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

Re: have/has/were

Mister Micawber — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 05:28:46 GMT

.
1-- Were is the SUBJUNCTIVE form of the verb, here used in a mixed conditional sentence (more crefully written, it should read If I were there, I would do that.

2-- Your sentence is wrong. It should read: Doesn't Vincent have any homework? The singular '-s' is in 'doesn't'.
.

Long questions on conditional sentences

Anonymous — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 08:30:36 GMT

Hi,
1.How are they different? I think the first one is mixed conditional and the second one is a third conditional sentence. Both seem to contain the notion of unreality (hypothetical?) to the unlikely past actions
1.I were rich, I would have bought the house when it was on sale.
2. If I had been rich, I would have bought the house when it was on sale.

2. How would I know if any of these need to be second condtional (subjunctive??) sentences?

I got these sentence bits from the Google book search (I hope I type them right) :
1. If I was baptized the right way, God would be gracious. -- I think this shoud be the subjunctive because I sense unreality (or hypotherical) in the sentence, thus shoud be: If I were baptized ...
2. If I was restless during the service, she would give me something to eat. -- I think this is OK as a backshift of the first conditional, but as I think what CalifJim has said (might have said?) (according my unreliable vague recollection), most of the times, people would write this kind of structural sentence like "If I were restless during the service, she would give me something to eat.
3. If I was at all curious -- which I am not -- I might askyou what you you're doing in such a house -- Ditto as no. 2's argument: I think most likely people would have written: If I were at all curious -- which I am not -- I might ask you what you're doing in such a house."

Re: subjunctive and 2nd conditional

CalifJim — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 06:21:49 GMT

Believer
I think 2nd conditionals encompass those 1) that are hypothetical yet possible and 2) that are unreal (thus impossible to be realized in reality).

No. The traditional divisiion into the three conditional patterns is as follows:

1. If [present], (then) ... will ... REAL

2. If [past*], (then) ... would ... UNREAL

3. If [past perfect], (then) ... would have ... UNREAL, COUNTERFACTUAL

*The past is sometimes called the past subjunctive in this position. Only the verb to be has a special form (were in all persons and numbers) in this position.

Other combinations of tenses in these kinds of if patterns have no numeric designators (like fourth, fifth, or sixth conditional) except occasionally in specific textbooks which invent their own methods and terms for teaching purposes. Some writers consider all these other patterns mixed conditionals.

Examples:

1. If the water gets hot enough, it will boil.

2. If he put the picture up a little higher, it would look better.

3. If we had taken the medicine, we would not have got sick.

Don't take the idea of "real" and "unreal" too seriously. The first and second conditionals are often nearly identical in meaning. The first states the idea as a fact. The second states it as an imagined action.

If you press this button, the gate will open. (Fact. This always happens.)

If you pressed this button, the gate would open. (Information about what to do if you want to open the gate -- not that you necessarily want to open it just now.)

The third conditional is more obviously "unreal". Neither clause taken separately actually happened.

If you had pressed this button, the gate would have opened. (You didn't press the button, and the gate didn't open. But more than that, the gate didn't open because you didn't press the button.)

Re: Would - conditional or past tense?

Kooyeen — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 15:59:45 GMT

Hi Jack,
my try:
I would not put myself in a position where I jeopardized the people working for me, or those for whom I worked, for the sake of vanity.
I don't know the exact terms to refer to those words. Let's say those two "past tenses" are kind of like two "subjunctives" or "unreality past tenses". It's like everything is part of an hypothetical statement, like "If I worked there and jeopardized the people...". But that's not really part of an "If... would" sentence, since there are no if's, but rather it is more of a tense simplification in conditional sentences. The simplification consists in using a past tense in conditional senteces, without repeating "would", and it's done even if the situation is real and not hypothetical. Here's an example I just invented:

Well, if some girl tried to flirt with Michael, I would simply tell her he was my boyfriend and to leave him alone. But I wouldn't punch her in the face, come on! I'm not that violent!

First, I'm not sure that's a good example, and second I don't kow if "is" is also possible instead of "was". Maybe it's used in speech the same way mixed conditionals are used, I don't know.
Wait for some other advice

Re: if

MrPedantic — Tue, 06 Dec 2005 00:38:47 GMT

I'd agree with CJ about choices in exam questions.

I'd also agree that this sentence isn't counterfactual:

1. "If you were buying a car, you would have considered its performance ..."

