Search results for 'tag:Mixed conditionals tag:Conditionals' matching tags 'Mixed conditionals' and 'Conditionals'

Re: until now+ present perfect

Anonymous — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 04:25:17 GMT

Hi,

I think the perfect aspect use of the original example by the original poster is in the similar vein as I think is this mixed conditional use. I think the past perfect part here indicates what is hypothetical in the past, but similar in the overall working/concept. As you said, a present perfect is (can be) used to denote what is no longer true, but the use of past perfect is what is often used.

I would be rolling in the cash stacks had I been more diligent in my studies when I was attending college. -- I think this indicates what you would be like in the present if a past hypothetical situation were made true.

1. I would give you some money had I had some money. -- I think this is very similar in concept to what you were saying about something no longer being true.

We could have written it like this:

2. I would give you some money if I had some money.

But the first version is more clear about his no longer having the money and that being the case for his inability to give any money.

Re: Unreal condition in the past

Anonymous — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 22:24:24 GMT

Thank you so much. I think what I wanted to ask was what the phrase 'back then' will do for a sentence that is supposed to be a mixed condition like this. I think this is the sentence I used.

If he spoke English (back then), he would have gotten the job.

You said as part of your previous response:

And in the mixed conditional, thus:

If John were smart, he would not have made such a stupid remark.

(John is not smart, and never has been smart. That's why he made such a stupid remark.)

If I put the phrase "back then", will it change the whole sentence paradigm (I don't know this is the right word to use)?

If John were smart (back then), he would not have made such a stupid remark.

Re: Unreal condition in the past

CalifJim — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 16:20:41 GMT

Anonymous
Does counterfactual mean contrary to the fact?

Yes, exactly.

Anonymous
Can we assume the word 'hypothetical' as having the same meaning as the term "counterfactual" with a notion of a past event with the "general present"

No. hypothetical means that you are assuming something to be true for the sake of argument. counterfactual means contrary to fact. The contents of an if clause are always hypothetical, but not always counterfactual. The contents of the main clause that goes with the if clause are not hypothetical, but are the conclusion drawn from the hypothesis of the if clause. This conclusion may be counterfactual, however, or predictive.

_____

Normally, the third conditional pattern is the one we associate with counterfactual statments:

If John had held the glass firmly, it would not have fallen to the floor and broken.

(But John did not hold the glass firmly, so it fell to the floor and broke.)

_____

The second conditional pattern is not normally associated with counterfactual statements, but predictions:

If John held the glass firmly, it would not fall and break.

(We don't know if John is going to hold the glass firmly or not. We predict what will occur if he does.)

_____

But were is often counterfactual even in the second conditional pattern:

If John were the president, he would reform the system.

(John is not the president. We predict what would occur if that were otherwise.)

_____

And in the mixed conditional, thus:

If John were smart, he would not have made such a stupid remark.

(John is not smart, and never has been smart. That's why he made such a stupid remark.)

_____

With had been (smart), a third conditional pattern, the if clause creates the sense that an action took place not related to the present at all:

If John had been smart, he would not have made such a stupid remark.

(If John had acted with intelligence on that (past) occasion, he would not have made such a stupid remark.)

(But he did not act with intelligence, so he made that stupid remark.)

_____

I hope that helps.

Re: Unreal condition in the past

Anonymous — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 11:42:01 GMT

Hi,
Would these be considered counfactual (Does counfactual mean contrary to the fact? Can we assume the word 'hypothetical' as having the same meaning as the term "counfactual" with a notion of a past event with the "general present" -- as you have coined (termed?) it? I see two terms used to explain number 2 conditionals and wonder if they have the same general meaning.)?

I believe these are mixed conditionals.

If Sam spoke English, he would have gotten the job.

If I put the phrase "back then," I am uncertain if it still has that "on-going" (to the present) notion.

If Sam spoke English back then, he would have gotten the job.

Re: Unreal condition in the past

Anonymous — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 21:37:03 GMT

Hi,

This is part of what Roger Woodham said when responding to a question. This is from BBC Learning English about mixed conditionals.

Roger Woodham said this in her response to a question:

mixed second / third conditional

The other possibility, though I think this is less common, is when we have a type 2 conditional in the if-clause (if + past simple) followed by a type 3 conditional (would've + past participle) in the main clause.

