Search results for 'tag:Mixed conditionals tag:Difference between' matching tags 'Mixed conditionals' and 'Difference between'

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: difference between would and would have

Anonymous — Sun, 24 Dec 2006 05:37:49 GMT

Ruslana wrote:

Hope this will help you:

First conditional

Second conditional

Third conditional

Thank you very much

I understood three conditional.

I have one more doubt.

What is mixed conditional?

I read about `mixed conditional' somewhere else in the forum. But I didn't understand.

Please explain me about `mixed conditional'

Re: A couple of questions about the subjunctive and hypotheticals

Jussive — Sat, 19 Nov 2005 17:14:50 GMT

Thanks for your reply, MrP.

1. I would call it an exclamatory conditional. The main clause is left unspoken, but we can usually infer it, e.g. "if only she would contact me, I would be very happy".

Ok, itâs a conditional with an unexpressed result but still a âconditionalâ right? In this case, would you refer to it as the âsecond conditionalâ? As I understand it, there are only five conditionals (three strictly speaking plus zero and mixed conditionals).

You see, to me, the sentence 'if only she would contact me, I would be very happy' is incorrect, because âif onlyâ could be expressed as verb as in âI wishâ and, therefore, is not behaving as a subordinator and so you have two clauses without a conjunction. In other words, I would have thought that âif only she would contact meâ in terms of meaning is a complete sentence in much the same way as âI wish she would contact meâ and therefore requires an additional conjuction for the result, âif only she would contact me as then I would be very happyâ

What do you think?

2. The non-past use of the past tense we find in "I wish you lived nearer" does suggest a subjunctive mood: cf. "I wish she were here". Presumably the verb in such cases was marked for the subjunctive, in an earlier form of English (cf. the German past subjunctive, where e.g. an umlaut serves as a marker).

Ok, so you would refer to the non-past use as the subjunctive - correct?

3. We may sometimes be able to distinguish between subjunctive and non-subjunctive "would" and "could"; for instance in an IF clause:

3a. If he could help me, he would.

Here, the "could" seems to have a subjunctive sense: "if he were able to". Similarly, it seems to me, "would" can be called subjunctive, if we can put "were willing to" instead.

So in that respect, "would" and "could" can act like any other past tense form, and serve in a subjunctive context. But I wouldn't call them inherently subjunctive: we can't were-ify the "he would" in 3a, for instance.

Here, youâve confused me a bit, CF. In your example sentence, I don't understand what replacing 'would' with some expression tells you. This doesn't mean that replacing 'could' with 'if he were able to' doesn't tell you something, as it is part of the condtional clause which 'would' is based on.

Tbh, I feel that I don't understand you at this point, so please let me give you my take on it and maybe you will see where and why I've lost you:

The way I see it is, in such a construction, âcouldâ indicates the hypothetical nature of the whole sentence. âWouldâ (although can be used in a number of ways in other constructions) in the second conditional is clearly used as a marker and is based on the hypothetical condition laid out. 'Would' itself doesn't have to be hypothetical as in 'if he would'. It is just the result of a condition and what's important is that it changes form according to whether that condition is hypothetical or not. I donât see why we have to be able to replace it with any âexpressionâ (âwere-ifyâ - I'm not sure what that means, incidentally) to recognise this. Surely, itâs as simple as this:

If he can help you he will (real possiblity)

If he could help you he would (hypothetical)

Basically, weâve got a subjunctive marker for each clause in each sentence. There is only one difference between these two sentences and that is the hypothetical element which is what the subjunctive is all about, right?

To illustrate âwouldâ as being a subjunctive marker we can also use it in a similar way to the non-past:

'I wish she helped more.'

'I wish she would help more.'

Here we don't have to deal with conditions.

Ive read that modals such as âwouldâ and âcouldâ give a âsubjunctive ideaâ and other non-committal descriptions as such, but I donât understand the rationale behind those reservations. They seem also to apply to the non-past. It seems people donât wish to call these forms the subjunctive for some strange reason and I donât know what that reason is. Whatâs so special about âwereâ and the removal of âsâ in the third person singular, as markers of the past and present subjunctive, respectively? We have other markers of the hypothetical/non-fact, as shown in this thread, so why the reservations in calling them the subjunctive also?

Thanks for your response MrP.

Jussive

Re: IF...

MrPedantic — Fri, 10 Jun 2005 22:52:06 GMT

I'm not sure that A is a mixed conditional.

We can say:

1. If you finish your homework, you can go out with me.
2. If you finished your homework, you could go out with me.
3. If you finish your homework, you could go out with me.

In #2, the 'finished' and 'could' both distance the proposal, as K. suggests. The 'could' stands for 'would be able'; in other words, it's a type 2 conditional with a modalised main clause.

However, 'could' can also operate as a more tentative version of 'can', in suggestions and requests. That's the kind of 'could' we find in #3.

So we have two uses of 'could' here:

i) 'could' = tentative version of 'can' (i.e. the speaker is suggesting a course of action)
ii) 'could' = 'would be able to' (i.e. the finishing of the homework would make a course of action possible)

So contextually, there's a world of difference between them. And the girl in question would know it.

MrP

What if's

jack112 — Tue, 24 May 2005 06:10:13 GMT

Are these correct? What do they mean?

