# mixed conditionals (Past Perfect + Future Simple)



## audiolaik

Hi,

It wasn't until a few weeks ago that I came across a sentence that left me in openmouthed shock. When discussing the issue of mixed conditionals with a fairly advanced group of students, one of them asked me whether or not the combination of the Past Perfect (III type) and Future Simple (I type) was possible. Of course, my initial respond was "No." Then, as an afterthought, I realised I might have been wrong expressing that definite "No", so I asked the student for more details. In response, she showed me the following sentence in her coursebook, which was an example of mixed conditionals. 



> If she had stayed up late yesterday, she will be late tomorrow.



The book was written by the famous coursebook writer Virginia Evans, whose grammar books I had to study when being a student. 

Now, back to the point. The moment I saw the sentence, I immediately rejected the idea of its being a conditional sentence. To me, it sounds more like a logical deduction, not a condition. To illustrate my point of view, I can replace "if" with "since", where the latter is taken to mean "because" or "as". What's more, the sentence in question would sound a lot better if the simple past tense was used instead, not the past perfect.



> If she stayed up late yesterday, she will be late tomorrow.



At that point I was absolutely sure I was right. I stabbed the air with my arms, shouting how much English I'd learnt.  

To support my point of view, I needed to find some theoretical background. I found the following:

a) 





> If she took that flight yesterday, we'll see her tomorrow.


source

b) A classification of Conditionals

However, the fact that Virginia Evans could have made such a mistake kept bothering me. So I consulted other more experienced EFL teachers, most of whom supported the book writer. To them, the sentence sounds odd, thought correct. I tried to stand my ground when exchanging opinions in our heated debates, but I was alone. Then I called my ex teacher (PhD in English grammar) who is a sort of English grammar guru in the circles I move in. She explained to me that it is only Virginia Evans that promotes such a tense combination. She also added that the sentence is an example of pseudo conditionals, and in fact it is not a conditional sentence. I thumbed through the grammar books I have, but I didn't find any other author that would suggest this kind of thing. Finally, I called an English native speaker, who expressed his disagreement with both Virginia Evans and my English guru. To him, the sentence is both gramatically and logically wrong.

Who is right?

PS I'm back for good, I hope....

Audio and AudioJnr


----------



## panjandrum

Hello audio - good to see you around again 

My reaction is like yours.

_If she had stayed up late yesterday, she will be late tomorrow.                      _
I can't find any sense in this sentence.  What is it supposed to mean?
I think it would be more productive to explore the intended meaning than to explore the possible legitimacy of an eccentric structure 

Does it mean something that is not conveyed by "If she stayed up late yesterday she will be late tomorrow,"?

Which particular part of A classification of Conditionals do you want us to look at?


----------



## ribran

I take it Virginia Evans is a native English speaker. I haven't looked at many EFL books, but sometimes the authors of these books, as though attempting to solve a logical puzzle, set out to create certain contexts in which these bizarre combinations might be grammatically sound, but end up digging themselves into logical holes as a result of their ignoring their natural instincts as highly-educated native speakers. From your teacher friends' tepid endorsement of the construction, it seems clear that it is marginally acceptable at best. Like you, I am perplexed and unable to make any sense of it. To my way of thinking, recognizing the possibility of her arriving late tomorrow requires accepting the plausibility of her having stayed up late last night. The simple past tense, but not the pluperfect subjunctive, allows the speaker to make this concession.


----------



## audiolaik

panjandrum said:


> Which particular part of A classification of Conditionals do you want us to look at?



Hi, panji!

I referred to the following three:



> a) If butler didn't do it, then the maid did it.
> b) If John didn't cancel his ferry ticket, he has drowned.
> c) If Oswald didn't kill Kennedy, then someone else did.



(page 20)

To ribran: I do appreciate your input and understanding of my point of view.


----------



## eni8ma

- If she had stayed up late yesterday, she will be late tomorrow.
I agree with your friend. This makes no sense, and I would have thought that starting a sentence with "if X had Yed, ..." should finish with "then X would have Z".

As for John, I don't see why he has necessarily drowned.  He might have run late, and missed the ferry, or simply had some other matter he had to attend to and never got on.


----------



## audiolaik

eni8ma said:


> As for John, I don't see why he has necessarily drowned.  He might have run late, and missed the ferry, or simply had some other matter he had to attend to and never got on.



Well, assuming or knowing for sure that everybody on the ferry drowned....


----------



## audiolaik

Hi,

Is there any context in which the combination of the two tenses mentioned in the title is possible, without going to great lengths to do so?

Audio


----------



## panjandrum

audiolaik said:


> Hi,
> 
> Is there any context in which the combination of the two tenses mentioned in the title is possible, without going to great lengths to do so?
> 
> Audio


I really don't think so.
_If she had stayed up late yesterday, she will be late tomorrow. 			 		_

The problem is that the first part, the condition, could only be said if she definitely did not stay up late yesterday.  The consequence has to be a hypothetical consequence, not a "she will be" consequence.


