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

Re: rather than/instead of

Clive — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:21:40 GMT

Hi again,

Can I use 'would rather... than' instead of 'rather than' here? For example,

"He would rather leave than cause trouble." This is correct grammar. However, it discusses a conditional/hypothetical situation.
eg If someone Tom didn't like came in, he (Tom) would rather leave than cause trouble.

Does the sentence mean the same as

"Rather than cause trouble, he left." This discusses an actual past event.

Clive

Re: CORRECT CONDITIONAL?

latam — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 04:08:21 GMT

"I think Mr. Wordy used/wrote this sentence in one his answering posts." Is this sentence ok because I think this would be like this "I think Mr. Wordy used/wrote this sentence in one (of) his answering posts." I am not expert in grammar. I would like to know am I right or wrong?

Thanks

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: 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: we could hear if anyone came along the trail.

CalifJim — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 07:55:03 GMT

New2grammar
The fire was raging toward us. Fortunately, there was a river separating us from it. It would have had to jumped across the river to get to us. "Would have" (Third conditional) suggests the fire didn't get to us. ... What do you think?

I'm not sure what you would like me to comment on, so I'll offer some random remarks that may or may not touch on your concerns.

Note, in particular, the so ... that ... structure in the original (It was so quiet that ... ) is a complicating factor.

Secondly, the semi-modal have to in your newest example (It would have had to ...) is another complicating factor.

Lastly, your sentence with would have isn't a very clear-cut case of a third conditional. There's no if-clause. Perhaps the conditional idea can be made explicit thus, however:

If the fire had got to us, it would have had to do so by jumping across the river.

Or did you mean to focus on this one?

If the fire had jumped across the river, it would have got to us.

Do you see how ambiguous things can get?

This third conditional certainly suggests the fire didn't get to us. But it seems to me that you are adding the claim that the same sentence implies that the fire could never have gotten to us, even after the time referred to in the sentence. This is incorrect. The third conditional sets up a past point of view. It states something true of some past moment in time, with no implications for what happened after that past moment.

Uttered at 6 pm focusing on the state of the world at 3 pm: If the fire had jumped across the river (before 3pm), it would have got to us (by 3 pm).

This says that the fire hadn't jumped across the river by 3 pm. But note that nothing is said about the time after 3 pm, and it is now 6 pm. Three hours are still unaccounted for, not to mention the infinity of future time after 6 pm. It is not inconsistent, therefore, to add this (also at 6 pm):

But fire fighters built a temporary bridge across the river to help them fight the fire. The bridge itself caught fire at 4pm, and the fire jumped across the river by means of this bridge, endangering all of us on our side of the river as well (by 5 pm).

________

To relate this to a previous example:

It was so quiet that if someone had come along the trail, we would/could have heard them.

At the time of the quiet referred to here, no one had yet come along the trail. That's the counterfactual part. But it's also the least important part of this particular sentence. The implication is that, continuing through time after the description of the quiet, the same relationship continued in effect between the possibility of someone coming along the trail and our being able to hear this coming along the trail. The statement does not imply that no one ever came along the trail after the point in time when things were so quiet. Nor does it imply that someone did come along the trail, either.

Real Condition in the past

Lcchang — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 16:10:30 GMT

"Real condition in the past" is rarely discussed in grammar books. I just happened to find one book that mentioned a bit of it. Here is the sentence given in the book.

If they were waiting for a counteroffer, they were wise.

Looking at the sentence, I am not sure what exactly the structure of such conditional sentence should be like. Can someone help? Thanks.

Re: type 2 or 3

CalifJim — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 22:00:29 GMT

New2grammar
Lawyer: What would happen to you if you wouldn't dance in this room?

Child: I wouldn't get fed and Booger Red would hang me.

1. Is the use of would hypothetical (Type 2 Conditional) in the lawyer's question?

No, nor is it hypothetical in the child's response -- or perhaps it's semi-hypothetical. The situation suggests that the refusal to dance and its consequences actually happened. if is thus nearly equivalent to when in this context.

Here you have four cases of the will / would "of habit". The second case of would (wouldn't dance) also doubles as the will not / would not "of refusal".

What would happen ... ? = What [usually / normally / habitually / always] happened ... ?

if you wouldn't dance = if you would refuse to dance = if you refused (on any given occasion) to dance

I wouldn't get fed = I was not fed (on those occasions of refusal)

would hang ... as above

All of these are cases of would as the past of will. Here are the same patterns with will.

What will happen if you won't dance? I won't get fed and B.R. will hang me.

Re: If I had listened to you

Huevos — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 13:57:21 GMT

New2grammar
Oh no. I didn't buy a lottery ticket (?? This means any ticket of any lottery. How to be specific to the lottery his friend advised)

You could say "Oh no. I didn't buy that lottery ticket".

New2grammar
Why is there a condition? "supposing that the numbers had been selected before the draw"

The winning number was drawn, say, yesterday, and matched the number his friend advised him to buy

The condition is that the if clause may be fulfilled. In your sentences it is already impossible to fulfil the if clause making the sentences purely hypothesis. This is known as a type III conditional and is formed thus: if + past perfect + would + have + past participle. A conditional formed with if + simple past is known as a type II conditional and is used where it is still possible to fulfil the if clause however unlikely that may be.

Re: sentence questions

CalifJim — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 02:50:05 GMT

New2grammar
What's the ~~different~~ difference between the original and if the FTA WERE ratified, it would create jobs in Korea and the U.S.and give consumers in both countries more choices?

No difference in meaning. Our native speaker brains can be quite impervious to such differences.

New2grammar
For some reason this special mixed conditional doesn't always work, for example

If I'm rich, I would donate a million to CJ (To me, this is very wrong!)

There is always more trouble with the verb to be in conditional structures, in my opinion, so yes, it is very wrong.

Re: sentence questions

Marius Hancu — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 01:40:57 GMT

See these links on conditionals:

http://www.englishpage.com/conditional/mixedconditional.html
http://www.englishclub.com/grammar/verbs-conditional_3.htm