ESL General English Grammar Questions

Re: In case

just the truth — Tue, 18 Jan 2005 02:58:25 GMT

What's this ?

Whitney Houston: I Will Always Love You

If I should stay, I would only be in your way.
So I'll go but I know I'll think of you
Every step of the way.

Re: In case

just the truth — Tue, 18 Jan 2005 02:54:27 GMT

BBC English says
if you should… / if you happen to…
Note that we use should in the if-clause in the first conditional if we want to suggest that something is very unlikely. We can use happen to in a similar way or even combine them:
If you should / happen to change your mind about coming to the beach tomorrow, give me a ring.
I don't expect him to, but if he should happen to show up, whatever you do, don't let him in!

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

JT: I, like Mr P, am puzzled by the BBC's contention, especially given their example sentence. There are differences between BrE and AmE but I find it very difficult to believe that BrE and AmE could be so far apart on such a substantive part [modal ] of English.

I don't expect him to, but if he should happen to show up, whatever you do, don't let him in!

The first part, "I don't expect him to", and the second part, " but if he should happen to show up" are not equal measures of each other. To my mind, they are, at the least, strong contrasts, if not virtual opposites. This is illustrated by the 'but'.

Paraphrased: I think it unlikely he will show up BUT in the event that he does show up, then ...

Here I agree with Mr P that "should happen" or even a "should show up" do not express any measure of certainty. Possibly, it's a slightly softened, maybe a concessive but it basically says nothing more than "if he shows up, ...".

Mr P's example is, to my mind, more of a concessive should, like a concessive may or might, in

Be that as it may/might, we still have to consider that ...

A: Don't worry, he'll be there. I guarantee it.

B: [But] If he should decide to cancel his appointment, break both his legs.'

I will also suggest that the "unlikely should" could reflect a negative should. A negative implication of could be viewed as a positive which would be a reflection of small chance, ie. "something that is unlikely to occur, might occur; something that is unlikely to be so, might be so. It only depends on the speaker's frame of reference.

I still find it difficult to accept a positive ever being viewed as "unlikely". That's the problem I have with "man ga ichi ni".

Is it a bad translation? I mean, "bad" in the sense of inaccurate or is there some idiom being used in Japanese that I'm missing that renders the translation accurate?

Re: In case

MrPedantic — Tue, 18 Jan 2005 00:55:33 GMT

I'm slightly puzzled by the BBC recommendation. The 'unlikely should' is usually accompanied by a stress, in BrE: 'if he should decide to cancel his appointment, break both his legs.'

But unstressed, neutral 'should' is also heard: 'if he should decide to cancel his appointment, let me know'. (Here, the cancellation is neither likely nor unlikely.)

I would say this form is more common in the speech of 'people at work', in BrE: middle managers, civil servants, doctors, professors of archaeology, etc. I wouldn't say it was 'weekend' English. 'At the weekend', I think people would be most likely to say: 'if it rains, the match will have to be postponed'.

MrP

Re: In case

Taka — Mon, 17 Jan 2005 11:55:01 GMT

FYI:

http://www.usingenglish.com/poll/320.html

Re: In case

paco2004 — Mon, 17 Jan 2005 11:30:27 GMT

Hello JTT

Yes I agree to the opinion there might be some word play (exaggeration) in the Japanese expression man ga ichi ni(= at (in?) a likelihood of 1/10,000). I think this phrase would actually mean "at a likelihood up to 1/10". However, I believe it shoud be true that almost all the English learners my age in Japan were taught in school that, when we encountered with the 'should conditional' in English articles, we had to translate it using the Japanese phrase 'man ga ichi ni' rather than taking it as a socially formal expression.

