In Conditionals^x, Subjunctives^x, Simple past^x

Yes. Your backshift interpretation seems right to me. But I don't see this as necessarily subjunctive. It comes off as a sort of borderline case to my ear.CJ PS. ... would have baked you a cake is the usual expression!

Interesting! You never taught me those conditionals! Does that mean that in English (like in Italian), it is possible to use the simple past instead of the subjunctive formed with the past perfect, in informal and casual English? The only example I know it's kind of common is substituting...

MrPedantic wrote: I see what you mean; but I think the distinction between type I and type II conditionals disappears, once the statement is reported. In effect, everything becomes "detached", i.e. "remote".Your insight is amazingly deep, MrP! If anything, in my opinion, the reason why it...

This situation is a little different than your type III conditional formula is intended for. The speaker is not in Ian's position, so the phrase is a "condition contrary to fact". In that situation a formal speaker or writer would use the subjunctive mood of the verb rather than indicative or...

Loojka wrote:Both can be correct, depending on what you're trying to say.I would give anything that she 'asked' me to. - I would give anything that she wanted me to.I would give anything if she asked me to. (condition emphasized) I would not give anything, unless she asked me to.This explanation...

Hi Bokeh, 1. Imperfect subjunctive is OK with me if you want to use that term. Indefinite preterite is fine, too. Whatever the terminology, it seems to me that the question was whether saw in that sentence was acceptable to a traditionalist. 2. If I understand you correctly, you are...

Let's go back to the original sentence: 1. He thought his mother would understand why he was living in Japan only if she saw his life there with her own eyes. If we take this as a literal report, there are two possible "originals": 2. "My mother will understand why I am living in Japan...

Bokeh wrote:I think you are misunderstanding my post. The sentence is obviously subjunctive... but what I was attempting to point out was using the simple past "saw" rather than the imperfect subjunctive "were to see" is wrong when used in conjunction with the conditional. This obvious error has...

Goodman wrote:Hi Bokeh, Becasue of your reply, it made me take a second look at the original question.I think you are misunderstanding my post. The sentence is obviously subjunctive... but what I was attempting to point out was using the simple past "saw" rather than the imperfect subjunctive...

Hi Bokeh, Becasue of your reply, it made me take a second look at the original question. I also did some research and found this paper written on the subject of Semantic Composition of Subjunctive Conditionals by Michela Ippolito of MIT/Tübingen University. I am not completely sure if I...