now".

The fact is, he is still in college, not yet graduated. Therefore, to indicate an unreal / hypothetical scenario, the "If  X were such, Y would have" is used. Goodman feels this is a subjunctive, 100%.

Taka wrote:

If truth/untruth sounds dichotomic, in which sentence do you fell the possibility of X/Y stronger? ... Then in which type do you feel the conviction stronger?

For me, the difference between the standard "type I" and "type II" conditionals relates not so much to possibility or conviction, as to the degree of detachment the speaker wishes to express.

For instance, if I say "If you ate more fresh fruit, you'd be much healthier", it's a little more detached than "If you eat more fresh fruit, you'll be much healthier". That "detachment" on my part makes it easier for the addressee to reject the advice without fear of giving offence; thus the advice is more "polite".

(It may be that other members would find this a strange way of looking at it, though!)

All the best,

MrP

MrPedantic wrote:

For me, the difference between the standard "type I" and "type II" conditionals relates not so much to possibility or conviction, as to the degree of detachment the speaker wishes to express. (It may be that other members would find this a strange way of looking at it, though!) MrP

It's not strange at all! In fact, that's what I had in mind as the core image of the subjunctive mood! That 'detachment' on the part of the addresser gives to the addressee an impression of politeness, reservation, uncertainty, some 'drawing back' kind of attitude of the addresser.

(1) If you do it, I will do it too!
(2) If you did it, I would do it too.

I suspect if the adressee were told (2) instead of (1), he/she would get the impression that you were not really into it. Well, or maybe the impression that you are being polite, but it depends on context. The point is, there is not much pushy air in (2), compared to (1).

Now, getting back to the original question.

Psychologists were really concerned about the situation surrounding children. They thought a drastic change was needed to improve the situation so that children would develop into better, happier and kinder adults, and they thought it was urgent. In other words, they tried to revolutionize the whole situation.

I wouldn't say the air of detachemnt of type II is inappropriate here, but the directness of type I fits much better to express their strong concern and pressing need.

What do you think, MrP?

Taka wrote:

Psychologists were really concerned about the situation surrounding children. They thought a drastic change was needed to improve the situation so that children would develop into better, happier and kinder adults, and they thought it was urgent. In other words, they tried to revolutionize the whole situation. I wouldn't say the air of detachemnt of type II is inappropriate here, but the directness of type I fits much better to express their strong concern and pressing need. What do you think, MrP?

I see what you mean; but I think the distinction between type I and type II conditionals disappears, once the statement is reported. In effect, everything becomes "detached", i.e. "remote".

It's like a code in which both X and Y transpose into Z: if we see only Z, we have no way of knowing whether X or Y is the "original".

(I also think that the statement "...got the idea that if real fear and harsh punishment were removed from child training, children would develop into better happier and kinder adults" is the writer's summary of a complex situation; it might represent the distillation of volume after volume of debate!)

All the best,

MrP