Search results for 'tag:Verbs tag:Conditionals' matching tags 'Verbs' and 'Conditionals'

Re: Use of conditional verb prior to an infinitive clause / object complement

Marius Hancu — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 22:47:34 GMT

Your sentence is more polite and as a result much more frequent:

607 on "I would like for you to go"

http://books.google.com/books?q=%22I+would+like+for+you+to+go%22&btnG=Search+Books

233 on "I'd like for you to go"

http://books.google.com/books?q=%22I%27d+like+for+you+to+go%22&btnG=Search+Books

3 on "I like for you to go"

Forget about your other considerations, they're not quite valid.

Use of conditional verb prior to an infinitive clause / object complement

Anonymous — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 22:17:48 GMT

Hi all,

Thanks in advance for your help in answering this question. I'm trying to explain to a non-native English speaker that a certain usage is either incorrect or awkward, but I find myself unable to do so. At this point, I'm just confusing myself in trying to explain it.

So her construction is:

"I like for you to go to my friend's house in three weeks."

My correction would be:

"I would like for you to go to my friend's house in three weeks."

My reasoning is that including the word "would" allows for a better logical continuity of tenses. I have tried to explain this via continuity of verb tense and the nature of the conditional word "would"-- but I am not a grammarian and my explanations are either imprecise or wholly inaccurate. On that note,

1) Is my correction correct?

2) Is there a rule which either supports or refutes this correction?

Kind regards,
A.S.

Re: tense check

Clive — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 01:29:55 GMT

Hi again,

Thank you so much again.

Here,

Your correction:

"If John comes home about an hour later, he will be looking for me to play chess with him and when he finds out I am not there, he will be disappointed," I think. Do you have a question about this? Yes,but does it have to be "will"? I thinK we can say, "I would be playing chess when he comes home," giving the element of conditional that the modal "would" imparts. On the second thought, it would go against the no. 1 conditional structure and that wouldn't be good, IMO. Then, again, what can I do to send a message of uncertainly by the use of a verb form, still keeping the word "will"? How about saying something like "I think maybe I will . . . '?

Always have to be this?

When Joe comes home an hour later, he will (probably) - not would?? - be waiting for me at the bus stop with an umbrella so I won't get wet.
Will -not would??- Joe wait for me with an umbrella when I arrived at the bus stop an hour later?
What will - not would??- Joe do when Jane comes back is beyond me.
Will - not would?? - he be going out with Jane if she asks him out?

Always have to be a "definite" "will"? How can I impart a conditional element (if it is possible) with a touch of hesitation to a sentence that has "will"?

If you say something like What will - not would??- Joe do when Jane comes back is beyond me, you are mixing conditional factual elements. Instead, you need to say one or other of the following.

What Joe will do when Jane comes back is beyond me.

What Joe would do if Jane comes back is beyond me.

2. My position: I don't think we need to use a past perfect in the if-clause; of course, it would be needed if I were to put the if part in the past and that would put the sequence very clear but this would work fine too, IMO. At best, it would leave readers to figure out the sequence by themselves or at worst, it would be considered wrong:

If I went shopping when Joe called, I would be in the chic district of Seoul, window-shopping for all those fabulous lastest-trend clothes.

If I went shopping when Joe called . . this sounds like scenario in which you went shopping after he called. Yes, I think this situation would create that doubt on the part of a reader, but can you think of a sitution or two where it is OK, although not preferable, not to make it a past perfect but leave it as a past and leave to the readers to figure out the sequence involved? Not offhand, although I'm sure there are some. But why do you want to make the readers do the work?

Best wishes, Clive

Re: tense check

Anonymous — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 21:49:45 GMT

Thank you so much again.

Here,

Your correction:

"If John comes home about an hour later, he will be looking for me to play chess with him and when he finds out I am not there, he will be disappointed," I think. Do you have a question about this? Yes,but does it have to be "will"? I thinK we can say, "I would be playing chess when he comes home," giving the element of conditional that the modal "would" imparts. On the second thought, it would go against the no. 1 conditional structure and that wouldn't be good, IMO. Then, again, what can I do to send a message of uncertainly by the use of a verb form, still keeping the word "will"?

