# The mix of conditional mood with indicative mood



## Prower

Just to doublecheck....
If we use the conditional mood and the indicative jointly how do we choose the tense for the indicative mood

For example

If he came to you I would say you are out. 

If he had come to you I would have said you were out.

Is it always in conjunction with the tense implied by the conditional mood?

I.e. If he came = Present, Future - therefore we put a verb in the form of the Present

Is it always like that?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Hello Prower,

The question as you put it raises doubts in my mind, at least, about whether we are dealing with direct or indirect speech. There's also the question of how you could tell him you were out, as the fact that you were telling him showed you were in. I'm going to alter the examples slightly, to try to make them unambiguous.

If he came to you, I would tell him you are feeling ill.

This is not a possible sentence, in my view, because the _If he came_ refers to the past, so it has to be _you *were* feeling ill_. 

If he had come to you, I would have told him you were feeling ill.


----------



## Prower

Thomas Tompion said:


> There's also the question of how you could tell him you were out, as the fact that you were telling him showed you were in.



*It is not clear to me how you come to this conclusion.* 

There are 3 persons involved in this situation.

1) I
2) Another person who I call "you" in this example
3) The third guy, who I call "he"

I am not going to tell he (3) that I (1) is out instead I (1) am going to tell him (3) that you (2) are out, not I.

But it is not important anyway. The important part is the tenses.



Thomas Tompion said:


> If he came to you, I would tell him you are feeling ill.
> 
> This is not a possible sentence, in my view, because the _If he came_ refers to the past, so it has to be _you *were* feeling ill_.


Again I don't undersatnd why you are saying that it refers to the PAST. It is the conditional mood (Subjunctive mood). For instance - If I were you I would do it. It has nothing to do with the PAST.


----------



## panjandrum

If he came to you I would say you are out. 
This sentence confuses me.
What do you mean by "came to you"?
To me, it means him coming to the place where you are.
So, you and he are together.
Why would I say anything, and why would I say that you were out?

I think you need to explain the situation in which you want to use this sentence.


----------



## Prower

He -  is John
You  - is Jack
I - is Peter

If John came to Jack I would say that Jack is out.

(Jack and I are at home and John is going to come)


----------



## Spira

Prower said:


> Just to doublecheck....
> If we use the conditional mood and the indicative jointly how do we choose the tense for the indicative mood
> 
> For example
> 
> If he came to you I would say you are out.
> 
> If he had come to you I would have said you were out.
> 
> Is it always in conjunction with the tense implied by the conditional mood?
> 
> I.e. If he came = Present, Future - therefore we put a verb in the form of the Present
> 
> Is it always like that?


 
I don't really understand your question, Prower, but I always learned that the _conditional_ is a tense, not a mood. 
There are only two moods, indicative and subjunctive, but many tenses.


----------



## panjandrum

Prower said:


> He -  is John
> You  - is Jack
> I - is Peter
> 
> If John came to Jack I would say that Jack is out.
> 
> (Jack and I are at home and John is going to come)


Sorry, but if John came to Jack, why would you say that Jack is out?
If John comes to Jack, John and Jack are in the same place.

Please describe exactly what you mean by "If John came to Jack".

Ah, hang on a moment.
I think that you mean something like "If John came to visit Jack...".
With that small change, the situation you are talking about is, perhaps, John knocks on the front door of the house ...  I open the door... John asks if Jack is in... I say "No, Jack is out."

Is that correct?
If it is, then we could move ahead to discuss the sentence with a small change:
_If he came to visit you I would say you are out._


----------



## Prower

Spira said:


> I don't really understand your question, Prower, but I always learned that the _conditional_ is a tense, not a mood.
> There are only two moods, indicative and subjunctive, but many tenses.


For the sake of clarity, 

There 12 Tenses Present, Future, Past. Each is multiplied by four. 
There are 3 moods - Indicative, Conditional and Imperative. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_mood)


----------



## Prower

Are these two sentences so different that you didn't understand it at first?

 "If John came to Jack" -  "If John came to visit Jack..."
_______________________________


If he came to visit you I would say you are out.

So, we should use PRESENT SIMPLE, because we are talking about the present?


