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

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'.
.

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: good conditional?

Marius Hancu — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 09:09:16 GMT

I think they are OK. See similar examples in books:

34 on "if you get * you should ask"

http://books.google.com/books?q=%22if+you+get+*+you+should+ask%22+&btnG=Search+Books

You can think of them as being 1st conditionals:

http://www.englishclub.com/grammar/verbs-conditional_2.htm

If you get something in your eyes, you should rub your eyes.

being an equivalent form of:

If you get something in your eyes, you WILL need to rub your eyes.

Or you can think of them as being mixed conditionals in form, but not in substance.

Re: Follow-up to "Nagging conditional problem"

Marius Hancu — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 09:48:15 GMT

>I thihk the modal 'could' and possibly 'would' have some differing uses.

could: about ability, would: about willingness

Anonymous
Thank you.

Would you say these are examples of any of traditional (?) first, or second, or third conditional or any of the acceptable variants thereof? I have been rubbing my eyes for any clues as to their relevance or relationship to the traditional (?) first, or second, or third conditional but they seem to be fleeting from me at best.

If you happen to have money (with/on you), could/would you lend me some?

Should you have money (with/on you), could/would you lend me some?

The first is a mixed conditional, similar to what you can find on this page:

http://www.englishpage.com/conditional/mixedconditional.html

This is one of the best sites, learn whatever you find there. Forget about strict classifications (1st, 2nd), I don't remember them.

The 2nd is a replacement using should.

If you want one of the "classical patterns," you could use:

If you happenED to have money (with/on you), could/would you lend me some?

which is also NOT about the past, but about present/future and is a 2nd conditional as in:

http://www.englishclub.com/grammar/verbs-conditional_3.htm

and would be more doubtful, more formal and more polite (use of the past tense for a present time condition, which is called distancing) than

If you happen to have

but I wanted to correct/use the original pattern of tenses, which are to be found in the original thread.

conditional

Anonymous — Wed, 28 May 2008 07:44:17 GMT

Hi,

A:How is it different? Is the zero conditional and the second and third ones type 1? I think CalifJim told us that the modal 'can' counts as present.

1.If you can make money, please use the money to help people.

2. If you can make money, use money to help people.

3. If you can make money, you will be able to help people.

Can we use a modal verb like can, may, should in the if-clause or the main clause, as well as going to future or present continuous future, as well as a present perfect in the if-clause for both zero and first conditionals? We can't seem to be able to use all those for type 2 and 3 conditionals. sorry for asking many questions.

B:Does this mixed conditional show ongoing circumstances in relation to a event happened in the past OR does it indicate a past result by a present hypothetical situation as I thought it was?

If you weren't such a bad singer, You would have gotten a job as a professional singer.

If you weren't so occupied with you work, you would have seen him trying to steal your money.

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: english grammar

Hoa Thai — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 05:57:11 GMT

Hi Manisha,

When we would like to relate a failure in the past to an ongoing activity that is still considered unfulfilled today, we can use a mixed conditional statement in which one relates a present unreal condition (i.e. verb in the simple past - TYPE II conditional ) to a past unreal / unachievable result (i.e. verb is in the form of would have + past participle - TYPE III condtional). For example, the following sentence is acceptable:

If I spoke English fluently, I could have got that job yesterday. (i.e., I speak English but not fluently enough and that is why I failed to get the job yesterday).

Here is a similar sentence that you could find in this WEBPAGE.

If you weren't such a poor dancer, you would've got a job in the chorus line in that musical. (i.e., you are still a poor dancer; and being a poor dancer, you failed to get a job...).

In looking at your sentence, "If I was provided the knowledge in that domain, I would have definitely worked hard," I don't sense that the act of providing the knowledge to you by someone is ongoing at the present time. Therefore, your statement fails to meet the rule. To fix it, you need to use the past perfect tense as shown by Mister Micawber in his recent post.

Re: My First Question ..

Ruslana — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 11:55:35 GMT

Hi, The Graduate,

Welcome to the forum!

You're talking about conditional sentences. There are 3 types of them. If you ask 'What if you get married?', an anwer (although it's not actually an answer but just another question) is supposed to be with the verb 'will', i.e. 'Will you change your habits?' etc. Apparently, if you ask: 'What if you got married?', the second question should take the verb 'would': 'Would you change your habits?'

There are some cases of using so called mixed conditional sentences. So, I suppose, your following questions with the verb 'would' are also okay. Besides, as it seems to me, they express the idea in a more polite form.

