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

Re: same conditional?

CalifJim — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 17:24:58 GMT

I don't really know exactly why I said "wrong" in one place and "awkward" in another!

Your question in the other thread seemed to focus on mixed conditionals, and I didn't want to leave you with the impression that all mixed conditionals are wrong. Maybe that's why I said "awkward". Here's a better example:

If you had paid attention in Japanese class when you were in college, you would be able to translate for us on our trip to Japan this coming fall.

Perhaps I should revise my opinion on your example below. The problem, I think, is lack of context. This sentence can work in the right context. It's rare for that context to come up, I think, so on first reading it sounds completely wrong as an isolated sentence.

I would be happy if no one had been there.

_______

would like is an entirely different case, because it's an idiom for want. Here the would is not necessarily taken as the would of a conditional pattern, but as a simple present tense. That's why the idiomatic combination would like can go in the if clause.

Take it if you would like to have it = Take it if you want (to have) it.

like, on its own, is somewhat different in meaning from would like.

Take it if you like it. = Take it if it pleases you.

You can use would like with the would of the conditional pattern and like of being pleasing, but that works differently, like this:

If you tried it, you would like it. = If you tried it, it would please you.

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: If clause question

CalifJim — Fri, 15 Jun 2007 19:15:10 GMT

Would it be OK if has become a set phrase used for politeness. The conditionality of the word if is almost absent, and the phrase is in reality just a weaker, more tentative version of Is it OK if. Because of this, it seems to have the force of a present tense in meaning, if not in form. I think this is what makes a present tense seem natural after Would it be OK if. Others may have a different explanation.

Other mixed conditionals -- where no politeness formula is involved -- do not so easily escape sounding at least a little odd, such as:

If he wins, I would ....
If someone says ... , would anyone notice?
If I give you ..., would you ...?

CJ

Re: Another "If clause"

Anonymous — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 01:33:33 GMT

Tlzone08 wrote:
I thought you can use "If I have money, I will help you."   OK

and "If I have money, I would help you." No, that's not OK

Here, HAVE is the present tense, and WOULD is the past tense. In the sentence above, 'would help' is conditional (i.e. 'would' is not the past tense)

Someone said using WOULD makes it less polite.   In the sentence above, using 'would' simply sounds like incorrect grammar.

Then why can't I say, "If he has money, he would buy a car."? Why do you want to say this?
You can say:
"If he has money, he will buy a car."
-OR-
"If he had money, he would buy a car."

If you want to create a "mixed conditional" you need to have a good reason for doing so (i.e. you would have to provide more context to justify mixing two different conditional sentence types).

Re: A conditional sentence

MrPedantic — Wed, 29 Mar 2006 23:26:06 GMT

Lcchang wrote:

If I get paid, I would buy you lunch. (Is this one OK? I bet the grammar book will not allow this sentence to be made.)

Many grammar books would class this as a "mixed conditional". As Paco says, there is an conflict between the use of the simple present tense, which suggests "immediacy" and the "real", and the use of "would", which suggests "remoteness" and the "less real".

That said, you will often hear this combination from native speakers, as most people tend not to notice such conflicts in spoken English. In written English, on the other hand, the incongruity is more apparent.

MrP

What If / Let's say

jack112 — Wed, 02 Nov 2005 01:42:41 GMT

1. What if I go down the road and I hit someone, would I be at fault? (This is a mixed conditional? I used present tense 'go' to make the sentence sound more immediate; than I shift away to 'would' for remoteness?)

2. Let's say I go down the reoad and I hit someone, would I be at fault? (This is not a mixed conditional?)

Thanks.

Re: IF...

katsudon — Fri, 10 Jun 2005 06:53:44 GMT

I am confused by the difference of these sentences.

A:If you finish the homework, you could go out with me.
B:If you finished the homework, you could go out with me.

Are they correct in grammar?
If so, would you please tell me the difference?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Yes Yoko, they are both grammatically correct. Contextually, there is no difference. By that I mean that a child would realize that either one means,

"Finish your homework and you can go out with me".

We choose [some] historical past tense modals to make the situation sound more tentative, [some] historical present tense modals to make a situation sound more real.

'IF' sentences, the First, Second & Third Conditionals, aren't separated by a gulf, ie. they don't operate in isolation. They operate on a spectrum and in some situations we can choose to use either a "past tense FORM" {expressing greater doubt/more tentativeness/etc} or a "present tense FORM" {expressing a less tenative meaning/less doubt/etc}.

We know that these conditionals don't operate is isolation because we often get mixed conditionals like your sentence A.

Re: If he opened

just the truth — Tue, 25 Jan 2005 07:11:08 GMT

- (The choice was his alone.) If he [opened] the door, there [came] out of it a hungry tiger which immediately jumped on him and tore him to pieces as punishment for his guilt.

