We have partnered with TradePub to bring you free industry magazines and resources - no coupons or credit cards required!
Visit: englishforums.tradepub.com
This question is Not Answered
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
+
493512
Thu, 27 Mar 08 10:24 AM
Hi there
I've just read a helpful post on modals in conditionals, giving the following list:
If she has [present] time, she [can, could, (shall), should, will, may, might, must] go to the party. [not "would']
If she had [past] time, she [could, would, might] go to the party. [not "should"]
My first question; why can't 'should' be used in the second conditional? Does it have to be replaced by something like 'it would be advisable'. And is the same true for 'must'?
Second: How about the third conditional? Which modals can be used there and how?
Thanks, Eustacia
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kooyeen
+
493707
Thu, 27 Mar 08 08:51 PM
 Anonymous“If she had [past] time, she [could, would, might] go to the party. [not "should"]”
Hi Eustacia, I see nothing wrong with "should" in conditional structures. Anonymous “ And is the same true for 'must'? Second: How about the third conditional? Which modals can be used there and how? ”
In the conditional, "must" turns into "would have to". In third conditionals, you'll often see "could have", "might have", "should have", and so on, but the forms used in second conditionals are sometimes possible. It depends on the context. You'll find more information if you search for post about conditionals here in englishforums, or in your grammar book, or in free grammars on the net. 
Joined on
Thu, Dec 22 2005
Italy
Senior Member
4,980
Parental Advisory / Explicit Posts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CalifJim
+
493721
Thu, 27 Mar 08 09:41 PM
She should go to the party says In my opinion, the right thing for her to do is to go to the party or It is advisable (in my opinion) for her to go to the party. You
cannot advise about the past. It's too late to say, after someone
has already decided to do (or not do) something: Here's what I think you should do. ... -- though you can say: Here's what I think you should have done. ...
Therefore it is anomalous to set the time in the past and use should. (should have is fine, however.) But be cautious: should can be used in the context of the past in reported speech (backshifts): Mary said to me, "You can go to the party, and you should". Mary said that I could go to the party and that I should.
CJ
Joined on
Mon, Aug 2 2004
California
Veteran Member
22,447
"There are no facts, only interpretations" - Nietzsche
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kooyeen
+
493730
Thu, 27 Mar 08 10:05 PM
Ooops! I didn't even consider the specific example that was given! Sorry, I took it as a general statement, that "should" would no be used in second conditionals. It can be used. I am not sure what exactly you were asking about that example... If you wanted to know about "should" in the past, then Jim already answered.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CalifJim
+
493734
Thu, 27 Mar 08 10:19 PM
Kooyeen “It ["should"] can be used. [ in second
conditionals ] ”
I'm not saying you're right or wrong, but my
brain is working slow on this one. Could you please provide an
example? (I assume you mean should, not should have, by the way.)
Thanks. Jim
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kooyeen
+
493739
Thu, 27 Mar 08 10:35 PM
Hmm, I'm not so sure now though! I mean, I think I was considering "should" as a kind of conditional version of "must". And after thinking about it again, I'm afraid I would only use "would have to". I was thinking of examples like this: If there was no more oil available in the world, we should use some other kind of energy source.But now I feel I would probably use "would have to", which sounds much better to me. Is that "should" odd or not? Sometimes my mind plays tricks on me... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CalifJim
+
493769
Fri, 28 Mar 08 12:06 AM
Kooyeen “use "would have to", which sounds much better to me.”
To me, too. Kooyeen “Is that "should" odd or not?”
It is. I was thinking you would come up with something like the following: If she took the wallet, she should return it. But in that case the two clauses are purposely in two different times. If she took the wallet (yesterday), she should return it (today or tomorrow). I don't think you can make a coherent sentence with if ..., then ... should ... that's all in the past or follows the "hypothetical" idea of the second conditional pattern.. But maybe?
CJ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kooyeen
+
494109
Fri, 28 Mar 08 06:53 PM
CalifJim “ If she took the wallet, she should return it. But in that case the two clauses are purposely in two different times. ”
Yep, that's not hypothetical. I can't think of any other cases where it would be good. I'd better only use "would have to" then. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|