That would be nice

Hello Jack

Tomorrow we're going to see a new house. 1). It would be nice if the house has a pool. 2). It would be nice if the house had a pool. Is it better to use the mixed conditional #1?

If the choice is limited into the two, I will choose #2.
My prescriptivistic brain tells to combine a main clause "would" with a paste tense if-clause.
But I feel the following will be much better.
It will be nice if the house has a pool.

4. If you go only once a year, loft storage will be quite suitable. (They should've used this one?)

I agree with your opinion on this one.

paco

Hello again Jack!

3A. If you go only once a year, loft storage would be quite suitable. 3B. If you go only once a year, loft storage will be quite suitable.

I don't think 3A accords with English grammar.
I still can't get the reason(s) why you think 3A sounds better than 3B.

You are using "a mixed conditional" for the construct of IF X does, Y would do.
But there isn't such a mixed conditional in English.

Basically the English conditionals can be sorted into the four types;
possible present cond + possible present result
IF X does, Y does. If you heat it, ice melts into water.
possible future cond + possible future result
IF X does, Y will do. If you heat snow, it will become water.
unreal present cond + unreal present result
IF X did, Y would do. If I were British, I would learn Old English.
unreal past cond + unreal past result
IF X had done, Y would have done.
If Bush had known it, he would not have begun the war with Iraq.
They may be what you are calling as 'standard' conditionals.

So called a mixed conditional is either one of the following two types.
unreal past cond + unreal present result
IF X had done, Y would do.
If I had not got married to my wife, I would be much happier.
permanently unreal cond + unreal past result
IF X did, Y would have done.
If I were brighter, I would not have got married to my wife.

paco

Jack wrote:

(So this is wrong? Not everybody follows the prescriptions?)

JTT:
Nobody, nobody follows the prescriptions, Jack. Prescriptions are not about English. They are/were foolish misguided notions of how language works. Read the following carefully, maybe two or three times.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Most of the prescriptive rules of the language mavens make no sense on any level. They are bits of folklore that originated for screwball reasons several hundred years ago and have perpetuated themselves ever since. For as long as they have existed, speakers have flouted them, spawning identical plaints about the imminent decline of the language century after century.

All the best writers in English have been among the flagrant flouters. The rules conform neither to logic nor tradition, and if they were ever followed they would force writers into fuzzy, clumsy, wordy, ambiguous, incomprehensible prose, in which certain thoughts are not expressible at all.

Indeed, most of the "ignorant errors" these rules are supposed to correct display an elegant logic and an acute sensitivity to the grammatical texture of the language, to which the mavens are oblivious.

{S Pinker: http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/media/1994_01_24_thenewrepublic.html}


JTT: Now let's look at your questions:

1. That would be nice if the house that you're looking at tommorow has that.
2. That would be nice if the house that you're looking at tommorow had that.

(This is one of the standard conditionals right? But it sounds awkward with 'had', when I use it. it makes the listener think that the house doesn't have that when we don't even know if it has that or not.)

So is it better to use the mixed conditional #1?

JTT: Neither is better. #1 allows that it is a real possibility. Why would a speaker choose over ? Because the speaker views the possibility as being greater than a similar speaker who uses .

Let's say it's a swimming pool that is being discussed. In #1 maybe the speaker is from an area where swimming pools are more the norm, like in Florida; while in #2, the speaker is in an area where swimming pools are not so common, like in Canada.

Most of life IS NOT a Conditional 1-2-3 situation. Life doesn't start and stop at the boundaries expressed by these sorry 'rules'. Life and life situations merge throughout these conditional forms.

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

http://www.quepublishing.com/articles/article.asp?p=371493&seqNum=2
3. If you go only once a year, loft storage would be quite suitable. (So this is a mixed conditional right? )
4. If you go only once a year, loft storage will be quite suitable. (They should've used this one?)

JTT: Both are perfectly grammatical. The only difference between 3 and 4 is one of politeness. is NOT a past time/tense. By using the speaker is softening the suggestion, making it less forceful, less direct.

By using the speaker is being more fortright, expressing that they are more of an authority to be listened to and they want that authority to be recognized.

{this is but one example; there are many reasons for a speaker choosing one over the other}

Thank you, Paco.