----------



## panjandrum

_If he came to visit you I would say you are out._

First conditional.
_If he comes to visit you I will say that you are out._
Future reference: probable.

Second conditional.
_If he came to visit you I would say that you were out._
Future reference: improbable.

Third conditional
_If he had come to visit you I would have said that you were out._
Past reference: it didn't happen.

It seems that the sentences in post#1 don't fit any of those standard structures.


----------



## Spira

Prower said:


> For the sake of clarity,
> 
> There 12 Tenses Present, Future, Past. Each is multiplied by four.
> There are 3 moods - Indicative, Conditional and Imperative. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_mood)


 
Well, the Wikipaedia article certainly says that, but my English teachers so long ago in England did not think that. Have they changed the definition of _mood_? Or could Wiki actually be wrong?


----------



## panjandrum

Prower said:


> Are these two sentences so different that you didn't understand it at first?
> 
> "If John came to Jack" -  "If John came to visit Jack..."
> _______________________________
> ...


Yes, they are so different.
I assumed that you meant to write the sentence that you wrote.
In particular, the sentence you asked about, "If he came to you I would say you are out." was particularly incomprehensible on first, second and third reading.
You gave no context that might have made your omission more easy to spot.

If you expected us to guess what your sentence was intended to mean and to insert missing words, you should have made that clear in your first post.


----------



## Prower

It is not only wiki who says that...... but it is not very important here.


----------



## Prower

panjandrum said:


> Yes, they are so different.
> I assumed that you meant to write the sentence that you wrote.
> 
> If you expected us to guess what your sentence was intended to mean and to insert missing words, you should have made that clear in your first post.



It is interesting. What, then,  does "If John came to Jack" mean?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Prower said:


> *It is not clear to me how you come to this conclusion.*
> 
> There are 3 persons involved in this situation.
> 
> 1) I
> 2) Another person who I call "you" in this example
> 3) The third guy, who I call "he"
> 
> I am not going to tell he (3) that I (1) is out instead I (1) am going to tell him (3) that you (2) are out, not I.
> 
> But it is not important anyway. The important part is the tenses.
> 
> 
> Again I don't undersatnd why you are saying that it refers to the PAST. It is the conditional mood (Subjunctive mood). For instance - If I were you I would do it. It has nothing to do with the PAST.


Try it like this:

_If he comes, I will see him._
_If he came, I would see him._

These are the simple normal forms.

_If I were you_ expresses an impossible condition, one that cannot be met - I cannot be you - and we are not dealing here with an impossible condition, Prower. It's not out of the question that he came to you, is it? 

_If he came, I would see him_ can refer to a hypothetical future - _were he to come_ (perhaps in the future), _I would see him_ - or to a habitual past - _when he came, I was in the habit of seeing him_.

Of these two possibilities (hypothetical future or habitual past) I could only see one (habitual past) being applicable to your case. I can't see how _If he came to you, I would tell him you are feeling ill_ can be applicable to a hypothetical future, but this may be because of the jumble of pronouns which has puzzled other people, too.

_If he came to me, I would tell him you are feeling ill_ might be applicable to a hypothetical future, and might just be possible, though I'd prefer _If he came to me, I would tell him you were feeling ill._


----------



## panjandrum

Prower said:


> It is interesting. What, then,  does "If John came to Jack" mean?


Nothing!
Certainly, nothing without context.

Keep in mind that the second part of your sentences only makes sense if John and Jack are not in the same place at the time.


----------



## Prower

panjandrum said:


> _If he came to visit you I would say you are out._
> 
> First conditional.
> 
> 
> Second conditional.
> 
> 
> Third conditional
> 
> It seems that the sentences in post#1 don't fit any of those standard structures.



I can see it. What conclusion shall we make? This is a wrong sentence or an extra construction?


----------



## Prower

Thomas Tompion said:


> Of these two possibilities (hypothetical future or habitual past) I could only see one (habitual past) being applicable to your case.



I beleive you but don't understand why you think so.


Thomas Tompion said:


> I can't see how _If he came to you, I would tell him you are feeling ill_ can be applicable to a hypothetical future, but this may be because of the jumble of pronouns which has puzzled other people, too.


Well, we have solved this issue with *panjandrum* already.