----------



## audiolaik

panjandrum said:


> I really don't think so.
> _If she had stayed up late yesterday, she will be late tomorrow. 			 		_
> 
> The problem is that the first part, the condition, could only be said if she definitely did not stay up late yesterday.  The consequence has to be a hypothetical consequence, not a "she will be" consequence.



I share the same point of view, but some of my friends (EFL teachers) are of the opinion that it's at least theoretically possible. What if we changed the future simple tense into the present simple tense?



> If I'm that clever, I would have been rich by now.



Does it sound right to you? To me, it definitely does.


----------



## panjandrum

_If I'm that clever, I would have been rich by now._

I wouldn't say that either.
_If I were that clever I would have been rich by now._
OR
_If I'm that clever I should have been rich by now._

I'm responding by the seat of my pants here


----------



## audiolaik

panjandrum said:


> _If I'm that clever, I would have been rich by now._
> 
> I wouldn't say that either.
> _If I were that clever I would have been rich by now._
> OR
> _If I'm that clever I should have been rich by now._
> 
> I'm responding by the seat of my pants here



It seems I've met my match in you yet again, panji....


----------



## boozer

Hi, Audio 
In his post #8 Panj says all I could possibly say about this over-mixed conditional.
Did your experienced colleagues suggest a possible meaning for that misbegotten sentence?

By the way, it is strange how different countries develop preferences for different grammarians. In my country no one has ever made me read Virginia Evans. Nor have I ever even heard of her, for that matter. But looking at that sentence, I would not have become her ardent admirer anyway.


----------



## audiolaik

boozer said:


> Hi, Audio
> In his post #8 Panj says all I could possibly say about this over-mixed conditional.
> Did your experienced colleagues suggest a possible meaning for that misbegotten sentence?



I wholeheartedly agree with Panji! When it comes to my experienced colleagues, they vaguely explained what whey had in mind, but I neither understood nor followed their ways of thinking.



boozer said:


> By the way, it is strange how different countries develop preferences for different grammarians. In my country no one has ever made me read Virginia Evans. Nor have I ever even heard of her, for that matter. But looking at that sentence, I would not have become her ardent admirer anyway.



I can think of a lot better grammarians, if you ask me, but I'm just a mediocre EFL teacher.


----------



## boozer

audiolaik said:


> I can think of a lot better grammarians, if you ask me, but I'm just a mediocre EFL teacher.


I prefer to stick with Randolph Quirk, who was really *the *authority when I was a student. Leech springs to mind too... Not to forget Swan...


----------



## Thomas1

What do you think about the following:
   I saw her leaving tonight, she looked really tired. If she had stayed up late yesterday, she will be late tomorrow. 

[It takes twelve hours to get to A. She has to arrive in A at 9.00 am, she left at 9.00 pm. I'm sure she won’t be able to drive all the way without getting some sleep.]


----------



## PaulQ

I see nothing wrong with the sentence, set in context and with the right emphasis:

 "Jane, do you think Mabel will arrive punctually tomorrow?" asked Thomas.

Jane replied, “I don’t think that Mabel went to bed until midnight.” and gave him a meaningful look.

  “Mabel’s patterns of behaviour were predictable.” thought Thomas, “If she *had* stayed up late yesterday, she will be late tomorrow.”


----------



## eni8ma

PaulQ said:


> I see nothing wrong with the sentence, set in context and with the right emphasis:
> 
> "Jane, do you think Mabel will arrive punctually tomorrow?" asked Thomas.
> 
> Jane replied, “I don’t think that Mabel went to bed until midnight.” and gave him a meaningful look.
> 
> “Mabel’s patterns of behaviour were predictable.” thought Thomas, “If she *had* stayed up late yesterday, she will be late tomorrow.”


I'd still have said 
“Mabel’s patterns of behaviour were predictable.” thought Thomas, “If she *had* stayed up late yesterday, she *would* be late tomorrow.”


----------



## ribran

eni8ma said:


> I'd still have said
> “Mabel’s patterns of behaviour were predictable.” thought Thomas, “If she *had* stayed up late yesterday, she *would* be late tomorrow.”



Yes, I agree.


----------



## PaulQ

What if I were to make an addition?
“Mabel’s patterns of behaviour were predictable.” thought Thomas, “If she *had* stayed up late yesterday, she *will* be late tomorrow; there was no doubt about it.”


----------



## panjandrum

PaulQ said:


> What if I were to make an addition?
> “Mabel’s patterns of behaviour were predictable.” thought Thomas, “If she *had* stayed up late yesterday, she *will* be late tomorrow; there was no doubt about it.”


