Search results for 'tag:Mixed conditionals' matching tag 'Mixed conditionals'

Re: Conditional or not?

CalifJim — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 23:13:15 GMT

1, They began asking us several months ago if we would stay. Not a conditional at all. if/whether we would stay is an indirect question.
2. I said I would stay if I could do two shows a night.-- looks to be a type 2 conditional (unreal) Yes. Type 2.
3. If there would be a church in this neighborhood, it would be ideal. -- looks to be a type 2 conditional (unreal) If there were a church ... Type 2.
4. If there were a Burnham wood in ***, they probably would have shipped it. -- looks to be a type 2 conditional (unreal) Mixed conditional. 2 and 3.

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: sentence questions

New2grammar — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 02:42:50 GMT

The U.S. commerce secretary said that if the FTA is ratified, it would create jobs in Korea and the U.S.and give consumers in both countries more choices.

I couldn't find this mixed conditional in any of the classical conditionals provided by MH.

What's the different 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?

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!)

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"

Anonymous — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 22:52:53 GMT

Thank you so much, Marius

You said:

Use your imagination, there are many possibilities out there for the mixed variety. You just need to read more authors:-), don't just learn grammar.

I think, if I am not mistaken, I saw an grammar help website listing (noting) its section on mixed conditionals as a "complete" list of conditionals. What do you make of that?

Can I freely use my imagination in forming mixed conditionals. I don't think I am quite erudite or well-read as you. How can I get to know the varieties of mixed conditionals available?

Re: Follow-up to "Nagging conditional problem"

Anonymous — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 10:45:54 GMT

Thank you so much, Marius and Mr. Wordy. I think I checked out the mixed conditional section of the website you gave but I didn't see anything in the present tense though.

Also I came up with this. Is this a mixed conditional too?

If that is the case, wouldn't it make more sense to bring him along too?

Sorry to ask many questions but after studying conditionals for a long time, the questons are still pilling up.

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: Conditional past-future

Ant_222 — Tue, 13 May 2008 21:21:16 GMT

optilang: Â«I would go/be going home earlier - I have not yet gone home (I still have some lessons to teach)Â»

It doesn't matter when you will go home. The only important detail is the time of your hypothetical going home. If it's prior to the moment of speech, your choice is the Type 3 conditional ("would have"), and the mixed conditional (just "would') otherwise.

EDIT: optilang: Â«The absent student was not the last one of the day - and if I had known that he wasn't attending I could have moved a later class to his slot - resulting in me being able to leave earlier. Â»

1. (moment of speech â 13:00) If I had known you would not come to the lesson I would have gone home at 12:30
2. (moment of speech â 12:00) If I had known you would not come to the lesson I would (could/be able to) go home at 12:30

Re: corrections

Ant_222 — Fri, 09 May 2008 20:04:58 GMT

I did read your blue suggestions and deliberately commented only on the things that I thought you had missed.

Â«"I unlocked _the_ dogâs chain", I suggested the leash insteadÂ»
Every dog's chain is a leash, but not vice versa. Otherwise "unleashed" is OK. Hope you didn't overlook m correction â the definite article.

Â«I'm believe the cracking sound came from the soon to fall branch. That fits the context better. Otherwise, why would anyone mention it?Â» Yes, but, the narrator didn't know what was happening until after the accident, right! So I think "as if" works well to describe the happenings from the narrators viewpoint.

Â«"very thin sound as if it _was/were coming_ from far away" Is afar OK or too poetic?Â»
Yes, as long as you say just "from afar", not "from an afar place", which is incorrect.

Â«"personal preference, 'a huge tree bracnh'" â this way lost is the emphasis of the branch's belonging to _that_ tree. Do you think the emphasis is needed though? I was worried it would be a redudant emphasis since the passage had mentioned the location of the person)Â» Yes, it is a bit redundant, but to me it makes the tale more interconneced. Personally I'd use just "a branch" without mentioning either "the tree" or "a tree" and thus avoiding both redundancy and "weak coupling"!

Â«"made me very afraid" â terrified me a lot, maybe...the original didn't sound natural to me either but couldn't find anything wrong.Â»
What's unnatural is wrong! Also try searching "very afraid" and "made me afraid" is Google, to grasp the usage better.

Â«"Or else I would have _got_ in (the) hospital" or "would be in (the) hospital" (mixed consitional) Is'be' wrong? I have no problem withyour suggestion but think either is fine.Â»

1. ...or else I would have spent a month in the hospital â Type 3 conditional (hypothetical past event)
2. ... or else I would be in the hospital (now) â Mixed conditional (hypothetical present event)
As to "would have been", it doesn't make much sence to me, but maybe it's me who's wring? What do you think your version means?