Thomas Tompion said:


> _If he came to me, I would tell him you are feeling ill_ might be applicable to a hypothetical future, and might just be possible, though I'd prefer _If he came to me, I would tell him you were feeling ill._



This piece of your post is very relevant to the issue being discussed.

If you check the post  #10 you will see that *panjandrum* didn't include this construction at all.

"If he came to me, I would tell him you are feeling."

You also say that it is not something what you would prefer to say but still you mentioned this construction what makes me think this construction is possible. And this is the critical question. Is it acceptable or not?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

One could certainly say _If he comes to you, tell him you are feeling ill_.

_If he came to me, I would tell him you were feeling ill_ is certainly all right, in my view, to refer either to a hypothetical future or a habitual past .

I don't doubt that people do say _If he came to me, I would tell him you are_ _feeling __ill_ and I've already said what I think of it, in post 15#. The past force of the _came_ combined with the_ I would tell him_ demands the backshift, to my ear.


----------



## Prower

What is "backshift"? Can't find the relevant meaning in a dictionary.......


----------



## JamesM

Prower said:


> What is "backshift"? Can't find the relevant meaning in a dictionary.......


 
Here is an article on backshifting:

http://slb-ltsu.hull.ac.uk/awe/index.php?title=Backshift


As for "If he came to you I would say you are out." I agree with panjandrum. This is very different from "If he came to *see* you". "If he came to you" means that you were here when he came and he saw you; "If he came to see you" tells us his intention but it doesn't say whether you were there or not. 

I would say:

If he comes/asks to see you I will tell him you are out. (Promise for the future)
If he had come/asked to see you I would have told him you were out. (He didn't come to see you, but if he had, I would have told him you were not here.)
If he came/asked to see you I would tell him you were out. (Hypothetical future)


----------



## Prower

JamesM said:


> Here is an article on backshifting:
> 
> http://slb-ltsu.hull.ac.uk/awe/index.php?title=Backshift


Thank you, very useful.



JamesM said:


> I would say:
> 
> If he comes/asks to see you I will tell him you are out. (Promise for the future)
> If he had come/asked to see you I would have told him you were out. (He didn't come to see you, but if he had, I would have told him you were not here.)
> If he came/asked to see you I would tell him you were out. (Hypothetical future)



What I don't understand is the logic which determines your choice of moods regarding the third verb in these sentences. (You were/are out)

1) If he comes/asks to see you I will tell him you are out. (Is it the subjunctive mood or the indicative?)

2) If he had come/asked to see you I would have told him you were out. (Is it the subjunctive mood or the indicative?)

3) If he came/asked to see you I would tell him you were out (Is it the subjunctive mood or the indicative?)


I think that in the 1 and 3 you use SUBJUNCTIVE, *but* in the second you use INDICTATIVE.

*Otherwise you should have writen*

If he came/asked to see you I would tell him you had been out.

I still find it not logical.........


----------



## Loob

This thread confuses me.

But I agree that there is no such thing as "conditional mood".


----------



## Cagey

Because the subjunctive form differs from the indicative only in the third person, let's switch the pronouns around and see whether that helps to clarify the issue of mood. I also include the optional [_that_] to make it clearer that this is reported speech rather than a direct quotation.  Of course, in direct quotation there would be no change of the original verb.1) If you come/ask to see him, I will tell you [that] he is out. (indicative mood)

2) If you had come/asked to see him I would have told you [that] he was out. (indicative)

3) If you came/asked to see *him* I would tell you [that] he was out. (indicative)​At least, that is what I would say, and how I identify the moods.


----------



## Prower

Loob said:


> This thread confuses me.
> 
> But I agree that there is no such thing as "conditional mood".


You are completely right, you have every right to think so, nevertheless, it is not us who invent things and Conditional mood is only another label for a certain phenomenon, still there is something behind it. Some grammarians are pretty much certain about its existence. 

Conditional mood exists not only in English but almost in every langauge of man kind.

http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/grammatical-mood/conditional-mood.html
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/131518/conditional-mood


----------



## piney

Spira said:


> Well, the Wikipaedia article certainly says that, but my English teachers so long ago in England did not think that. Have they changed the definition of _mood_? Or could Wiki actually be wrong?