Good try, but this still runs contrary to logic.
She did not stay up late yesterday so there is no possibility that she will be late tomorrow as a consequence.  The statement about tomorrow has to be hypothetical to follow the untrue condition.


----------



## eni8ma

PaulQ said:


> What if I were to make an addition?
> “Mabel’s patterns of behaviour were predictable.” thought Thomas, “If she *had* stayed up late yesterday, she *will* be late tomorrow; there was no doubt about it.”


“Mabel’s patterns of behaviour were predictable.” thought Thomas, “If she *had* stayed up late yesterday, she *would* be late tomorrow; there was no doubt about it.”

It doesn't matter what else is added to the sentence; "if she *had* ..." is followed by "[then] she *would* ... ".

You _could_ say "If she *has* ..., she *will* be ..."


----------



## PaulQ

I admit defeat. This is the last time I listen to Thomas.


----------



## Thomas1

Sorry, Paul, I didn't mean to mislead you. The touble is that I don't read 'If she had stayed up' to be hypothetical, because the sentence quoted by Audio isn't a hypothetical conditional to me. Hence, the sequence of tenses doesn't follow the hypothetical pattern, in this case it's quite lax. If you have a look at the other sentences he quotes from the article on the classification of conditional sentences, it becomes clear.
If you can say "If she stayed up late yesterday she will be late tomorrow," then why not "If she had stayed up late yesterday she will be late tomorrow" (if you take into account the fact that the past perfect was used to indicate anteriority to some past event which has to be implied in the overall context)?


----------



## boozer

Thomas1 said:


> If you can say "If she stayed up late yesterday she will be late tomorrow," then why not "If she had stayed up late yesterday she will be late tomorrow" (if you take into account the fact that the past perfect was used to indicate anteriority to some past event which has to be implied in the overall context)?


But, Thomas, how could that be possible when we have such a beautifully specified past moment - "last night"? Only past simple sounds right to me...


----------



## eni8ma

Thomas1 said:


> If you can say "If she stayed up late yesterday she will be late tomorrow," then why not "If she had stayed up late yesterday she will be late tomorrow"?


It just doesn't work that way.  As soon as you put "*had* stayed" in there, that requires changing the other verb to "*would* be late".


----------



## kengwilson

With emphasis the sentence should IMO run as follows:

If she *did* stay up late yesterday, she'll be late tomorrow.

I can't think of a way to made the mix sound or feel "right".

But whether it's grammatically correct or not, my tip would be not to immitate it.

KGW


----------



## Thomas1

@ Eni8ma: If you want to change the tense of 'will' to 'would', then I would also change 'tomorrow' to 'the next day' and 'yesterday' to 'the previous day'. However, that would refer to a past situation (which is not hypothetical).

Anyway, going back to my previous post, let me exalain again what I mean:
I saw her leaving tonight, she looked really tired. If she had stayed up  late yesterday, she will be late tomorrow. 
Let's say it's Saturday, 10.00 pm.
I saw her leaving at 9.00 and she looked really tired.
If she had stayed up late yeasterday [i.e. on Friday night; past perfect, because I refer to an action before another one in the past [her leaving at 9.00]].
she will be late tomorrow. [i.e. on Sunday; she has to get there at 9.00, reaching the destination takes 12 hours; she's still on her way, and I know she won't make it without a stop to get some sleep, so she will be late.]

@Boozer: I'm not sure that since we have 'yesterday' we can't use the past perfect. You can use this tense to add emphasis or emphasise cause.

My point is to exaplain whether the sentence is grammatically sound or not. Since it was quoted from an authoritative source on English grammar, I am rather inclined to believe that the author knew what she was doing.


----------



## eni8ma

If she *had* stayed up late yesterday - means that clearly she did *not* stay up late.
Therefore, the rest of the sentence can only be hypothesising about what *might/would* have happened.

We native speakers have not heard of Virginia Evans, and are not happy with this example.  I'd have thought the  examples should be clear and easy to understand, rather than the sort of  thing that provokes such discussions as these.

 Someone who is "an authoritative source on English Grammar" to non-native speakers, is not necessarily even heard of, let alone highly regarded by natives.  Please do not presume to tell natives whom they should listen to.


----------



## Thomas1

Sorry, but where did you get the idea that I’m imposing the use of such sentences on anyone? Each language has some forms that are correct but not used (much) and they sound unfamiliar even to native speakers. Does it mean they are wrong? I don’t think so, but I don’t think either that you’re even trying to understand what I’m talking about. It’s a shame. Can you give any logical reasons for the sentence in question being wrong? I will be happy to admit that I’m wrong if your line of argumentation is convincing and not because “I say so”. And I’m not talking about whether sentences of this type should or should not be used. 

