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

Re: same conditional?

CalifJim — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 17:24:58 GMT

I don't really know exactly why I said "wrong" in one place and "awkward" in another!

Your question in the other thread seemed to focus on mixed conditionals, and I didn't want to leave you with the impression that all mixed conditionals are wrong. Maybe that's why I said "awkward". Here's a better example:

If you had paid attention in Japanese class when you were in college, you would be able to translate for us on our trip to Japan this coming fall.

Perhaps I should revise my opinion on your example below. The problem, I think, is lack of context. This sentence can work in the right context. It's rare for that context to come up, I think, so on first reading it sounds completely wrong as an isolated sentence.

I would be happy if no one had been there.

_______

would like is an entirely different case, because it's an idiom for want. Here the would is not necessarily taken as the would of a conditional pattern, but as a simple present tense. That's why the idiomatic combination would like can go in the if clause.

Take it if you would like to have it = Take it if you want (to have) it.

like, on its own, is somewhat different in meaning from would like.

Take it if you like it. = Take it if it pleases you.

You can use would like with the would of the conditional pattern and like of being pleasing, but that works differently, like this:

If you tried it, you would like it. = If you tried it, it would please you.

Re: Conditional:Auxiliary Commentary Words?

Mister Micawber — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 03:44:18 GMT

.
Thank you. So if the word is specifically referenced to by context, we should use the definite article to indicate specifcity of it like you did with the noun 'power'. Is that right?-- Yes

You wrote this as an introducing part (if that is phrased right) to the examples:
I think they are unaffected, but I think also that the 'would's are incorrect:

I have hard time finding out how to pluralize words like"'would" or 'how are you?"You seemed to have attach an 's' after putting the word "would" in the quotation marks. Is it how it should be done? --Yes. I used single quote marks; double marks are more formally correct.

How about this? I think they are unaffected, but I think also that the "would's" are incorrect-- No

How about these?

I think that the '"do's and don'ts" are inappropriate to the situation.-- Yes. Do's and don'ts is an idiom. (Notice that for clarity we do not use a second apostrophe in "don't's")
I think that the "good morning's" are inappropriate.-- No
I think his "how are you's" are inappropriate. -- No. His "how are you"s are inappropriate. I don't think we need the "?".

Re: functionality of would and could in the present and past

CalifJim — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 07:37:49 GMT

Are they wrong since the modal usages lack the fundamental conditional uses of the modals 'would' and 'could'? Not sure what you're asking. The correct sequence of tenses applies to conditionals as well as to non-conditionals.

1. We are all watching in a sort of stunned silence waiting to see if we would be asked for money or if we are simply his audience.
No conditional element present, thus 'will' is correct? Right? will is correct, but not for the reason that no conditional element is present. will is correct because will goes with are.

2. While I am reading it, I could not help being concerned about young people in this country.
Same here too. No conditional element present, so 'can' is correct? Right or wrong? Same here. can is correct because it goes with the present tense I am.

So, except those modal uses like politeness for 'would', most modal uses of 'would' and 'could' involve conditional nature. Right or wrong? It depends on the text you're reading. You may find a text that uses would or could in non-conditional contexts quite often.

Could you please answer these? -- case of a modal use for politeness. True.

Generally, will and can go with the present tense; would and could go with the past tense. It doesn't matter whether they are used in a conditional pattern or not.

Henry wants to know where he can find a good restaurant. / Henry wanted to know where he could find a good restaurant.

Kate needs a dress that will make her look slim. / Kate wanted a dress that would make her look slim.

If they sign the contract, they can take possession of the car immediately. / If they signed the contract, they could take possession of the car immediately.

If he hurries, he will arrive on time. / If he hurried, he would arrive on time.

_________________

Occasionally would and could go with the present tense, but these should be regarded as special cases. For example, take the idiom would like to:

I would like to buy the coat which is on sale.

The would and could of politeness are also usually combined with the present tense.

Could you please help me move these books which are lying on the floor?

Re: one hand washes the other

New2grammar — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 18:50:56 GMT

CJ. It seems like you don't think they are the same. The first idiom seems to focus on cooperation and accomplishment whereas the second is conditional and no accomplishment is implied.

Re: Follow-up to "Nagging conditional problem"

CalifJim — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 01:35:00 GMT

Anonymous
Are these by Marius correct? I feel they should be since he is a guru but I don't understand how they could be so.

If you happen to have money (with/on you), could/would you lend me some? [this is more about present -- if the if-clause is in present tense, can we use the modals 'could' and 'would'? Does the phrase 'happen to have' make any difference here?