To tell the truth I was so surprised when I read Mr.Micawber's message that Ps(R) [the likelihood that is meant by "should conditional"] is not so different from Pi(R) [the likelihood the indicative if clause means]. First I doubted if I would have been too poor a learner of English in school and so I posted in a Japanese forum for English learners the information I got here. Most of the responses in the forum were almost the same as mine. Many of the colleagues in the form gave me replies that they were also taught that "if it should" were equal to "if it should happen by a chance of 1/10000" and they said they also first knew the reason why Americans use in their business letters such sentences like "If you should have any concerns about us, please feel free to contact us."

I think our troubles of this kind come from that our English teachers in school are teaching English to us without knowing which expression belongs to AmE and which one does to BrE.

paco

[PS] I'm afraid you would not be able to understand what I really mean because my poor writing skill is so poor.

Re: In case

just the truth — Mon, 17 Jan 2005 10:46:44 GMT

JT: Might I enquire, Mr M, who it is you agree with?

AHD:

those beginning with if, can be tricky. In certain clauses, you use should for all three persons: if I (or you or he) should decide to go, if it should begin to snow.

Would is not acceptable in these situations, but it does appear in other kinds of conditional clauses: He might surprise you if you would give him a chance.

JT: I submit that is not acceptable because means 100% so that meaning simply has never arisen in English. It's excluded because of meaning, not any grammatical considerations. When we use , we have a conditional, a volitional meaning "would be willing to".

AHD: The best advice is to follow what sounds most natural. If you’re really not sure, try a verb form in the indicative: if it begins to snow. You can also try the subjunctive: if you were to give him a chance.

BBC English says
if you should… / if you happen to…
Note that we use should in the if-clause in the first conditional if we want to suggest that something is very unlikely.

JT: I disagree, at least that it always means, "something is very unlikely".

1) Oh, are you going to the bar? If you should run into Bob, tell him to call me.

My expectation is that Bob is often there, at the bar, and given that the bar is hardly stadium sized, "you" are going to see him. Here it must mean, "very likely or at the least likely".

It's a slightly weakend version of,

"If you run into Bob, ... ."

The AHD allows for a "if it begins to snow" to replace, "if it should begin to snow". They [and I] seem to agree that the difference is not great, certainly not as great as that suggested by the BBC English remark. More pondering is needed!

Now, I'm not saying that it can't mean "something is very unlikely". I just ran into another example that has caused me, not a little consternation but its locale eludes me at the moment.

Re: In case

just the truth — Mon, 17 Jan 2005 09:58:30 GMT

If you should be interested in my proposal, please contact me.

JT: I discussed this with a Japanese colleague, Paco, and the impression I'm left with is, translation is a bad way to learn a language. Is this not more of an idiom than a literal, one in 10,000 meaning?

This is a social but arguably there is a connection to level of certainty, to its meaning that matches . The speaker, instead of saying, with 100% certainty

You are interested in my proposal so contact me. ,

softens it by allowing that it isn't a 100% certainty the proposal will be accepted. Its level is reduced to the should/probably level of certainty, somwhere above 50%. The speaker could feel, in actual fact, that this person would be an idiot to refuse such a proposal; all the does is soften the offering.

If you should need my help, please let me know

JT: With this too, arguments could be made about what it actually means but since context can make a difference, suffice it to say, [I think] that we can state that it's more polite than,

If you need my help, please let me know.

Re: In case

Mister Micawber — Mon, 17 Jan 2005 09:47:54 GMT

Yes, I agree.

And yes, Paco, yours is an interesting quote:

BBC English says
if you should… / if you happen to…
Note that we use should in the if-clause in the first conditional if we want to suggest that something is very unlikely.

BrE may indeed see it quite differently.

Re: In case

just the truth — Mon, 17 Jan 2005 09:30:33 GMT

Would you please tell us now the difference between 2) and 3) , then 3) and 4) ?

(2) If that kind of tsunami should come to Japan tomorrow, Tokyo will be devastated.
(3) If that kind of tsunami should come to Japan tomorrow, Tokyo would be devastated.
(4) If that kind of tsunami were to come to Japan tomorrow, Tokyo would be devastated.