  I’ll leave a sample for those who are intrested in the subject:
  “Yes we arrested him this afternoon. If he had been arraigned before, he will not be arraigned again on those allegations. But this is based on fresh petitions against him. That will certainly be done in Enugu.”
http://www.elombah.com/index.php?op...nnamani&catid=48:corruption-reports&Itemid=69


----------



## boozer

Thomas1 said:


> “Yes we arrested him this afternoon. If he had been arraigned before, he will not be arraigned again on those allegations. But this is based on fresh petitions against him. That will certainly be done in Enugu.”


And yet, amigo  ... I can live with this example which, in its context, makes sense. But:
1/ In your example there is no specific-past time marker like "last night", which sort of prohibits the use of past perfect. Particularly in the absence of any intervening event.
2/ The emphasis you quote is there in cases, as clearly explained, where we have two past events. In our example we only have one.
3/ Added to this is the inconvenience of "past perfect" which, in conditional sentences usually marks a hypothetical situation that did not occur. 

Sorry, my friend, but I remain dead set against this weird conditional.


----------



## panjandrum

The logical reason for the sentence being wrong is that the condition cannot be met.  To begin with "If she had not stayed up late last night..." is only possible if in fact she did stay up late last night.  That makes the consequence hypothetical, it is an unreal condition, calling for "would", not "will".

It's not that this is an unusual construction that native speakers do not use often enough to be familiar.  The problem with the construction, at least for me, is that it is illogical.  

I think Mr Babafemi mis-spoke, or was mis-reported.


----------



## Cagey

> “Yes we arrested him this afternoon. If he had been arraigned before, he will not be arraigned again on those allegations. ...."


I think people are mistakenly using the past perfect instead of the present perfect. _If he has been arraigned before, he will not be arraigned again on those allegations._​As Panjandrum says, we don't know whether the error was made by the speaker or the reporter.


----------



## eni8ma

Thomas1 said:


> I don’t think so, but I don’t think either that you’re even trying to understand what I’m talking about. It’s a shame. Can you give any logical reasons for the sentence in question being wrong?


I already did.


eni8ma said:


> If she *had* stayed up late yesterday - means that clearly she did *not* stay up late.
> Therefore, the rest of the sentence can only be hypothesising about what *might/would* have happened.


The structure you want is (as others have already pointed out):
If she *has* stayed up late yesterday ...

Quoting a single reference you found on the internet does not make it right, especially when that reference was spoken by another non-native speaker.

You must surely have found plenty of mistakes in your own language over time, both on the internet, and in newspapers, and by native speakers at that.  Yet you quote another_ non-native_ speaker and suggest that that _single_ use of poor grammar is enough against _all_ the _native_ speakers, with their years of experience and education?


----------



## PaulQ

Thomas1 said:


> Sorry, Paul, I didn't mean to mislead you.


Thomas1! It is I who am sorry! This is a complete misunderstanding! 

When I wrote Thomas, I meant "Thomas" who was the character in my example - not you!


----------



## kengwilson

I wonder how much of the confusion here is due to the fact that the _form_ of the unreal conditional tense coincides with that of the past perfect. If one tries to impose the time-sense of the latter on the condtional, one very soon has to stop to untie the knots in one's brain. The sense of something happening before something else is simply irrelevant to the conditional.


KGW


----------



## TresMal

What a very fascinating thread. Sorry for resurrecting it but I couldn’t resist. Personally, I think Thomas makes the best argument. And I’m somewhat perplexed at how most participants failed to appreciate his elegant reasoning. Perhaps I’m missing something but there appears to be nothing illogical about the original sentence: What a very fascinating thread. Sorry for resurrecting it but I couldn’t resist. Personally, I think Thomas makes the best argument. And I’m somewhat perplexed at how most participants failed to appreciate his elegant reasoning. Perhaps I’m missing something but there appears to be nothing illogical about the original sentence: _If she had stayed up late yesterday, she will be late tomorrow._ 



eni8ma said:


> If she had stayed up late yesterday - means that clearly she did not stay up late.


How so?_ If she had stayed up late yesterday_ – clearly, this doesn’t mean that she definitely didn’t stay up late. Just as it doesn’t mean that she did stay up late. It simply states the condition, satisfaction of which will yield a certain result (the result, in this case, is her being late tomorrow). Whether the condition has been satisfied or not is not revealed in this sentence. The past perfect tense here perhaps signifies that the event “she either did or didn’t stay up late” chronologically precedes some other past event, which was described with the past simple tense earlier in the narrative. Then in the second clause, the future tense is used to emphasize that the consequences of “her” behavior have not yet materialized. Indeed, I think this is a very precise way to express uncertainty of the speaker about the future. A sentence like this: _If she had stayed up late yesterday, she WOULD be late tomorrow._ – probably means something closer to “I know that she didn’t stay up late. Therefore, she will not be late tomorrow”. 

I’m not a native speaker. These are just my thoughts + a bit of intuition. If anyone can shed more light upon this matter, that would be delightful. Many thanks.