Always have to be this?

When Joe comes home an hour later, he will (probably) - not would?? - be waiting for me at the bus stop with an umbrella so I won't get wet.
Will -not would??- Joe wait for me with an umbrella when I arrived at the bus stop an hour later?
What will - not would??- Joe do when Jane comes back is beyond me.
Will - not would?? - he be going out with Jane if she asks him out?

Always have to be a "definite" "will"? How can I impart a conditional element (if it is possible) with a touch of hesitation to a sentence that has "will"?

2. My position: I don't think we need to use a past perfect in the if-clause; of course, it would be needed if I were to put the if part in the past and that would put the sequence very clear but this would work fine too, IMO. At best, it would leave readers to figure out the sequence by themselves or at worst, it would be considered wrong:

If I went shopping when Joe called, I would be in the chic district of Seoul, window-shopping for all those fabulous lastest-trend clothes.

If I went shopping when Joe called . . this sounds like scenario in which you went shopping after he called. Yes, I think this situation would create that doubt on the part of a reader, but can you think of a sitution or two where it is OK, although not preferable, not to make it a past perfect but leave it as a past and leave to the readers to figure out the sequence involved?

Re: What does this sentence mean?

Tanit — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 22:11:59 GMT

Hi,

Should a delay exist ... = If a delay should exist ... (which means: we consider the existence of a delay very unlikely; however, if this delay existed ...)

It's not a question, but a conditional sentence where subject and verb are inverted and "if" is dropped.
It's a formal / literary construction, possible also without "should":

If I were the President of the USA ... => Were I the President of the USA ...
If I had won the lottery ... => Had I won the lottery ...

Provided that

pedrina — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 14:23:12 GMT

Is it possible to use "provided that" for sentences in the simple past? If it is possible, do we have to use the sentence with both verbs in the same tense? I know it works as a conditional sentence but it sounds strange to me in the past. How could I complete the following sentence?

"Provided that it rained everyday, .........."

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

Marius Hancu — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 01:40:57 GMT

See these links on conditionals:

http://www.englishpage.com/conditional/mixedconditional.html
http://www.englishclub.com/grammar/verbs-conditional_3.htm

Re: Hey Guys, Need Help

Tanit — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 12:37:47 GMT

Hi,

New2grammar
Could you try to convince me why the abrupt change of tense makes sense?

Why should it make sense? After all, we're talking about English grammar!
Anyway, somebody says it's an instance of unreal past ...

BBC Learning English

We sometimes use past tenses to describe things in the present or future that are imagined or unreal.
It's time we went.
We are using It's time... here to say that something is not happening, but it should be happening. Compare also the following:
It's time we left. Our son will be home soon and he doesn't have a house key.
It's about time you started looking for a job. You can't depend on us all the time. It's high time you started to fend for yourself.

...we can use the construction it's time to or it's time for + object + to as alternatives to the unreal use of past forms to express this idea:
It's time for you to think seriously about what you want to do in your life.
It's time you thought seriously about what you want to achieve in your life.
It's time to reflect on how you want your life to proceed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/grammar/learnit/learnitv347.shtml

UNREAL PAST

The past tense is sometimes used in English to refer to an 'unreal' situation. So, although the tense is the past, we are usually talking about the present, e.g. in a Type 2 conditional sentence:
If an elephant and a mouse fell in love, they would have many problems.
Although fell is in the past tense, we are talking about a hypothetical situation that might exist now or at any time, but we are not referring to the past. We call this use the unreal past.
Other situations where this occurs are:

after other words and expressions like'if'(supposing, if only, what if);
after the verb 'to wish';
after the expression 'I'd rather..'
(http://www.edufind.com/English/Grammar/IF10.cfm)

... and somebody says it's subjunctive. See also:
http://www.englishforums.com/English/ChangingTenses/dqcdx/post.htm
http://www.englishforums.com/English/WhichSentencesAreCorrect/zjbhp/post.htm

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.