The "were" here isn't subjunctive; if we put it into the 3rd person singular, we get:

2. "If he was buying a car, he would have considered its performance ..."

where "was" is indicative. A paraphrase would be:

3. Given that you were buying a car, you would surely have considered its performance!

Or even:

4. Given that you were buying a car, you must surely have considered its performance!

It isn't a mixed conditional: it belongs outside the standard "types 0 to 3" paradigm.

MrP

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: Is "I could have danced..." subjunctive mode?

katsudon — Tue, 20 Sep 2005 05:00:43 GMT

Japan wrote:

Hello guys

I have one question long about ' I could have danced all night' in 'My Fair Lady'.

It has a passage of "I only know when he began to dance with me, I could have danced all night." Is that a third-condition?

If so, I think the conditional clause should be "he had begun to dance..."

Please give me your input.

Thank you in advance.

English is full of unspoken "if" conditionals but that doesn't mean that they aren't there. It doesn't matter what the collocation is, there could be any number of conditionals in the speaker's mind. This situation lends itself well to being a mixed conditional.

I could have dance all night, if he had been willing/if he hadn't dropped dead/if he wasn't married/if he knew how to dance/if he had bothered to ask me again/if he hadn't been my brother [he took off his mask]/if he hadn't been so drunk/ if he hadn't stepped on my toe and broken it/if he weren't a repuglican/ if ...

Re: Mixed Conditionals (Is this allowed?)

MrPedantic — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 01:20:21 GMT

Anonymous wrote:
Hello.
I came across a couple of sites, and I was wondering if you could verify the authenticity of their contents.

http://www.edufind.com/english/grammar/IF8.cfm
http://www.englishpage.com/conditional/mixedconditional.html

The pages look ok. The first site should mention that the subjunctive 'were' is standard in place of 'was' in the first and third person singular:

1. If MrQ were here, you wouldn't have done that.

Though you hear this use of 'were' slightly less often in BrE than in AmE.

The last set of examples on the second site don't sound like mixed conditionals to me. They seem like standard type 2s. But maybe other members will have other opinions.

2. If his father hadn't lost all his money, John would study at the university.

This structure (IF past perfect, main clause 'would' + base form) isn't incorrect, with the right context:

3. If his father hadn't throttled him at birth, MrQ would be prime minister now.

The present progressive is used where the context requires a sense of a continuing action:

4. If I'd braked sooner, I wouldn't now be paying $300 for repairs.

MrP

Re: What if's

MrPedantic — Tue, 24 May 2005 13:34:33 GMT

Hello Jack

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?)

Yes, mixed: somewhere between â

a) What if there's a fire - what'll you do? (immediate: you want to convey the fact that you think it's a real possibility.)

b) What if there were a fire - what would you do? (remote: you want to discuss the possibility of the fire, but you don't want to make it sound too immediate - perhaps you don't want to frighten the other person; perhaps you really don't believe there's much likelihood of a fire).

So your mixed version has an odd effect: in the IF clause, the speaker presents the fire as an immediate possibility; in the main clause, he treats it as remote. (Perhaps he was talking to an old lady, and saw the look of alarm on her face as he said 'what if there's a fire?'. So he changed to 'would' - to make it less frightening...)

2. What if there is a fire, what will you do?
â as above.

3. What if there is a fire, what are you going to do?
â this makes the fire seem even more immediate. 'What are you going to do?' is what you say when something really does have to be done.

4. What if there was a fire, what would you do? (So this is conditional #3?)
This is a version of a), above: 'what if there were a fire...' So it's a type 2 conditional.

'Was' is often used by speakers instead of the subjunctive 'were', esp. in BrE.

MrP

Re: Phineas Redux (tenses)

MrPedantic — Sun, 15 May 2005 23:28:15 GMT

Hello Hela

1âAltogether, and so is the house in Portman Square. There never was anything more sad or desolate. You a) would find [original] / b) WILL FIND him altered, Mr Finn. He is quite an old man now.

a) Now, did the author use the conditional would find him because his character thought that Mr Finn had a SMALL chance to see Mr Kennedy since he is living in Germany?
â It might be easier to think of this as an implicit IF statement: 'You would find him altered, Mr Finn [if you were to see him]'.

b) And if I write WILL FIND would it mean that Mr Finn does have a chance to see him in the future? (= more likely and less doubtful ?)
â Yes; it means the speaker expects Mr Finn to see Kennedy.

c) and can the verb/tense WILL FIND work in combination with the past? i.e.
WILL FIND + WAS here... but STAYED..." i.e.

