Search results for 'tag:Present perfect tag:Mixed conditionals' matching tags 'Present perfect' and 'Mixed conditionals'

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: Verbs-which is the correct word

Anonymous — Fri, 17 Nov 2006 23:26:59 GMT

Marius Hancu wrote:
1. If he (was, were) over 18, he would have been hired.

were is better than was, but still not the best (see further).

My take:

If he had been over 18 ... is ok because it's an unreal condition in the past, eg. at the moment of the interview.

BUT ...

If he were over 18 ... is also ok if he's still under 18, because it's a condition still unreal at this moment.

AND ...

The use of this type of mixed conditional is fine when if + past simple ... would + present perfect = an unreal condition in the present (NOT in the past) ... a consequence in the past.

The same site you quoted provides a reference : http://www.englishpage.com/conditional/mixedconditional.html

Re: Mixed Conditional

MrPedantic — Thu, 09 Jun 2005 06:56:39 GMT

If I'm correct, you would have had such hybrids banned from the very beginning, Mr. P.!

Is this a mixed conditional, though? I'm not sure the action in the main clause is directly dependent on the IF clause. I'd call it an ellipsis of some kind:

1. If I'm correct, if you had had your way, you would have had...

If I left my notes on the bus, then I won't be able to tell you master moderators of the universe about all the various mixed conditionals that can crop up...

I would take this as an inferential IF statement, rather than a conditional IF. 'If I left my notes' relates to a real situation; whereas in this version

2. If I left my notes on the bus, I wouldn't be able...

it relates to an imaginary situation. So I would take woodcutter's 'left' as a simple indicative past tense, and the 'left' in #2 as a 'past tense used to denote remoteness/imaginariness'.

Cf. the version with a present perfect:

3. If I have left my notes on the bus, I won't be able...

MrP

Re: Phineas Redux (tenses)

hela — Tue, 17 May 2005 02:28:44 GMT

I read your comments and there is one thing I still can't understand:

1. If anyone ever felt X, she will feel X for you => If it is the case that Feeling X exists, she will experience Feeling X. So I wouldn't call it a mixed conditional.

If âIf anyone ever FELT / HAD such an interest for a friendâ means âif it IS the case that a person HAS such an interest for a friendâ why didnât the author say âIf anyone HAS ever FELTâ¦ , she WILL FEELâ¦â ? like in (3) :

3. If Laura has arrived, she will be with Mr Finn in the conservatory.

which is a normal type 1 conditional: (if + present perfect) in the subordinate clause + (future) in the main clause.

So if the original sentence is not a mixed conditional, I still donât understand why the author is using the simple past to refer to a present situation. Because if we look at examples 2 & 4 the simple past refers to 2 true past actions: in (2) the fact that it was really dark then:

2. If it was dark, you couldn't possibly have seen the face of the man in question.

and in (4) the fact that Mr Finn was really in love with Laura:

4. If Mr Finn was fond of Laura, he had a very strange way of showing it.

Sorry to keep bothering you with my "tortuous" questions...

See you tomorrow, peharps.
Hela

Re: Mixed Conditionals

just the truth — Tue, 01 Feb 2005 02:45:03 GMT

1. I could have made half a grand if they had got it in stock. (Why do I need 'had had got'? #2 is correct?)

***** IMPORTANT, PLEASE READ ***** {JJT's responses marked off by ++ ... ++} ******

++ Let's drop , Jack, as there are differences between the BrE and AmE/CdE that will needlessly complicate things.

1A. I could have made half a grand if they had it in stock.

This is fine. It points to the condition that is ongoing. They don't have it in stock, still.

1B. I could have made half a grand if they had had it in stock.

This too is fine. Here the difference is the speaker is focusing on the one time that they checked. It all depends on the speaker's focus. ++

2. I would have been in trouble if they had killed him. (I don't have 'had had killed' here? So why is #1 incorrect?)

++ # 1 wasn't incorrect, as I've shown you. ++

3. I could have made half a grand if they had it in stock.

(Is this past perfect+past simple? If so, why isn't this correct? #4 is correct?)

++ No; it's modal present perfect + simple past FORM. ++

4. If it weren't for you, I wouldn't have been in jail.

(This is past simple+past perfect.

++ No, this is (subjunctive be past FORM + modal present perfect). ++

I know this is a mixed conditional, it makes sense with context. So why is #3 incorrect? Or does this type of mixed conditional only work sometimes?)

++ Again, this is correct. The speaker focus has simply shifted away from the one instance, that is expressed by, to something like,

Re: Mixed Conditionals

MrPedantic — Mon, 31 Jan 2005 23:31:23 GMT

Hello Jack

In number 3, you need an extra 'had'. It's easier to see if you switch the clauses round:

3a. 'If they'd had it in stock, I could have made half a grand.'

This gives the usual 'type 3 conditional' structure: past perfect in IF clause, with 'would/could/might have' + past participle in the main clause.

In number 4, we have the 'I have got' problem. This is an unusual verb: it's the present perfect tense ('I have' + past participle), but it has a present meaning (= 'I have').

The simple past of 'have got' is therefore one step back from the present perfect: 'I had got', which is what we have in your #4.

In a type 3 conditional, however, the verb in the IF clause has to be the past perfect, which is one step back from that. This would give us 'I had had got':

4a. ?'If they had had got it in stock, I could have made half a grand.'

I don't believe this form exists in BrE, though it may do in AmE. (I'd be interested to know what other people think.)

In BrE, you would usually use 3a instead. Some people might use your #4, however, as the nearest approximation to 4a. In that case, it would indeed be a mixed conditional:

4. ?'If they had got it in stock, I could have made half a grand.' (= simple past in the IF clause (from type 2), with 'would/could/might have' + past participle in the main clause (from type 3).

I myself would call this form 'incorrect': if I found it (for example) in a piece of text I was editing, I would change it to 3a. But opinions do vary.

MrP