Search results for 'tag:Clauses tag:Conditionals' matching tags 'Clauses' and 'Conditionals'

Re: CONDITIONAL?

Anonymous — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 00:05:42 GMT

Thank you. Can we have a future tense like 'will' in the if-clause in a conditional sentence? I don't remember seeing anything like that in the online reference sources.

Re: CORRECT CONDITIONAL?

CalifJim — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 03:15:40 GMT

Please tell me if these are correct conditionals.

1. If you intend to use this activity more than once, it would be worth laminating the pages. OK.
Why not?
If you intended to use this activity more than once, it would be worth laminating the pages Also possible, but there doesn't seem to be a reason to make the condition "unreal".
or
If you intend to use this activity more than once, it can/could/will be worth laminating the pages. I would use would or could or might, not can or will.

2. I think Mr. Wordy used/wrote this sentence in one his answering posts.
If he did that, he will be arrested. Hard to say. Without context it seems strange.

Why not?
If he did that, he would be arrested. This seems OK, though it also has no context.

3. CalifJim used/wrote this sentence in one of this answering posts.

If for any reason you [cannot / could not] get the ~~above~~ steps above to work, you can view the delivered(?) examples. OK. cannot for the present; could not for the past.

Why not?
If for any reason you could not get the ~~above~~ steps above to work, you would be able to view the delivered(?) examples. -- second conditional? Possible, but not as good as the first. Difficult to contextualize.
or
If for any reason you cannot get the ~~above~~ steps above to work, you will be able to view the delivered(?) examples. -- first conditional? Possible.

_______

In the typical first, second, and third conditional, the action in the main clause comes to occur because the condition in the if clause occurs. (If I don't get started soon, I will be late. Not starting soon will cause me to be late.) But in cases like some of those above, the causal relationship is not present, so the verb tenses do not necessarily follow the patterns in the first, second, and third conditionals. The examples illustrated below represent real conditions, not unreal conditions. Note that in each case, the if clause of the original is equivalent to asking a question; the main clause amounts to making a suggestion based on the answer to that question.

-- Do you intend to use this activity more than once?

-- Yes.

-- Then you [should / ought to] laminate the pages. = Then it would be [advisable to laminate / worth laminating] the pages.

____________

-- Are you able to get the steps above to work?

-- No. I can't get them to work.

-- Then I suggest that you view the examples. ~ (To help yourself) You can view the examples.

___

-- Were you able to get the steps above to work?

-- No. I could not get them to work.

-- Then I suggest that you view the examples. ~ (To help yourself) You can view the examples.

Re: If your son is/was alive

CalifJim — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 02:07:38 GMT

New2grammar
If your son is/~~was~~ alive, why do you think he's not coming back?

... your son is ... do you think ...

Or If your son was alive, why did you think he wasn't coming back?

I don't see a need to make it unreal. The fact that the main clause is a question makes this pattern less than a true conditional statement.

Re: should have done

Marius Hancu — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 13:43:59 GMT

If you want to put more doubt on him doing that you could also say:

(This is present/future, not past.)

In my opinion, should he do that kind of thing, he will meet so and so consequences.

which could considered in BrE to be coloured-future (i.e. something colored by your emotions/opinions, see:

SHALL AND WILL

Rule 2. The Coloured-Future System

http://www.bartleby.com/116/213.html#2

This part in Fowler is the absolute authority on traditional/prescriptive should in BrE usage, as I understand, but it's not easy to read, but I've found it of great help when reading classical English novels.

BTW, as you see, there's no if in this version, thus should can be used in that clause in standard speech, with the inversion causing the conditional meaning.

This version may be more BrE than AmE.

Re: If you haven't .... I woud

CalifJim — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:01:18 GMT

Anonymous
I hope you've seen it, but if you haven't, I want to run it for you tomorrow.

I think the above two are a type 3 conditional.

No. Type 3 has "If ... had ..., ... would have ...".

... if you haven't, I want to run it for you tomorrow is a modified Type 1 -- modified because the if clause has a present perfect instead of the usual present.

Re: If you haven't .... I woud

Liveinjapan — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 08:31:41 GMT

CalifJim
Doesn't it bother you that a present perfect tense in an if clause is used with would?
Isn't the past usually used with would in that case?
It is unusual.

Thanks, CJ. I understand would love = want to.

You pointed what I'm stuck with.
I think the sentence is technically not a conditional, because Steve is going to run the ad here whether the audience has seen it or not. Actually he does, I've seen it on iTunes.

I remember that my grammar book says similar cases:
"I'm going to get a beer if you want some" and "I'll get a beer if you want some" are a bit different in meanig.
The former indicates the speaker is going to get a beer whether the listener wants some or not, while the latter indicates it's up to the listener that the speaker will get a beer.

Whew! What do you think?

Re: If you haven't .... I woud

Anonymous — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 07:41:31 GMT

Hi,

You used this sentence in your answering post:

I hope you've seen it, but if you haven't, I'd love to run it for you now. ~

I think we can have the ''would' in the main clause to indicate the future event like this.

I hope you've seen it, but if you haven't, I'd love to run it for you tomorrow

would this translate to this too?

I hope you've seen it, but if you haven't, I want to run it for you tomorrow.

I think the above two are a type 3 conditional.

Re: If you haven't .... I woud

Anonymous — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 07:26:32 GMT

Hi,

What is the difference?

I hope you've seen it, but if you hadn't (haven't), I'd love to run it for you now.

I think the 'hadn't' version is a type 2 conditional (unreal). To me, using a present tense in the if-clause is new. How does it work?

Is this good?
If you have money, I would love to borrow some from you.

Re: real or unreal

Anonymous — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 01:33:41 GMT

Thank you.

You wrote:

If the preposition is in the middle of the sentence, [the pronoun] 'whom' would be necessary.

To me using the word "seem" in a "would" clause seems very peculiar. Omiting the word "would" from the "would" clause also seems peculiar.

To me, having a 'would' in a conditional sentence would stand out as 'wrong'. We only seem to use 'would' in a second conditional and rarely in a first conditional of the case involving mutual reciprocity like here.

If you would give me a pencil, I would give you a pen.
If you happened to give me a pencil, I would give you a pen.

real or unreal

Anonymous — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 06:45:14 GMT

Hi,

If you have an if-clause like the one below, does it have to be unreal and not real or some-extent doubtful?

I used/wrote this sentence to ask a question:
If the preposition was in the middle of the sentence, 'whom' seemed to be needed.

I used this sentence as sort of the reverse of the first conditional. Did I do right?

If the preposition is in the middle of the sentence, 'whom' seems to be needed.

This wasn't the focus of my inquiry though. I think this is an age-old? question but as I said at the start "If you have an if-clause like the one below, does it have to be unreal and not real or some-extent doubtful?"
If the preposition was in the middle of the sentence, 'whom' seemed to be needed.

How about this? Should a person writing a conditional sentence know how probable the 'if'?? factor?? is?

If he was in the park, he would be playing tennis. -- Oh, well, on a second thought, it would be hard to make a conditional sentence like this without setting up an unreal context and this should have 'were' instead of 'was'. Can you think of a situation where 'was' would prevail -- while maintaining the similar structure?