Re: I thought it would be nice

CalifJim — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 19:09:33 GMT

A) Are there any verbs that are usually not backshifted, and the whole sentence is rearranged instead? I think you mentioned "should". For example, if someone says "I should see a doctor", the reported version would be "He said he had to see a doctor" or "He said he'd better see a doctor" or "He was thinking of going to the doctor"???
As I mentioned in the previous post, I got freaked out by changing "I should be studying" to "I think you should have been studying", and it through off my reasoning completely. Actually, as I also mentioned in the previous post, you can backshift should -- but to itself -- not to should have, unless time has passed and there is now regret for not having done what one should have done -- but then that would be reporting a different thought.. You just can't change the thought! It's "I should be studying" >> (I thought) you said you should be studying. (I thought you would be studying because you said you should be studying.) And you can change the verbs if you want. That's still an option, and one that's frequently used.

B) Some structures are weird, because I can't rephrase them like I'm telling a story, as above. One of those structures is "would like", as in "I'd like an ice cream", or "She'd like another coke". What's the backshifted version of those? Maybe I need to change them, and say "She told me she wanted another coke"...

Same as for plain would.
I would like some cake. >> I said I would like some cake.
She'd like another coke. >> She said she'd like another coke.

Compare:
I would have liked some cake. (I didn't get any) >> I said I would have liked some cake.
She would've liked another coke. (She didn't get another.) >> She said she would've liked another coke.
[These are 'counterfactuals' expressing mild regret.]

C) In the above examples, #6 and #7 have "might", and "might" is backshift to itself, "might". I was wondering if the same happened with "could". If you replace "might" with "could" in #6 and #7, would that be ok too? Yes, I mentioned that in the previous post before I even realized you had asked about it.. I know "could" can be the backshifted version of "can", but I'm actually worried about "could" when possibility is involved. Like in this one, to make it clearer:
- If it's nice, I could go for a walk tomorrow morning. ---> I met Kate. She (could?)¹ go for a walk the following day. She could have gone for a walk...² (<-- Careful! This is a thought of mine, not related to what she actually said!) She said she (could?) go for a walk the following day.³

¹Here again you have that problem of a past-form modal usually used with present-time meaning trying to pose as a carrier of past-time meaning in a main clause. And here again, you really have to bury it in a subordinate clause governed by a past-tense main clause to get that across. I'd go with "She said she could go for a walk the following day" or "She was available to go for a walk ... " or "She had time to go for a walk ...".

²I understand the meaning, but I'm stumped as to why it doesn't sound exactly right. My brain keeps jumping back to a counterfactual interpretation. It's like one of those cubes where you can see it two ways, and your brain keeps flipping back and forth between the two. It would probably work in a complex real-life situation, though. Somebody might just spontaneously generate it, and it would be clear to me from context which of the interpretations was meant.

³could sounds perfect in this one. It's just a matter of could backshifting to itself -- and the past tense in the main clause makes everything come out all right.
_______
General remarks in the form of an aside about conditionals with can / could.

The backshifts are as discussed earlier.
I could go for a walk. >> I said I could go for a walk.
She could have gone for a walk. >> She said that she could have gone for a walk.

But in conditionals, strictly, can is to will as could is to would.
If it is nice, I [can/will] go for a walk
If it [were/was] nice, I [could/would] go for a walk.
If it had been nice, I [could/would] have gone for a walk.

So you have what's called a 'mixed conditional' to start with. (Are you trying to give me a headache? )
But here, context tells us that a past form is being used with present meaning, in effect
If it's nice, you have the choice of going for a walk.
________

I'm not sure what more you need or what more I can say about these, but feel free to make up more examples, and we'll go through them together and see what we can see. (But bring aspirin next time!)

CJ

Re: Auxiliary verbs

Yankee — Fri, 04 May 2007 00:05:53 GMT

Goodman wrote:
... I was looking at it as a conditional.

So was I, Goodman. But your suggestion was to write a so-called "mixed conditional" (a mix of type 2 and type 3).

Number 8:

First sentence: "We might win" = a reference to a theoretically possible future event

Second sentence: But what would we do with it (500 million dollars) if we won? = standard type 2 conditional (i.e. it refers to the "theoretical" future)

Rather than repeat the verb 'win' (won), we use 'did'.

There is no justification for a "mixed conditional" here.