Should you have money (with/on you), could/would you lend me some? ["chancy" should -- To me, 'should' here is functionally equal to "if", so the sentence could be read:

If you have money (with/on you), could/would you lend me some?

They certainly seem correct to me. Perhaps it's the idiom happen to that's bothering you.

If you happen to have money = If, by chance, it turns out that you have money

confused about 'would'

New2grammar — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 08:10:33 GMT

I know 'would' carries many meanings. My problem is sometimes I find it difficult to tell which meaning the speaker uses. I think I understand its hypothetical usage, and in some contexts, its politeness usage. Below is a post that has several woulds I have trouble interpreting. I also copied a post on would by CalifJim for reference.

Your analysis is good. Context will determine if you're using the expression as an excuse to break off what you're doing. If you're calling the people you expect to meet, then you would (1)tell them the truth. You can say, "I'll be about five minutes late," or "I may be a little late." If you're speaking to someone who is about to make you late for an appointment, the expression would(2) mean, "Hey, I'm gonna be late if I don't split right now!" If you just say, "I'm gonna be late," you probably would(3) have already tipped the person off that you would(4) need to end the conversation soon, and as you suggest, you would(5) still expect to be on time if you left immediately.

1) I don't thing politeness is the intended meaning here. To my ear, it carries the meaning of preference.

2) would here means possible? I have zero confidence in this one.

3) it doesn't look like hypothetical usage to me because the if clause is in present tense

4) and 5) should follow the same reasoning for #3, whatever that is.

Please help! Thanks in advance!

CalifJim's explanation on would
Yes. I thought maybe that's what you were referring to.
would in an if clause is possible when the would or the entire if-clause is part of a formula of politeness. if you would be so kind is a typical example of if with would in a "politeness phrase". This formula is equivalent to please. This sort of if-clause does not even have to be classified as a true conditional even though it contains the word if.

The phrase would like as a polite way of saying want, and it too can appear in an if-clause. Note that the idiom would like counts as a present tense for purposes of tense combinations. That is, it may combine with the imperative or the future. The idiom would rather has the same property.

If you would like to have dinner with us tomorrow, please call and let us know before noon.
I'm sure that if he'd like to go with us, he'll tell us. (If he would like to go, he will tell us.)
If you'd rather wait until tomorrow, [just say so / I'll understand].

if-clauses that are part of an indirect question structure are also exempt from the rule about combining if and would:

I wonder if he would object to this procedure.
I don't know if I would agree.
We had not decided if we would go along with the plan.

With the exception of the indirect question structure, which is quite common, these are just a very, very small number of situations where if and would occur in the same clause. The main rule for 99.99% of cases is 'never' to place if and would together!

Re: worse/worst

Yoong Liat — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 20:33:19 GMT

Yankee wrote:
Just to add a little more confusion to this thread, I'd like to mention that I've also heard this idiom used with 'came' (i.e. in a sentence with the same format as a type 2 conditional). I've just never actually heard it used with the subjunctive 'come'.

Just to clear things up.
I don't understand why Kenneth G. Wilson wrote: 'if worst come to worst' as it is grammatically wrong.

Kenneth G. Wilson (1923â). The Columbia Guide to Standard American English. 1993.

if (when) worse (worst) come(s) to worst

Re: worse/worst

Yankee — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 19:19:20 GMT

Just to add a little more confusion to this thread, I'd like to mention that I've also heard this idiom used with 'came' (i.e. in a sentence with the same format as a type 2 conditional). I've just never actually heard it used with the subjunctive 'come'.

Re: If I were to do... / If I had to do...

Marius Hancu — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 12:41:08 GMT

Inchoateknowledge wrote:
Marius Hancu wrote:
Inchoateknowledge wrote:

The modal idiom to be to is used to express requirement, just like to have to

Not in such contexts, IMO, not with "were."

Hi Marius,

why not? Past tense, conditional mood.

IMO, to be to may (i.e. not always) describe requirement/obligation only in the indicative.

In the conditional, it mainly expresses/defines a hypothetical condition or a choice of possibilities. And the sentences in your original posting are in present time, even if they use the past tense.

Re: If I were to do... / If I had to do...

Inchoateknowledge — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 08:15:46 GMT

Inchoateknowledge wrote:
Marius Hancu wrote:
Inchoateknowledge wrote:

The modal idiom to be to is used to express requirement, just like to have to

Not in such contexts, IMO, not with "were."

Hi Marius,

why not? Past tense, conditional mood.

were to is a past tense form of to be to

But I am sure you already knew that.

Tense means verb form. It does not have anything to do with semantics.