The *conditional mood* appears to be the same as the *subjunctive mood* you referred to.


----------



## Prower

*The subjunctive mood* has several uses in independent clauses. Examples include discussing hypothetical or unlikely events, expressing opinions or emotions, or making polite requests (the exact scope is language-specific).

*The conditional mood* is used to express a lack of certainty about whether the action ever occurs, particularly, but not exclusively, in conditional clauses. In English, the conditional is manifested by means of the modal auxiliary 'would' added to the bare infinitive, e.g. I would buy.


----------



## panjandrum

According to the Oxford English Grammar, there are three moods: indicative, imperative, subjunctive.
There is no conditional mood.
There are conditional verb forms.

In the example sentences, all of the red verbs (post #22) are indicative mood.
As I understand it, only the verb expressing the hypothetical condition shows the subjunctive mood:
_3) If he came/asked to see you...
_Here, the subjunctive form is identical to the past form.


----------



## Prower

Cagey said:


> 1) If you come/ask to see him, I will tell you [that] he is out. (indicative mood)
> 
> 2) If you had come/asked to see him I would have told you [that] he was out. (indicative)
> 
> 3) If you came/asked to see you I would tell you [that] he was out. (indicative)
> [/INDENT]At least, that is what I would say, and how I identify the moods.



I can see your logic in the first two examples. 

1) Implies the future - This is why we need to put PRESENT SIMPLE here  (I will tell him that you are out)
2) Implies the past - This is why we need to put PAST SIMPLE (I would have said (= in the past) you were out.)
3) Implies the future (as well as the first one) -  - This is why we also need to put PRESENT SIMPLE here. But you didn't do it.......


----------



## piney

Thomas Tompion said:


> One could certainly say _If he comes to you, tell him you are feeling ill_.
> 
> _If he came to me, I would tell him you were feeling ill_ is certainly all right, in my view, to refer either to a hypothetical future or a habitual past .
> 
> I don't doubt that people do say _If he came to me, I would tell him you are_ _feeling __ill_ and I've already said what I think of it, in post 15#. The past force of the _came_ combined with the_ I would tell him_ demands the backshift, to my ear.



If he came to see you *now*, I would say that you *are* not home *now*. 
I took liberty to add "now" to make it clear that we are talking about the present time. I am not sure why we can't use the present tense.


----------



## Cagey

Prower said:


> [....]
> 3) Implies the future (as well as the first one) -  - This is why we also need to put PRESENT SIMPLE here. But you didn't do it.......


I was reading this as habitual action in the past, though in some contexts I might read it otherwise.


----------



## Prower

panjandrum said:


> According to the Oxford English Grammar, there are three moods: indicative, imperative, subjunctive.
> [/I]



It is very interesting, I wish I had the book to read their arguments. However, it doesn't sound plausible because almost every language has Conditional mood, so how is it possible that English doesn't have it? I think it is only a question of terms. If someone due to some reasons didn't want to admit that there is the Conditional mood in English then it doesn't say that it really doesn't exist.


panjandrum said:


> There is no conditional mood.
> There are conditional verb forms.


Let's agree on that. But what are they? I think "WOULD" would be one of them.

Ok, here it is an example

He wouldn't do it. (It can mean both)

1) He really didn't want to do it and he didn't do it.
2) He would do it if........

If it was only about the form then we should admit that the first meaning is conditional. But it isn't it is indicative.

If "WOULD" can be used both with indicative and conditional then how can we know which one is the one?

This is why it is not only about the forms of verbs but also about the mood.


----------



## Loob

I'm still confused by this thread.  It seems to me to have nothing to do with moods, and everything to do with reported speech:
He came to see you and I said "he is out"
He came to see you and I said you were out.
If he came to see you I would say "he is out".
If he came to see you I would say you were out.


----------



## Prower

Cagey said:


> I was reading this as habitual action in the past.


Ok, but it means not only that. How would you alter it if it meant another thing?


----------



## panjandrum

Spot on, Loob.


Loob said:


> I'm still confused by this thread.  It seems to me to have nothing to do with moods, and everything to do with reported speech:
> He came to see you and I said "he is out"
> He came to see you and I said you were out.
> If he came to see you I would say "he is out".
> If he came to see you I would say you were out.