----------



## panjandrum

TresMal said:


> ...
> Perhaps I’m missing something but there appears to be nothing illogical about the original sentence: _If she had stayed up late yesterday, she will be late tomorrow._
> ...
> How so?_ If she had stayed up late yesterday_ – clearly, this doesn’t mean that she definitely didn’t stay up late.
> ...


For many of us it means exactly that.
That condition can only introduce a hypothetical conclusion that is now impossible.
That makes the topic sentence logically impossible.


----------



## TresMal

Let me try to demonstrate my point once more. Perhaps, a different scenario will be more effective. Please take a look at the following dialogue:
_-Do you think he will win the fight tomorrow?
 -Well, it depends. I saw him for a few seconds this morning and didn’t have time to ask whether he had worked on his left hook yesterday. (So I don’t know if he’ll win...) If he had indeed worked on his left hook yesterday, he will win the fight tomorrow._

In a sense this is saying “if he worked on his left hook yesterday he will win tomorrow”. But past perfect is introduced to indicate chronological distinction between two past events. Does this make any sense?


----------



## wandle

TresMal said:


> past perfect is introduced to indicate chronological distinction between two past events. Does this make any sense?


I see what you mean, and also what *Thomas1* means in his similar reasoning. The scenario is understandable and it is a clever argument. However, I do not agree with the conclusion, for two reasons.

(1) Your scenario,  [_I saw him for a few seconds this morning and didn’t have time to ask whether he had worked on his left hook yesterday. (So I don’t know if he’ll win..._)] involves four time stages, which you have shown by four tenses, past perfect, past simple, present and future: but split between different sentences.  

Suppose we try to  construct a sentence which would bridge the gap between the present and the past perfect, we might say:  '_I do not now know whether he had worked on his hook._' This statement, using past perfect, _*may appear to be valid*_ in view of the previous context which shows that any hook work must have preceded the point when I saw him. However, we have created a clash of contexts by putting the past perfect into a present context and the sentence is wrong for that reason. English grammar is just not flexible enough for that.

Likewise as soon as we say 'he will win tomorrow', we create a context, looking to the future, which can only be a present context. Since 'he will win' is the main verb, the 'if' clause must be subordinate to that. It becomes governed by the present context.

To place a past action in a present context, we use the present perfect. This means that we need to say, _'If he has worked on his hook, he will win tomorrow'_. Alternatively, if we wish to bring in mention of yesterday, then we are placing a past action in a past context, and for that we need the past simple: _'If he worked on his hook yesterday, he will win tomorrow'_. Similarly, we have to say, '_I do not now know whether he has worked on his hook_' or '_did work on his hook_' (both these alternatives are valid).

(2) If we were to accept the proposed use of 'had', then in the given clause there would be no apparent way to distinguish between (a) 'had' meaning a factual event that happened one stage further back in the past than something else and (b) 'had' meaning an unreal supposition: something that did not happen at all. 
We need to preserve the 'unreal supposition' use of 'had' for that role: therefore the Virginia Evans use has to be sacrificed. 

There is no great loss of meaning as a result. The present perfect and the simple past will express what we normally need to express in factual conditionals. To make the additional time distinction you have in mind, a new sentence would be needed: but the likelihood that any real necessity for this will ever arise is very small. In the travel and boxing scenarios suggested above, it is not really needed for the conditional sentence.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

TresMal said:


> Let me try to demonstrate my point once more. Perhaps, a different scenario will be more effective. Please take a look at the following dialogue:
> _-Do you think he will win the fight tomorrow?
> -Well, it depends. I saw him for a few seconds this morning and didn’t have time to ask whether he had worked on his left hook yesterday. (So I don’t know if he’ll win...) If he had indeed worked on his left hook yesterday, he will win the fight tomorrow._
> 
> In a sense this is saying “if he worked on his left hook yesterday he will win tomorrow”. But past perfect is introduced to indicate chronological distinction between two past events. Does this make any sense?


But, TresMal, several of us have said that 'if he had indeed worked on his left hook yesterday' can only be said if he hasn't worked on it.

The conditional sentences which would meet the circumstances you are positing are one of these two:
*
 'If he has indeed  worked on his left hook, he will win the fight tomorrow'* - Type I conditional (present in the auxiliary in the if-clause, future in the main clause).
*'If he did indeed work on his left hook yesterday, he would win the fight tomorrow' *- Type II conditional (past in the auxiliary in the if-clause, conditional in the main clause)

The difference between the two is that the second (the Type II conditional) suggests the it's less likely that he has worked on his left hook.


----------



## TresMal

Many thanks, for your input, wandle and Thomas. I guess I really wanted to get to the bottom of this. Lacking the comprehension skills of a native speaker, I relied almost entirely on logic and it appeared to suggest that _If she had stayed up late yesterday, she will be late tomorrow._ was a meaningful and grammatically sound sentence. Looks like I was wrong after all.