" Altogether, and so is the house in Portman Square. There never was anything more sad or desolate. You WILL FIND him altered, Mr Finn. He is quite an old man now. He was here in the spring, for a week or two â in England, that is; but he stayed at an hotel in London. [He and Laura live at Dresden now, and a very sad time they must have / MUST BE HAVING.â ]
â It works if you exclude the part I've put in square brackets. The speaker expresses an expectation that Mr Finn will see Kennedy; then gives additional information about K's recent doings. However, if you add the part in square brackets, it implies that Mr Finn doesn't know where K. and Laura are living, till the speaker tells him; and that seems strange, given that the speaker also expects Mr Finn to see K. shortly!

d) Do you think that it will work best with :
"He WILL BE here... but he WILL STAY / WILL BE STAYING / IS STAYING in London."
â 'Will be staying' is fine; but perhaps 'will stay' would better suit the speaker's style.

In this instance, the speaker expects Mr Finn to see K. shortly; but has to tell Finn where K. will be staying. A possible context might be: Mr Finn has expressed his determination to see K., but has also revealed that he has no idea when K. will next come to England, or where he will stay.

e) or do the 2 passages have no relation with one another / are quite independent from one another?
â I think possible contexts could be found, whether or not we linked the sentences.

2) In âNo one, no other human being in the world, will be so interested for you as she is.â [original text]

a) If we consider the auxiliary used at the end of the sentence âisâ, the normal guess would be IS in the first clause. Right ?
â Yes, I would say so.

b) Now, the choices of will be [original tense] (likely action in the future ?) and WOULD BE (possible action in the future ?) should not affect the auxiliary used in the second clause âISâ, should it ?
â To my ears, this combines 3 senses of 'will':
i) intends to (be)
ii) is accustomed to (be)
iii) will prove to (be)

'would' would make the statement more remote and so less emphatic.

In both cases, 'is' would be fine.

3) Same question about âWOULD FEELâ in âIf any friend ever felt an interest almost selfish for a friendâs welfare, she WOULD FEEL such an interest for you.â [original = âwill feelâ = mixed conditional = 2 + 1]
â I'm not sure the original is a mixed conditional, as the verb in the IF clause seems to me to be an indicative past tense, rather than a 'hypothetical' (subjunctive) past tense. But I'll have to think about this one a little more, as I'm not sure I can explain it even to myself at the moment...

a) âWOULD FEELâ would mean that at that moment of speaking the speaker was not sure if Mrs Kennedy was interested in Mr Finnâs future in politics. Right ?

b) but with âWILL FEELâ the speaker is sure of Mrs Kennedyâs feeling and interest for Mr Finn. Right ? (Iâd like to understand the subtlety between both tenses)
â Will ponder and report back tomorrow on these two questions...

4) What about the âWILLâ form in the following sentence, can it be accepted ? i.e.
âIf you were to succeed it WILL GIVE her a hope in life.â [the text gives âwould giveâ = type 2 conditional]

a) is the mixed conditional possible here or not ?
= the speaker is not sure that Mr Finn is going to succeed but if ever this happened he is sure of Mrs Kennedyâs reaction.
â A mixed conditional of this kind is certainly possible in ordinary spoken English, as people often change their conditionals in mid sentence; but I don't think it suits the situation here.

b) type 2 conditional =
since the speaker doesnât think that Mr Finn will succeed, he knows therefore that Mrs Kennedy is never going to have such a hope.
â I read the 'if you were to V, it would V2' structure as fairly neutral, in terms of what the speaker expects to happen. This kind of type 2 distances the speaker from the hypothesis; but to my ears, it always has an air of 'fine balancing of the possibilities'.

5) After a long thought, I wonder if I can really use PARTED and WERE in the following sentence. If ever you think it possible, would you please tell me why?

a) Original = âThey hadn't seen each other for..., and when they had parted (before the time of narration), though they had lived --or HAD BEEN LIVING--, there had been (at that same time) no signs of still living friendship.â

b) so what is the logic when we write :
âThey hadn't seen each other for..., and when they PARTED, though they had lived, there WERE no signs of still living friendship.â
â You could think of it in this sense â I've changed it to bring out the logic:
"When we bumped into each other at the Savoy last week, it was the first time we had seen each other for 10 years. When we got divorced, you see, although we had been married for 12 years, there were no children; and so we had no reason to see each other."

(Or have I misunderstood the question?)

Will return to deal with that other petite bÃªte (#3) tomorrow!

Bye for now,
MrP