Re: Conditional dilemma I

CalifJim — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 05:28:37 GMT

I think the following would be considered a typical Type 3 Conditional.

If I had studied hard in college, I would have become a successful person. Yes. This is a typical Type 3 conditional. If ... had ..., would have ....

Here, I think would is a modal verb for a clause that states the result of an imaginary situation that could have happened in the past yes, and it wouldn't be a fargone idea to say that it mainly deals with the tone of the clause, not the 'timing' or 'time' aspect of it. It deals with both past time and the 'tone', i.e., counterfactual.

have become in the main clause is present perfect No, this should be regarded as a modal perfect, which is not the same as saying it's present perfect. and IMO, the present perfect is used to note the fact that something has some kind of relevance to the present Yes, the present perfect is used this way, but here we don't have a true present perfect. A modal perfect is quite different in function. and would wouldn't affect that aspect of the sentence in any way. Yes, the fact that would is there makes a big difference.

What I am rather puzzled by is the timing aspect of it. The dependent clause 'If I had studied hard in college' indicates the time for its action is before another time and in comparison, the main clause 'I would have become a successful person' (in present perfect) indicates the time for its result that has some kind of 'live' relevance to the present. Doesn't that create a friction in one's mind as he tries to figure out and reconcile nicely the timing sequence of the clauses involved. You will have to rethink this whole paragraph in light of what I have pointed out earlier. The friction does not exist once you realize that this is not at all the same as a non-modal present perfect.

_______________

The modal non-perfect and modal perfect tenses should not be confused with the non-modal non-perfect and the non-modal perfect tenses. A modal tense applies to non-past situations. A modal perfect tense applies to past situations. The use of have after a modal makes a "modal perfect" tense, but that's just a way of putting the statement in the past, compared to the corresponding modal non-perfect statement.

It might be raining. [It is possible that it is or will be raining.]
It might have been raining.   [It is possible that it was raining.]

I should go.               [It is advisable for me to go.]
I should have gone.   [It was advisable for me to go.]

I would jump from that ledge. [Imagining myself on that ledge now or in the future, I can imagine myself jumping from it without any problem, i.e., being willing to jump.] [This does not say that I will jump. Until now, I have not done so. Maybe I will never get the opportunity to do so.]
I would have jumped from that ledge. [Imagining myself on that ledge at some time in the past, I can imagine myself jumping from it without any problem, i.e., being willing to jump.] [This does not say that I did jump. In fact, I didn't -- perhaps because I never had the opportunity to do so.]

So have does not have the same function after a modal as it has when used as the only auxiliary verb to create a perfect tense.

CJ

Search results for 'tag:Paragraphs tag:Modal verbs' matching tags 'Paragraphs' and 'Modal verbs'

Re: Conditional dilemma I