In Idioms^x, Conditionals^x

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...

.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?-- YesYou wrote this as an introducing part (if that is phrased right) to the examples: I think they are...

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...

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.

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 CJ

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...

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...

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'.

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...

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...