If you would

If it's functioning well, you'll be able to walk right past the bowl of potato chips and wait until dinner to eat. but even if you'd normally grab the chips, you can retrain your brain.

Why even if you "would"?! What's the nuance if I simply omit it?


Thanks,
Pastel

If it's functioning well, you'll be able to walk right past the bowl of potato chips and wait until dinner to eat. but even if you'd normally grab the chips, you can retrain your brain.

Why even if you "would"?! What's the nuance if I simply omit it?

==============

JTT: I agree with MrP that there isn't a great deal of difference but I'll venture that there could be a nuance here; the speaker intends to put this "normal behavior" into the category of remote behavior, behavior that is not what is desireable, not what is to be encouraged.

This structure is so curiously deceptive that it possesses a sort of nameless charm!

Even if you would normally grab the chips, ...

is the approximate equal of:

In spite of the fact that you [might / would] grab the chips if conditions were normal ...

Hence "would grab", despite it's appearance as an antecedent clause in an IF-structure, is actually the consequent clause in a different implied IF-structure, in which the single adverb "normally" substitutes for the IF-clause.

By contrast,

Even if you normally grab the chips, ...

is the approximate equal of:

In spite of the fact that you (do) grab the chips [if / when] conditions are normal ...

So the difference in nuance is none other than the familiar difference in nuance between the so-called "real conditional" and "unreal conditional", alternately analyzed as "proximate" and "remote".

To my ear, the author seems to have a great deal more knowledge about what you actually do if he leaves out the "'d"!

====================

JTT:

I think that you're trying to cleave a separation between proximate and remote where none exists, Jim. This could be an author writing about a kind of diet with no particular person in mind. That makes the situation highly theoretical and not proximate at all.

Original sentence: If it's functioning well, you'll be able to walk right past the bowl of potato chips and wait until dinner to eat. but even if you'd normally grab the chips, you can retrain your brain.

Your sentence,

In spite of the fact that you [might / would] grab the chips if/when conditions were normal ...

could be written as,

In spite of the fact that you [might / would] grab the chips if/when conditions are normal ...

because all such conditions are theoretically possible. The perception is that there is this huge void between remote and proximate when in actuality there isn't. Life creates possibilities that tilt one way or the other.

If such a void exists between proximate and remote, then another must exist between remote and impossible. We know that isn't true because we know that the language used for both remote and impossible are identical.

Similarly, there is no void between remote [doubtful] and proximate. This is why, for some situations, mixed conditionals exist. Why? because a situation can exist in that area of the spectrum that describes doubtful. "Remoteness" is also often used in clearly fully realistic situations merely to be polite.

No, it couldn't. Rewritten as such it would be pointless in an explanation of the subtle difference between "you" and "you'd" in the original question, because both of those contain "would". CJ

saying that the function of "would" implies habitual sense would seem to be redundant

Redundancy isn't necessarily abnormal, in written and spoken English. (There's some in that last sentence, in fact.)

But to look at it another way: what happens if we omit 'normally'?

1. ??'Even if you would grab the chips,...'

Now the sentence has a curiously archaic quality, and seems to lose the sense of habitual 'would'. I take your point.

MrP