Is the probability of a tsunami in Japan becoming greater when you move from 4) to 1) ?

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

Hi Hela,

I believe, strongly, that your confusion lies in how conditionals are taught. Everyone seems to be operating from the perspective, mistaken though it is, that grammar determines what people want to say. It's the reverse; people decide what they want to say and then choose the appropriate grammar to express their feelings.

That these mixed conditionals exist and are used, frequently, shows how poorly this Concord of Tenses "rule" is at describing how English works. View this as a scale;

Reality/possibility side ------------------*****-------------------Non-reality/impossible side

present tense form used --------------mixes can occur---------------- past tense form used

Whether I [or any other speaker] choose 2, 3 or 4, or even,

(1) If that kind of tsunami comes to Japan tomorrow, Tokyo will/would be devastated.

doesn't depend on the actual fact situation relating to the probability of a tsunami coming to Japan. Most people, me included, are not that well informed on such topics.

Choosing a present tense FORM style reflects only that that particular speaker VIEWS the chance as greater, more of a realism. Again, this must be emphasized, it does not change the factual basis, it merely reflects a personal opinion, perhaps influenced by fears engendered by what happened recently.

Did you read the portion where I compared, "If I die tomorrow" versus "If I died tomorrow". Same thing. The actual chance is there for us all. For some the distance, if you will, on a scale between dying or not dying is much smaller, with the result that the choice of a present tense FORM versus a past tense FORM is more an either/or than a remote and distant possibility.

A pessimist may even announce and be fully grammmatical and correct,

"If I die tomorrow, I will/would ..."

even though there is nothing that would lead anyone to believe such a thing could happen or will happen.

Choosing certain structures is very often a reflection of our feelings; it should not be viewed as a reflection of the actual facts.

Re: In case

paco2004 — Sun, 16 Jan 2005 09:24:06 GMT

Hello JTT

And am I clear in my understanding that was/still is equated with "...a likelihood of one per ten million" in the minds of Japanese students?

Sorry I made a mistake. It's not one per million but one per ten thousans. I tentatively input in Google two key words : Japnese "???(man ga ichi)" and English "should". Then I got more than 900 Japanese sites for English grammar learning. Below given are two examples of them.

Here ??? means one per ten thousands.

Site1 1
If you should be interested in my proposal, please contact me.
(???????????????????????????????)
????????????????????????

Site 2
If S+should+V= ????~????
????????????????????
Ex) If you should need my help, please let me know.

paco

Re: In case

paco2004 — Sun, 16 Jan 2005 09:15:34 GMT
Hello Mr M
I found an article as below given in the BBC English site. It says "If S should V" is a very unlikely conditional but The Heritage Grammar site suggests "If S should V" and "If S Vs" are not so different. The Heritage Grammar site suggests "If S should V" and "If S Vs" are not so different. So I guess there would be some difference between AmE and BrE regarding how to take the "should conditional."

BBC English says
if you should… / if you happen to…
Note that we use should in the if-clause in the first conditional if we want to suggest that something is very unlikely. We can use happen to in a similar way or even combine them:
If you should / happen to change your mind about coming to the beach tomorrow, give me a ring.
I don't expect him to, but if he should happen to show up, whatever you do, don't let him in!

But American Heritage Book of English Usage says
57. should
those beginning with if, can be tricky. In certain clauses, you use should for all three persons: if I (or you or he) should decide to go, if it should begin to snow. Would is not acceptable in these situations, but it does appear in other kinds of conditional clauses: He might surprise you if you would give him a chance. The best advice is to follow what sounds most natural. If you’re really not sure, try a verb form in the indicative: if it begins to snow. You can also try the subjunctive: if you were to give him a chance.

paco

Re: In case

Hela — Sun, 16 Jan 2005 08:46:14 GMT
Dear JTT,

Would you please tell us now the difference between 2) and 3) , then 3) and 4) ?