This is from a book. Is this sentence correct?

JT: PERFECTLY CORRECT; just a bit literary and reminiscent of an older form of English [possibly even an older subjunctive form; why isn't anyone complaining about this one?].

Should it be "If he opened the door, there would come out ... "?

JT: Your sentence sounds a bit funny, Jandi; the "there would come out". POSSIBILTY, it too is an older style subjunctive form.

But now we have a situation that illustrates how and why ENLs choose these expressions using present tense or past tense FORMS. [historical past tense forms in the case of modals]

Put yourself in that person's shoes, Jandi. Again, the choice is entirely yours.

Jandi: If I open the door, a tiger will come out and devour me.

Jandi If I opened the door, a tiger would come out and devour me.

Both are certainly possible. Choosing illustrates that the speaker doesn't want to do that; the speaker puts it more into the realm of the highly improbable, a position that the speaker wants it to be, for obvious reasons.

If I opened [for this situation] is saying, "Not that I would but if did, then this would happen".

"If I open the door, a tiger will ..." is allowing that it is a more real chance.

Even a mixed conditional is possible,

"If I open the door, a tiger would ..."

Re: In case

just the truth — Mon, 17 Jan 2005 09:30:33 GMT

Would you please tell us now the difference between 2) and 3) , then 3) and 4) ?

(2) If that kind of tsunami should come to Japan tomorrow, Tokyo will be devastated.
(3) If that kind of tsunami should come to Japan tomorrow, Tokyo would be devastated.
(4) If that kind of tsunami were to come to Japan tomorrow, Tokyo would be devastated.

Is the probability of a tsunami in Japan becoming greater when you move from 4) to 1) ?

>>>>>>>>>>>>

Hi Hela,

I believe, strongly, that your confusion lies in how conditionals are taught. Everyone seems to be operating from the perspective, mistaken though it is, that grammar determines what people want to say. It's the reverse; people decide what they want to say and then choose the appropriate grammar to express their feelings.

That these mixed conditionals exist and are used, frequently, shows how poorly this Concord of Tenses "rule" is at describing how English works. View this as a scale;

Reality/possibility side ------------------*****-------------------Non-reality/impossible side

present tense form used --------------mixes can occur---------------- past tense form used

Whether I [or any other speaker] choose 2, 3 or 4, or even,

(1) If that kind of tsunami comes to Japan tomorrow, Tokyo will/would be devastated.

doesn't depend on the actual fact situation relating to the probability of a tsunami coming to Japan. Most people, me included, are not that well informed on such topics.

Choosing a present tense FORM style reflects only that that particular speaker VIEWS the chance as greater, more of a realism. Again, this must be emphasized, it does not change the factual basis, it merely reflects a personal opinion, perhaps influenced by fears engendered by what happened recently.

Did you read the portion where I compared, "If I die tomorrow" versus "If I died tomorrow". Same thing. The actual chance is there for us all. For some the distance, if you will, on a scale between dying or not dying is much smaller, with the result that the choice of a present tense FORM versus a past tense FORM is more an either/or than a remote and distant possibility.

A pessimist may even announce and be fully grammmatical and correct,

"If I die tomorrow, I will/would ..."

even though there is nothing that would lead anyone to believe such a thing could happen or will happen.

Choosing certain structures is very often a reflection of our feelings; it should not be viewed as a reflection of the actual facts.

Re: Special Conditionals

just the truth — Fri, 14 Jan 2005 05:39:12 GMT

If they stop making cars now, it would take 60 days to sell everything they have.

What kind of structure is this?

JTT: I think this even has a grammatical name; mixed conditional.

How come the tenses don't match and it is correct? How do you know if this sentence is not a mistake? I can't figure this out.

JTT: First, yes, it's perfectly correct, Jack. The tenses do match. A present tense form is used in the first part to show that the speaker sees the possibility of "stopping making cars" as more probable than if the past tense FORM had been used.

Using would have made the conditional fall somwhere on a scale of more improbable to impossible in the speaker's mind. While some situations are clearly counterfactual, requiring a past tense FORM {___ed}, for many situations, the choice for ENLs is more wide open. It isn't an either/or, it's a nuance.

in the second part is a tenseless modal verb. Because modals are tenseless [in modern English] they can operate in any time sequence. And they do, don't they?

Would you like a piece of pie?

I would go, but ... .

He would think that!

That would be nice.

NONE of the above are past tense/time.

Even in this sentence of yours,

... it would take 60 days to sell everything they have. ,

we see that "it would take ..." clearly and unequivocably points to a future. You are confused because you have, in all likelihood, been misled into thinking that is the past tense of . That's absolutely false. Drop this bit of nonsense and this perfectly natural English sentence makes perfect sense.

Believe the old canard and that leaves you trapped in the same conundrum as CalifJim.