It is the combination of conditional structures, hypotheticals, and the backshift required in reported speech that is at the heart of the confusion.
The shift from direct to reported speech, from present to past, is required whether the speech being reported was real, and in the past, or hypothetical, and in the future.


----------



## Prower

*I think this thread needs a summary.

As far as I could understand the indicative mood should be used in these cases with conditional (subjunctive) sentences. The indicative mood should correspond with the idea of the conditional (subjunctive) sentence depednding on the tense conveyed by the conditional (subjunctive) part of the sentence.*
-------------------------------------------------------------------

*If you came/asked to see you I would tell you* conveys the past (hence, as a result we have the past)

*[that] he was out.* (PAST)
-------------------------------------------------------------------

*Then it is logical to agree that in this case
*

If he came to see you (now), I would say that you are not home (now). 

This is what *piney * said in the post #30  

(I would still appreciate more contributions on this issue, as it seems like most of the contributors took this sentence as a past conveying one while it wasn't)


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Prower said:


> [...]
> *If you came/asked to see you I would tell you* conveys the past (hence, as a result we have the past)
> 
> *[that] he was out.* (PAST)
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> *Then it is logical to agree that in this case*


Two points:

1. We've been at pains to explain that this sentence can refer either to a real habitual past or to a hypothetical future. You've left out the second possibility here, Prower.

2. This choice of tense (_was_ or _is_) is less a matter of logic than of the habits of backshift employed in reported speech. _If you came to see me, I would tell you that he was out _is correct in many circumstances.

Loob outlined the principles in post 33#:

He came to see you and I said "he is out"
He came to see you and I said you were out.
If he came to see you I would say "he is out".
If he came to see you I would say you were out. 

This page outlines the rules for backshifting. Note that we usually don't backshift when the statement is still true at the time of reporting. This raises the question of whether or not he is still out, and here the fact that it's a statement about a habitual past makes the possibility of his still being out irrelevant. We aren't talking about a single instance in this case.

In the other case (the hypothetical future), there's usually no question of our being able to have a view about his still being out, so we must backshift.


Prower said:


> [...]This is what *piney *said in the post #30
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If he came to see you (now), I would say that you are not home (now).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (I would still appreciate more contributions on this issue, as it seems like most of the contributors took this sentence as a past conveying one while it wasn't)
Click to expand...

I agree that Piney makes a good point which needs explaining.

I don't think the second _now_ adds anything, so let's omit it:

_If he came to see you now, I would say that you are not at home._

Here we are talking about the hypothetical future, and a future so near that it's fair to assume that you will still be at home. If the statement is still true at the time of reporting, then we don't backshift. This explains why Piney's example is correct.


----------



## Prower

Thomas Tompion said:


> Two points:
> 
> 1. We've been at pains to explain that this sentence can refer either to a real habitual past or to a hypothetical future. You've left out the second possibility here, Prower.


Not at all did I leave any of them out. It is only that I was concerned about the FUTURE one because with the PAST one it was clear (except one thing). By the way, I didn't see anyone explaining the FUTURE meaning except Piney. And even he didn'y explain it but came up with an example. 



Thomas Tompion said:


> 2. This choice of tense (_was_ or _is_) is less a matter of logic than of the habits of backshift employed in reported speech. _If you came to see me, I would tell you that he was out _is correct in many circumstances.



It's a good point. Nevertheless, it is also good to remember that when REPORTED SPEECH is explained then ALWAYS the indicative mood is used as an illustration. (At least, I have never seen it include examples with the conditional (subjuntive mood). This is why fir me it is very risky to draw a parallel between

1) REPORTED SPEECH in indicative mood
and
2) REPORTED SPEECH in conditional (subjuntive) mood

I didn't quite understand if you take this thing into consideration.

I am not sure if these two are driven by the same rule.

*He said he was there. VS. If he knew it he would say he IS/WAS there.*

Do you confirm that we should use the same appraoch with the subjunctive mood as well as with the indicative mood as for the reported speech?


Thomas Tompion said:


> Loob outlined the principles in post 33#:
> 
> He came to see you and I said "he is out"
> He came to see you and I said you were out.
> If he came to see you I would say "he is out".
> If he came to see you I would say you were out.