(2) If that kind of tsunami should come to Japan tomorrow, Tokyo will be devastated.
(3) If that kind of tsunami should come to Japan tomorrow, Tokyo would be devastated.
(4) If that kind of tsunami were to come to Japan tomorrow, Tokyo would be devastated.

Is the probability of a tsunami in Japan becoming greater when you move from 4) to 1) ?

Thank you for your answers,
Hela

Re: In case

just the truth — Sun, 16 Jan 2005 08:11:08 GMT
Paco: And I was told in school we had to translate the "should" conditional sentence into Japanese using the phrase man ga ichi ni. I was given a wrong instruction by our stubborn prescriptive teachers, maybe.

JT: Is this really what you were taught, Paco?

[expressing greater shock] Is this really what you have been taught, Paco?

And am I clear in my understanding that was/still is equated with "...a likelihood of one per ten million" in the minds of Japanese students?

Re: In case

just the truth — Sun, 16 Jan 2005 08:03:06 GMT
I'm afraid the previous example would be inadequate in the context to contrast the four constructs.

(1) If that kind of tsunami comes to Japan tomorrow, Tokyo will be devastated.
(2) If that kind of tsunami should come to Japan tomorrow, Tokyo will be devastated.
(3) If that kind of tsunami should come to Japan tomorrow, Tokyo would be devastated.
(4) If that kind of tsunami were to come to Japan tomorrow, Tokyo would be devastated.

Are they still no different in meaning even in this context? Which would sound most natural among the four when you hear them?

JT: I believe that in some contexts equates to and in such cases, it has a level of certainty meaning, an epistemic modal meaning. This equates to better than a fifty-fifty chance.

In other situations, it simply means "if something happens to be/occur". In these situations, I suggest that it is more like a social modal, making a contention in a softened manner.

We can ascribe percentages on modals of certainty in a fairly accurate fashion but the boundaries are a bit fuzzy.

Regarding,

(1) If that kind of tsunami comes to Japan tomorrow, Tokyo will be devastated.

(4) If that kind of tsunami were to come to Japan tomorrow, Tokyo would be devastated.

The difference, the speaker choice between these two types of structures is often simply a matter of personal choice; how the person wants to view the potentiality. "that kind of tsunami" coming to Japan is highly probable. Folks who choose 4 just want to view it as something farther down the continuum of improbable to impossible. Folks who choose 1 are allowing that that realism is there.

This is similar to someone saying,

If I die tomorrow versus If I died tomorrow.

For Mr M and others esconced in a safe and warm environment, the latter would be the more natural choice. Soldiers in, or citizens of Iraq might well choose the former. Choosing between a factual or counterfactual conditional is represented more accurately by a continuum. Conditionals, and what they express about life situations, do not exist in isolation from one another.

Since both factual or counterfactual conditionals can express doubt, it's apparent that it is indeed a continuum that goes from completely counterfactual/impossible to a full conditional reality.

Re: In case

Mister Micawber — Sun, 16 Jan 2005 07:24:43 GMT

Hmm, interesting-- these seem even more identical than the first set, Paco. I think it is because the situation presented is more realistic (are tsunamis more realistic than picnics?)-- well, more immediate to my knowledge and consideration, so that I as listener do not analyze the speaker's grammar at all. I and speaker both have a very high awareness of tsunamis and their probabilities of occurrence at the moment, so language choice is irrelevant. On second reading, (1) shows the same higher expectation that I mentioned with the previous set.

Other threads have discussed moods and tenses, subjunctives and conditionals, probable and possible futures, so we needn't do that all over here-- 'will' vs 'would', etc. At English Forums, we enjoy deconstructing language, but the truth of the matter-- as we see by the grammatical arguments that rage and the range of a-grammatical examples that Google disgorges-- the truth of the matter is that much of English grammar is arbitrary, and has less to do with communication than we would like to think.

What would sound natural to me? 'If that kind of tsunami came to Japan tomorrow, Tokyo would be devastated.'