Which conditional is this?

1 2

Share on Facebook

Believer

#413771 Mon, 03 Sep 07 09:38 PM

Please tell me which conditional this is.

If you've had a cold for a month, you should go see a doctor.

Believer

Joined on Mon, Jan 2 2006

Contributing Member (1,968)

Conditionals

Kooyeen

#413787 Mon, 03 Sep 07 10:19 PM

Hi,
I don't know. Why do you need to know? Maybe zero conditional, or first conditional, it depends on the context, and I think it's not important at all. I mean, that sentence is ok, so why bother? Wink [;)]

Kooyeen

Joined on Thu, Dec 22 2005

Italy

Senior Member (3,798)

Parental Advisory - Explicit Posts

Conditionals

Maple

#413794 Mon, 03 Sep 07 10:31 PM

Hi, you two, I find this sentence interesting. Such ideas should be very common, but frustingly I don't know how to construct those sentences. (Not the first time I find I have no real idea about subjunctive and condition(s) at all.)

So could I add a question related to it? (Sorry, Believer, for this disturbing.)

Which one(s) is/are correct? (I googled, but got no great clues)

(1) Contact a doctor if you have a sore throat for a week.

(2) Contact a doctor if you have had a sore throat for a week.

(3) You should have contacted a doctor if you had had a sore throat for a week.

(4) You should have contacted a doctor if you have had a sore throat for a week.

(5) You should contact a doctor if you have had a sore throat for a week.

(6) You should contact a doctor if you had had a sore throat for a week.

Thanks for your comments!

Maple

Joined on Tue, Jul 11 2006

An ESL student in China

Contributing Member (1,110)

Conditionals, Subjunctives

Kooyeen

#413812 Mon, 03 Sep 07 11:22 PM

Hi Maple,
I'll tell you what I think:

(1) Contact a doctor if you have a sore throat for a week. <--- Ok. If you have a sore throat for a week... it that happens... then contact a doctor. I'm telling you so in case it happens... if it happens, contact your doctor.

(2) Contact a doctor if you have had a sore throat for a week. <---- Ok. If you've had a sore throat for a week... if it has happened and you are now in this situation... then contact a doctor. I'm telling you so in case you are now in that situation, and you've had a sore throat for a week.

(3) You should have contacted a doctor if you had had a sore throat for a week. <--- Ok. You didn't have a sore throat for a week. But if you had had it, you should have contacted a doctor.

(4) You should have contacted a doctor if you have had a sore throat for a week. <--- this is strange, but possible in certain contexts. One context could be: If you have had a sore throat for a week, then you should have contacted a doctor before a whole week had passed! - Or something like that.

(5) You should contact a doctor if you have had a sore throat for a week. <--- ok, like #2, but the advice is less strong because of that "should"

6) You should contact a doctor if you had had a sore throat for a week. <--- No, this doesn't sound right to me.

That's all Smile [:)]

Kooyeen

Conditionals

Maple

#413822 Tue, 04 Sep 07 12:08 AM

Hi, Kooyeen

Thanks for your response first. Coffee [C]

Secondly I'd like to let you know I'm glad that we share a similar feeling for these sentences. Cheers!

But, one notable phenomenon is the google stuff: too rare hits of "if you have had a sore throat for" and "if you had had a sore throat for". And approximate hits you'll get, if you change "a sore throat" into "a cold". And you'll get unreasonably - from my subjective feeling- much more hits when you delete for. How to explain?

Maple

Conditionals

MrPedantic

#413824 Tue, 04 Sep 07 12:21 AM

Believer wrote:

Please tell me which conditional this is.

If you've had a cold for a month, you should go see a doctor.

Type 0: If you heat ice, it melts.
Type 1: If you heat that piece of ice, it will melt.
Type 2: If you were to heat that piece of ice, it would melt.
Type 3: If you had heated that piece of ice, it would have melted.

In each of these statements, the action in the first clause is presented as the condition of the action in the second clause.

But your example belongs in a different context:

1. "I've had this cold for a month." "If you've had a cold for a month, you should go see a doctor."

Here, the first clause ("If you've had...") presents something that is already accepted as true: "if" is almost equivalent to "since".

This is a very common kind of if-statement, and can occur in many different forms.

Would it help you to try some more examples?

MrP

MrPedantic

Joined on Tue, Oct 12 2004

Veteran Member (11,931)

...opella forensis / adducit febris...

Clauses, Conditionals

Ant_222

#413833 Tue, 04 Sep 07 12:33 AM

Hi all!

Kooyeen:

Are you sure this is possible?
1. Contact a doctor if you have a sore throat for a week.

It doesn't seem good to me because it's incorrect to say: "We are friends for two years". Instead, Present Perfcect should be used: "We have been friends fr two years". What do you think?

EDIT: OK, sorry for bothering, I got it.

Maple: «...one notable phenomenon...»

I see nothing strange with it: in most cases people just don't mention the time period for which they were ill, hence the lack of "for".

Ant_222

Joined on Sun, May 21 2006

Podolsk, Russia

Contributing Member (1,520)

Conditionals

Believer

#413864 Tue, 04 Sep 07 02:40 AM

Thank you, Mr. Pedantic.

I think I could change the original sentence into the Type 2 Conditional if I do this:

If you had a cold for a month, you should go see a doctor.

Now, it seems to be clear to me that we are not talking about the underlined part being something that was accepted as true but rather, talking about a present-situation hypothetical.

To think that by adding 'have' in the if-structure, it will somehow fortunately turn into something to the effect of being already accepted as true rather than a normal condition to be met sounds too good to be true.

Does this say that since (or its equivalent) I had 200,000 won for a month and I should go out and buy a brand new watch?

If you have had 200,000 won for a month, you should go out and buy a brand new watch.

In all due respect, like I said before, it sounds too good to take it as true.

Believer

Conditionals

MrPedantic

#414308 Wed, 05 Sep 07 01:31 AM

Hello Believer,

I can see now that I missed an ambiguity in your example:

1. If you've had a cold for a month, you should go and see a doctor.

— in the context of "general advice", this is a variant on the type 1 conditional. The present perfect replaces the simple present; "should" replaces "will".

2. "I've had a cold for a month." "If you've had a cold for a month, you should go and see a doctor."

— as in my previous post, here, "if" is very close to "since"; the speaker accepts the fact expressed in the if-clause.

Your later sentence isn't quite idiomatic, as it stands; but you could rephrase it as:

3. If you have won £200,000 in the last month, you should go out and buy a new watch.

Again, this could be regarded as general advice, and therefore a variant on the type 1 conditional, as in #1 above; or it could be a similar case to #2, where "if" is very close to "since":

4. "I've won £200,000 at the races, in the last month." "If you've won £200,000 in the last month, you should go out and buy a new watch."

The difference between #1/#3 and #2/#4 is one of focus. In #1 and #3, the speaker expresses an implication; in #2 and #4, the speaker expresses an inference.

Would it help if I gave you some more examples?

MrP

MrPedantic

Clauses, Conditionals, Difference between, Present perfect, Simple present

1 2

RSS Feed: ESL General English Grammar Questions