Just one last thing though. This form _If she had stayed up late yesterday (If +subject + past perfect)_ necessarily means she did NOT (has not, had not) stay up late, right? If so, how then would one go about saying something like _If she stayed up late yesterday (where it is absolutely uncertain if she did or did not…)_ but in the past perfect? Again, sorry for perpetuating this tiresome discussion.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

How can one say* If she stayed up late yesterday* in the past perfect?  We've been telling you that if you say *If she had stayed up late* (past perfect) that means she didn't.

You seem to want to have your cake and eat it, TresMal.  I don't know what your question means.

If you want it to be possible for her to have stayed up late, you must use a different conditional form.  I gave you two examples of such forms.


----------



## wandle

TresMal said:


> Just one last thing though. ... how then would one go about saying something like _If she stayed up late yesterday (where it is absolutely uncertain if she did or did not…)_ but in the past perfect? Again, sorry for perpetuating this tiresome discussion.


As a matter of fact, I answered this very question in the last two paragraphs of  post 39, pointing out that we have to give up that possibility in English, in order to maintain the use of 'had' for unreal suppositions. 

In English grammar, unfortunately, making the distinction of a still earlier stage in the past (the normal role of the past perfect) is not possible within a factual past supposition. Therefore if you absolutely need to express the idea, something for which normally there is no need, then you will have to use an additional expression (phrase, clause or sentence) for the purpose.


----------



## Forero

I believe that the original sentence is logically and grammatically sound. It just means "If it is true that she had stayed up late yesterday, then it is true that she will be late tomorrow."

Yes, "If she had stayed up late yesterday" is ambiguous, but so is "if she stayed up late yesterday." Following either with "will" removes the possibility that _had_ or _stayed_ is meant as a subjunctive.

The original sentence sounds odd without supporting context, both because we do not have a temporal point of reference to justify the use of past perfect and also because we are missing an explanation of what the connection might be between the two predicates in question.

Neither does the presence of other conditionals taken out of their respective contexts help with understanding the one in question.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

In the BE that I know the past perfect in an if-clause can be referring to something which did actually occur only when the verb is in the negative.

In the positive:* if she had stayed up yesterday, she...* means she didn't stay up yesterday.  It's a common way of expressing regret.

In the negative:* if she had not stayed up yesterday, she... *means she did stay up yesterday.  It's a common way of expressing relief, or congratulation.

Almost every book and website on elementary English grammar makes this point.  Here's a BBC site on it:

Sample 1: _With the third conditional, Elena, we are often talking about something that might have happened, but didn't.__* (in positive examples)*_
Sample 2.  _Now, Elena, as well as talking about things that didn't happen, we also use the third conditional to talk about things that did happen but that might not have happened.__* (in negative examples)
*_
I don't think *if it's true that she had stayed up late yesterday* (something I could never say or write) is the same thing as* if she had stayed up late yesterday*.


----------



## wandle

Forero said:


> I believe that the original sentence is logically and grammatically sound. It just means "If it is true that she had stayed up late yesterday, then it is true that she will be late tomorrow."


This brings out neatly the meaning intended by *Thomas1* and *TresMal*.


Thomas Tompion said:


> * if she had stayed up yesterday, she...* means she didn't stay up yesterday. ...
> I don't think *if it's true that she had stayed up late yesterday* ... is the same thing as* if she had stayed up late yesterday*.


There *Thomas Tompion* is expressing the point made in post 43 and elsewhere:


> In English grammar, unfortunately, making the distinction of a still earlier stage in the past (the normal role of the past perfect) is not possible within a factual past supposition.


The resolution of the difficulty lies in the final sentence of post 43:


> if you absolutely need to express the idea, something for which normally there is no need, then you will have to use an additional expression (phrase, clause or sentence) for the purpose.


That is exactly what has happened in *Forero's* post 46.
The reference to a still earlier stage in the past within the framework of a factual past supposition has been achieved by the use of additional phrasing.

The faulty sentence _'If she had stayed up late yesterday, she will be late tomorrow'_
has been converted by additional phrasing into the following valid sentence: 
_'If it is true that she had stayed up late yesterday, then it is true that she will be late tomorrow.'_


----------



## modulus

audiolaik said:


> Hi,
> 
> It wasn't until a few weeks ago that I came across a sentence that left me in openmouthed shock...
> 
> *If she stayed up late yesterday, she will be late tomorrow.*



The second sentence sounds fine to me. I'd have probably used "she'd be" rather than "she'll be."  But the difference is academic. I wouldn't be so kind to the first sentence.


----------



## velisarius

Forero, does your sentence from post #44 mean "If it were true that she had stayed up late yesterday, then it would be true that she would be late tomorrow" ? If you really want to use "had stayed up" then I think the sentence is crying out for the subjunctive.