With this combination, we are describing ongoing circumstances in relation to a previous past event. Consider these examples:

If you weren't such a poor dancer, you would've got a job in the chorus line in that musical.

If you weren't so blind to his faults, you would've realised that he was out to swindle you.

He's old enough to come home by himself, but can you just see him across the busy road?

I am particularly puzzled by the part "describing ongoing circumstances." Should it be for only ongoing circumstances??

Re: Unreal condition in the past

Fandorin — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 21:18:35 GMT

Hi, ravikumarkargam.

It's called Mixed Conditional.

"Would the gov't have taken so much time if JDS and Congress were together,"

If-clause relates to the Second Conditional, so it represents unreal situation in the Present.

The main part of sentence relates to the Third Conditional, so it represents unreal situation in the Past.

Mixed conditional

Zajoman — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 19:29:06 GMT

I've come across what I believe is a mixed conditional. I perfectly understand the meaning, but I'm not 100% sure about the condition.

"If I had gone white water rafting with my friends, I would be floating down the Colorado River right now."

"Had gone" instead of "went" is used here because the "going rafting" happened in the past and is not going to happen concerning this one trip, right? I'm not speculating about a trip that is just to happen, but I'm talking about a trip that is already in place and my "going rafting" just cannot happen since I stayed at work.

I think I get this right, but what about the second part. "Would be floating" instead of "would have been floating" is used here because the "floating down the river" is happening right now? If I were talking about a trip that happened some time ago, would I say: "If I had gone..., I would have floated..."?

Re: all possible uses of WOULD

CalifJim — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 05:28:24 GMT

This question is very difficult. In fact, all questions which ask for a complete list of all possible cases of anything are very difficult. People can give you a list of the usages they can think of, but there's never a guarantee that it's a list of all possibilities. A textbook or even a series of textbooks might be necessary to answer your question. Certainly, a single post on a forum is not likely to answer it.

Questions about would are particularly difficult because it is a function word. It has no real definition in the way that the words table or dog can be defined.

ravikumarkargam
Can I use it in the context of possibility (not quite sure) situations?

You're asking if you can use would in the context of doubt. Yes, you can, as in the first example you give:

It is not known -- that is, it is doubtful -- whether the Fed would now change course ...

You can paraphrase would now change as is now willing to change because would sometimes involves willingness.

It is doubtful whether the Fed is now willing to change course ...

_____

ravikumarkargam
or what form such aid WOULD take.

Here you have a second conditional; the if clause is implicit, thus:

What form would such aid take, if the Fed [were to provide / provided] the capital?

_____

In your second example, a "mixed conditional", it would be might be paraphrased as it may be called or it may be judged to be or it may be considered.

If the Fed intervenes, it [would be / may be judged to be / may be called / may be considered] an eleventh-hour bailout ....

Here the use of would instead of will makes the statement somewhat more remote, almost as if we weren't talking about the bailout directly, but indirectly about how to consider it. The definiteness of will does not seem suitable in this context. The use of will makes it seem that this is a future event, whereas, in fact, it's a situation in the present, looked at from the perspective of what we should call it.

And anyway, it's not so much a question of why would is used instead of will, but a question of why intervenes is used instead of intervened, because another common pattern (second conditional) is

If the Fed intervened, it would be an eleventh-hour bailout ...

But at this point in time, the intervention of the Fed is imminent, so the "unreal" condition if the Fed intervened must have seemed inappropriate to the writer, so he used the "real" condition if the Fed intervenes, leaving the main clause as is, with would.

Others may have different interpretations.

Re: If I didn't hang on now, all of my past efforts would have been in vain.

CalifJim — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 02:56:29 GMT

This must be the season for mixed conditionals. It may be my imagination, but it seems that there have been a lot of questions on this lately.

The example you show is just what you say it is.

("unreal present", not "unreal presence"!)

Re: would have had

CalifJim — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 16:44:36 GMT

Fandorin
Is it a Mixed Conditional where the first part is related to the Second type and the second to the Third type?

Yes.

Fandorin
Is it possible to use "an" without changing the gist of the sentence?

I'm assuming you meant "without".

Not to my ear. "An accident" indicates an unfortunate occurrence. "By accident" indicates unintentionally. The two are somewhat related, however.