1. What if there is a fire, what would you do? (I hear a lot of people that use 'is' with 'would', is that correct? If it is correct, is it a mixed conditional?)
2. What if there is a fire, what will you do?
3. What if there is a fire, what are you going to do? (What is the difference between this one and #2?)

4. What if there was a fire, what would you do? (So this is conditional #3?)

Thanks.

Re: That would be nice

just the truth — Tue, 01 Mar 2005 09:33:27 GMT

Jack wrote:

(So this is wrong? Not everybody follows the prescriptions?)

JTT:
Nobody, nobody follows the prescriptions, Jack. Prescriptions are not about English. They are/were foolish misguided notions of how language works. Read the following carefully, maybe two or three times.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Most of the prescriptive rules of the language mavens make no sense on any level. They are bits of folklore that originated for screwball reasons several hundred years ago and have perpetuated themselves ever since. For as long as they have existed, speakers have flouted them, spawning identical plaints about the imminent decline of the language century after century.

All the best writers in English have been among the flagrant flouters. The rules conform neither to logic nor tradition, and if they were ever followed they would force writers into fuzzy, clumsy, wordy, ambiguous, incomprehensible prose, in which certain thoughts are not expressible at all.

Indeed, most of the "ignorant errors" these rules are supposed to correct display an elegant logic and an acute sensitivity to the grammatical texture of the language, to which the mavens are oblivious.

{S Pinker: http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/media/1994_01_24_thenewrepublic.html}

JTT: Now let's look at your questions:

1. That would be nice if the house that you're looking at tommorow has that.
2. That would be nice if the house that you're looking at tommorow had that.

(This is one of the standard conditionals right? But it sounds awkward with 'had', when I use it. it makes the listener think that the house doesn't have that when we don't even know if it has that or not.)

So is it better to use the mixed conditional #1?

JTT: Neither is better. #1 allows that it is a real possibility. Why would a speaker choose over ? Because the speaker views the possibility as being greater than a similar speaker who uses .

Let's say it's a swimming pool that is being discussed. In #1 maybe the speaker is from an area where swimming pools are more the norm, like in Florida; while in #2, the speaker is in an area where swimming pools are not so common, like in Canada.

Most of life IS NOT a Conditional 1-2-3 situation. Life doesn't start and stop at the boundaries expressed by these sorry 'rules'. Life and life situations merge throughout these conditional forms.

========================================

http://www.quepublishing.com/articles/article.asp?p=371493&seqNum=2
3. If you go only once a year, loft storage would be quite suitable. (So this is a mixed conditional right? )
4. If you go only once a year, loft storage will be quite suitable. (They should've used this one?)

JTT: Both are perfectly grammatical. The only difference between 3 and 4 is one of politeness. is NOT a past time/tense. By using the speaker is softening the suggestion, making it less forceful, less direct.

By using the speaker is being more fortright, expressing that they are more of an authority to be listened to and they want that authority to be recognized.

{this is but one example; there are many reasons for a speaker choosing one over the other}

Re: In case

just the truth — Mon, 17 Jan 2005 09:30:33 GMT

Would you please tell us now the difference between 2) and 3) , then 3) and 4) ?

(2) If that kind of tsunami should come to Japan tomorrow, Tokyo will be devastated.
(3) If that kind of tsunami should come to Japan tomorrow, Tokyo would be devastated.
(4) If that kind of tsunami were to come to Japan tomorrow, Tokyo would be devastated.

Is the probability of a tsunami in Japan becoming greater when you move from 4) to 1) ?

>>>>>>>>>>>>

Hi Hela,

I believe, strongly, that your confusion lies in how conditionals are taught. Everyone seems to be operating from the perspective, mistaken though it is, that grammar determines what people want to say. It's the reverse; people decide what they want to say and then choose the appropriate grammar to express their feelings.

That these mixed conditionals exist and are used, frequently, shows how poorly this Concord of Tenses "rule" is at describing how English works. View this as a scale;

Reality/possibility side ------------------*****-------------------Non-reality/impossible side

present tense form used --------------mixes can occur---------------- past tense form used

Whether I [or any other speaker] choose 2, 3 or 4, or even,

(1) If that kind of tsunami comes to Japan tomorrow, Tokyo will/would be devastated.

doesn't depend on the actual fact situation relating to the probability of a tsunami coming to Japan. Most people, me included, are not that well informed on such topics.

Choosing a present tense FORM style reflects only that that particular speaker VIEWS the chance as greater, more of a realism. Again, this must be emphasized, it does not change the factual basis, it merely reflects a personal opinion, perhaps influenced by fears engendered by what happened recently.

Did you read the portion where I compared, "If I die tomorrow" versus "If I died tomorrow". Same thing. The actual chance is there for us all. For some the distance, if you will, on a scale between dying or not dying is much smaller, with the result that the choice of a present tense FORM versus a past tense FORM is more an either/or than a remote and distant possibility.

A pessimist may even announce and be fully grammmatical and correct,

"If I die tomorrow, I will/would ..."

even though there is nothing that would lead anyone to believe such a thing could happen or will happen.

Choosing certain structures is very often a reflection of our feelings; it should not be viewed as a reflection of the actual facts.