----------



## wandle

velisarius said:


> Forero, does your sentence from post #44 mean "If it were true that she had stayed up late yesterday, then it would be true that she would be late tomorrow" ? If you really want to use "had stayed up" then I think the sentence is crying out for the subjunctive.


It's not that. Forero's sentence is not an unreal past supposition (counterfactual) but an open past supposition (factual).


----------



## Thomas Tompion

velisarius said:


> Forero, does your sentence from post #44 mean "If it were true that she had stayed up late yesterday, then it would be true that she would be late tomorrow" ? If you really want to use "had stayed up" then I think the sentence is crying out for the subjunctive.


Hi Velisarius,

I agree that* if it were true that X, then it would be true that Y *is much more acceptable - it is, of course, a standard Type II conditional.

Are you distinguishing between *if it were true that she had stayed up *and *if it were true that she stayed up*? - I can't imagine myself saying the first.


----------



## modulus

Thomas Tompion said:


> Are you distinguishing between *if it were true that she had stayed up *and *if it were true that she stayed up*? - I can't imagine myself saying the first.


I'd say either of those two sentences in a heartbeat. I tend to throw around a lot of superfluous hads where the academic language taught to foreign students would, perhaps, avoid it. 

"If it were/was true that he had done that, I'd have done otherwise" seems perfectly natural to me.


----------



## Forero

wandle said:


> The faulty sentence _'If she had stayed up late yesterday, she will be late tomorrow'_
> has been converted by additional phrasing into the following valid sentence:
> _'If it is true that she had stayed up late yesterday, then it is true that she will be late tomorrow.'_


I maintain that the sentence is not faulty but a shorter way of saying the same thing. In either form, I feel it needs supporting context to give the past perfect a clear meaning. Context needs to tells us what we are hypothesizing about, either the question of whether at some time yesterday she had stayed up late at some earlier time, or the question of whether, at some later time such as this morning, she had stayed up late yesterday.

It would also help if the supporting context could give us some clue about the underlying assumption(s) that logically connect her having stayed up late, whenever, to her being late in the future. It does not have to be a cause and effect relationship, but I believe a logical connection is needed to help make the intended meaning clear enough that the reader does not see _will_ as a mistake for _would_.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

_'If she had stayed up late yesterday, she will be late tomorrow'_


Forero said:


> I maintain that the sentence is not faulty but a shorter way of saying the same thing. In either form, I feel it needs supporting context to give the past perfect a clear meaning. Context needs to tells us what we are hypothesizing about, either the question of whether at some time yesterday she had stayed up late at some earlier time, or the question of whether, at some later time such as this morning, she had stayed up late yesterday.
> 
> It would also help if the supporting context could give us some clue about the underlying assumption(s) that logically connect her having stayed up late, whenever, to her being late in the future. It does not have to be a cause and effect relationship, but I believe a logical connection is needed to help make the intended meaning clear enough that the reader does not see _will_ as a mistake for _would_.


So all the books and sites and posts in this thread which stress that *If I had done X *implies that I didn't do X are wrong then?

Clearly if the condition cannot be met, we cannot say that anything *will* follow from it.  It's this which makes the sentence impossible for me.

Is this some strange AE version of the third conditional?  Can you find supporting literature or websites?


----------



## TresMal

And I thought the argument was closed after wandle’s assertion “In English grammar, unfortunately, making the distinction of a still earlier stage in the past (the normal role of the past perfect) is not possible within a factual past supposition.”
But now I’m, after Forero’s posts, I’m confused again.


----------



## wandle

TresMal said:


> And I thought the argument was closed after wandle’s assertion “In English grammar, unfortunately, making the distinction of a still earlier stage in the past (the normal role of the past perfect) is not possible within a factual past supposition.”
> But now I’m, after Forero’s posts, I’m confused again.


It is not logically impossible, but it cannot be used without creating, or at least inviting, confusion with the standard unreal past conditional. Because of that inescapable clash, it cannot, in practical terms, be used. This practical limitation results from a grammatical limitation: the fact that one form would have two meanings which were not just different but opposite.

It is also in normal usage unecessary. Forero's claim is that the sentence (a) _'If she had stayed up late yesterday, she will be late tomorrow'_ will work if it is supported by the context.

However, if there is supporting context, then the intended meaning will be conveyed clearly by (b) _'If she stayed up late yesterday, she will be late tomorrow'_.

Compare that with (c) _'If she has stayed up late, she will be late tomorrow'_. 
Sentence (c), using the present perfect, places the past event in the present context: in other words, it connects the event 'staying up late' not to 'yesterday' but to the day on which it is spoken.
Sentence (b), using the simple past, places the past event in a past context (yesterday): in other words, it shifts the event 'staying up late' one stage further back in time.


