Search results for 'tag:Simple past tag:Mixed conditionals' matching tags 'Simple past' and 'Mixed conditionals'

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: A conditional clause analysis

CalifJim — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 23:55:51 GMT

In the past, if you wanted to eat Japanese food, you would have had to go to Japan but now, you can find Japanese restaurants all around the world, from New York to Istanbul or Sydney.

Is such a structure possible in the English L language?

Yes. This structure is called a mixed conditional. In this case the listener probably takes the simple past of the if clause as a substitute for the past perfect, so the overall meaning is the same as for the so-called "third conditional".

Re: Mixed conditional

CalifJim — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 20:43:11 GMT

I would say that these became mixed conditionals through the substitution of were for had been, which is a common substitution, especially in everyday conversation. I would say that the 'original' thoughts and meanings were:

If you had been paying attention, it wouldn't have happened.
If she had been working for him, he would have protected her.

(The versions with were-substitutions have the same meanings as the 'originals'.)
__________

As for the substitution of the simple past:

If you paid attention, it wouldn't have happened.

My personal feeling here is that to get the same meaning as the original, it should be If you had paid attention, it wouldn't have happened. This one usually refers to an individual act of paying attention, whereas the one with the progressive usually refers to a period of time filled by the activity of continuous attention-paying.

Compare:
The fire alarm went off, and believe me, when an excited voice came over the speaker system, everyone paid attention. (Everyone immediately became alert to the situation.)
There was a ladder against the wall, but I wasn't paying attention, so I ran right into it and banged my head. (I was not continuously alert to such dangers as I was walking.)
__________

If she worked for him, he would have protected her.

Again, my feeling is that this should be If she had worked for him, he would have protected her. This example is a little different from the 'pay attention' example. I hear the difference like this:

Progressive: If she had been working for him (at that time), he would have protected her (then) (at the same time).
Simple: If she had (ever) worked for him (at any time before that), he would have protected her (either while she had been working for him or after she had finished working for him).

CJ

Re: Mixed conditional

Kooyeen — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 18:25:31 GMT

Hi,
I don't think those are really mixed conditionals, but you know, it depends what you mean by "mixed".

If you were paying attention to your assignment, it wouldn't have happened. <--- You are not paying attention, that's why it happened (just now, probably).
If she were working for Moretti, he would have protected her with a reasonably plausible story. <--- She's not working for Moretti at the moment. Moretti would have protected her.

Yeah, maybe the simple past would have been better, but it depends on the context and what you want to stress, I think.

Re: Mixed Conditionals (Is this allowed?)

Anonymous — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 01:39:34 GMT

Thank you both for the reply.

I know "past perfect + conditional progressive" forms such as the following are grammatically correct.
If I had had time, I would be talking to her now.

But are "past perfect + simple conditional" forms allowed too?
If I had had time, I would talk to her. <- Is this okay?

How about,
If I had time, I would be talking to her (simple past + conditional progressive).
If I weren't being afraid of spiders, I would have picked it up (past progressive + conditional perfect).
Are these allowed? Are these considered colloquial?

Thank you

Re: Mixed Conditionals (Is this allowed?)

MrPedantic — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 01:01:17 GMT

...For instance, it says you could use sentences like "If I wasn't afraid of spiders, I would have picked it up" that have a If + simple past, Perfect conditional form...

Yes, it sounds fine to me too. You might have expected a straightforward 'type 3' protasis (if I hadn't been afraid...); but 'was/were' often replaces 'had been', where a condition that was true at that time ('I was afraid of spiders then') is current at the time of speaking ('I am still afraid of spiders').

Cf.

1. If I had been a few years younger, I would have accepted her invitation.

2. If I were a few years younger, I would have accepted her invitation.

#1 sounds as if it happened 10 years ago. #2 sounds as if it happened yesterday.

MrP

Mixed Conditionals (Is this allowed?)

Anonymous — Sat, 30 Jul 2005 21:07:07 GMT

Hello.
I was reading jack112 threads because he had many questions on conditionals. I wanted to know more about mixed conditionals in particular, so I did a search on google. I came across a couple of sites, and I was wondering if you could verify the authenticity of their contents.

http://www.edufind.com/english/grammar/IF8.cfm
http://www.englishpage.com/conditional/mixedconditional.html

For instance, it says you could use sentences like "If I wasn't afraid of spiders, I would have picked it up" that have a If + simple past, Perfect conditional form.

One more thing:
I know the following sentence is grammatically correct:
If his father hadn't lost all his money, John would be studying at the university.
But why is this not correct?
If his father hadn't lost all his money, John would study at the university.

I thank you in advance for you help.

Re: Mixed Conditional

woodcutter — Thu, 09 Jun 2005 23:46:00 GMT

I got the impression that people were arguing that a simple past/future mix could not occur, for example. That kind of thing is outside the usual 0/1/2/3 stuff, and seen as a mixed conditional, isn't it? The mixture of real/unreal is another matter, though of course we had a thread recently where it did seem possible.

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-as if it had happened or as if it happened

CalifJim — Thu, 21 Apr 2005 08:23:52 GMT

It is a past counterfactual, so it's "as if it had happened yesterday".
Nevertheless, it is quite common for native speakers to substitute the simple past for the past perfect, so you will very frequently hear "as if it happened yesterday", which means exactly the same thing.

CJ