----------



## Forero

wandle said:


> It is not logically impossible, but it cannot be used without creating, or at least inviting, confusion with the standard unreal past conditional. Because of that inescapable clash, it cannot, in practical terms, be used. This practical limitation results from a grammatical limitation: the fact that one form would have two meanings which were not just different but opposite.


As I see it, "if she stayed up late" and "if she had stayed up late" are both standard irrealis conditionals, but that does not preclude them from also being standard realis conditionals in the presence of _will_:

_If she stayed up late yesterday, she would be late tomorrow._ [probably irrealis, but possibly past indicative with _would_ as "future in the past]
_If she had stayed up late yesterday, she would be late tomorrow._ [probably irrealis, but possibly past indicative with _would_ as "future in the past]

_If she stayed up late yesterday, she will be late tomorrow._ [realis]
_If she had stayed up late yesterday, she will be late tomorrow._ *?* [realis]





> It is also in normal usage un*n*ecessary.


Perhaps past perfect indicative is never really necessary, but it does seem useful sometimes. 


> Forero's claim is that the sentence (a) _'If she had stayed up late yesterday, she will be late tomorrow'_ will work if it is supported by the context.
> 
> However, if there is supporting context, then the intended meaning will be conveyed clearly by (b) _'If she stayed up late yesterday, she will be late tomorrow'_.


By supporting context, I meant context both to make the meaning clear and to justify the use of past perfect. We don't automatically use past perfect in every sentence in which something did or did not happen before something else. We often need some additional reason to use it.





> Compare that with (c) _'If she has stayed up late, she will be late tomorrow'_.
> Sentence (c), using the present perfect, places the past event in the present context: in other words, it connects the event 'staying up late' not to 'yesterday' but to the day on which it is spoken.
> Sentence (b), using the simple past, places the past event in a past context (yesterday): in other words, it shifts the event 'staying up late' one stage further back in time.


I agree that when "stayed" says everything we need to say, "had stayed" is unnecessary.

I keep thinking that some context can clear all this up for us, but the closest I have seen so far is TresMal's left hook scenario, and I think "did" fits it better than "had".


----------



## wandle

wandle said:


> This practical limitation results from a grammatical limitation: the fact that one form would have two meanings which were not just different but opposite.


The two opposed meanings can be seen in the following examples:

(a) _If she had stayed up late, she will be late tomorrow._
(b) _If she had stayed up late, she could have seen the meteor shower._

Sentence (a) means to imply that it is possible that she had stayed up late (because that question has not been settled).
Sentence (b) implies that it is not possible that she stayed up late (because that question has been settled in the negative). 

The fact that the same clause 'if she had stayed up late' would have to be capable of these two contradictory meanings is one reason why it cannot work. 
There is another, namely that sentence (a) violates the requirement for a consistent time context. 
The main verb of the sentence is 'will be'. This, being a future tense, can only function in a present context. The past perfect tense, which serves to place a past event one stage further back in time, can only function in a past context.

When we say 'she will be late tomorrow' we are expressing a present consequence of a past event. We must in reality call this a present consequence because we cannot in fact foresee the future (although we speak as if we can). Given that, if we then ask, 'What is the tense which expresses a past event which has a present consequence?' the answer is 'the present perfect'. This gives us a valid sentence:
_'If she has stayed up late, she will be late tomorrow'_.

We still have the option of placing the past event one stage further back in time by using the simple past:
_'If she stayed up late yesterday, she will be late tomorrow'._


----------



## wandle

wandle said:


> In English grammar, unfortunately, making the distinction of a still earlier stage in the past (the normal role of the past perfect) is not possible within a factual past supposition. Therefore if you absolutely need to express the idea, something for which normally there is no need, then you will have to use an additional expression (phrase, clause or sentence) for the purpose.





wandle said:


> It is also in normal usage unnecessary.





Forero said:


> Perhaps past perfect indicative is never really necessary, but it does seem useful sometimes.


Sorry, Forero, but your comment takes my words out of context. I have not said or suggested that the past perfect is unnnecessary. I am a staunch defender of that tense against those who feel like dropping it.

If you re-read *Tresmal's* posts (from post 41) and my replies in sequence, you will see that I was saying (a) that 'making the distinction of a still earlier stage in the past (the normal role of the past perfect) is not possible within a factual past supposition' and (b) that it is also in normal usage unnecessary.

In other words: (a) it is not possible to make that distinction within a factual past supposition,
and (b) it is not normally necessary to make that distinction within a factual past supposition.

In fact, you yourself seem to be agreeing that it is not normally necessary when you say:


Forero said:


> I keep thinking that some context can clear all this up for us, but the closest I have seen so far is TresMal's left hook scenario, and I think "did" fits it better than "had".


If it ever should be necessary, then we have available the kind of periphrasis you employed in post 44 ('If it is true that...').


----------