It is ambiguos. I failed to catch the logical line. 



Thomas Tompion said:


> This page outlines the rules for backshifting.


It doesn't say anything about the reported speech in the subjuntive mood. And I don't think that it is right to make an assumption that it is the same for the subjuntive as it is for the indicative.



Thomas Tompion said:


> Note that we usually don't backshift when the statement is still true at the time of reporting. This raises the question of whether or not he is still out, and here the fact that it's a statement about a habitual past, makes the possibility of his still being in irrelevant. We aren't talking about a single instance in this case.



This is also what I can't undersatnd. When we use "IF" we mean that something is not real. How then can this sentence mean a habitual past if it starts with IF? (If what?)

A habitual past implies real facts but not "IF" (At least it's is what I think)

To me it sounds starnge with *if*. I would switch *if* to "Every time or always" 



Thomas Tompion said:


> In the other case (the hypothetical future), there's usually no question of our being able to have a view about his still being in (Here you say that we can't know about his being in?????), *so we must backshift.*
> 
> I agree that Piney makes a good point, which needs explaining.
> 
> I don't think the second _now_ adds anything, so let's omit it:
> 
> _If he came to see you now, I would say that you are not at home._
> 
> Here we are talking about the hypothetical future, and a future so near that it's fair to assume that you will still be at home. If the statement is still true at the time of reporting, *then we don't backshift.* This explains why Piney's example is correct.



Again I see a contradiction in your explanation. 
At first you say 


Thomas Tompion said:


> T
> In the other case (the hypothetical future), there's usually no question of our being able to have a view about his still being in, *so we must backshift.*


Ok let's backshift.
But then you agree that we can omit backshifting because the FUTURE is so near. Well, how do we measure the nearness of the future?



Thomas Tompion said:


> Here we are talking about the hypothetical future, and a future so near that it's fair to assume that you will still be at home. (Here we know that he will be there?????) If the statement is still true at the time of reporting, then we don't backshift. This explains why Piney's example is correct.


----------



## Loob

Prower said:


> Do you confirm that we should use the same appraoch with the subjunctive mood as well as with the indicative mood as for the reported speech?


Yes. 

Except that I don't call the conditional tense "subjunctive": for me, the conditional is indicative, a tense not a mood.

"That is right".
Loob *says* that *is* right.
Loob *will say* that *is* right.
Loob *said* that *was* right.
Loob *would say* that *was* right.

By far the simplest approach is always to backshift when the sequence of tenses calls for it and when the verb allows (see TT's link). Not backshifting is fairly unusual.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Prower said:


> [...]By the way, I didn't see anyone explaining the FUTURE meaning except Piney.


Look at my post 15#.



Thomas Tompion said:


> [...]
> _If he came, I would see him_ can refer to a hypothetical future - _were he to come_ (perhaps in the future), _I would see him_ - or to a habitual past - _when he came, I was in the habit of seeing him_.


I doubt very much if I was the only one to point out the two possible meanings.


----------



## panjandrum

Prower said:


> *...
> As far as I could understand the indicative mood should be used in these cases with conditional (subjunctive) sentences. The indicative mood should correspond with the idea of the conditional (subjunctive) sentence depednding on the tense conveyed by the conditional (subjunctive) part of the sentence.*
> ...





> 2) REPORTED SPEECH in conditional (subjuntive) mood


You seem to equate conditional with subjunctive.  That may be another factor causing confusion.
Conditional is not the same as subjunctive.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I'll have another try.

We are concerned here with a type two conditional. (_If he came, I would tell him that...._)

Type Two conditionals can have two possible meanings:

_1. A habitual action in the past._

_2. A hypothetical action in the future._

We backshift (_If he came, I would tell him that he was ugly_), UNLESS

a. we are concerned with something which is an eternal truth:

_If he came, I would tell him the earth is round. -_ this could be either 1. or 2.

b. we are concerned with something which is still true at the time of reporting.

_If he came, I would tell him he is late for the appointment_ (this can only have sense 2., because 1. is concerned with the past); it also can't apply to very far into the future, for obvious reasons.


_If he came, I would tell him he is ugly_ could, of course, have either of the two meanings, 1. or 2. He may have been ugly then, he may be ugly now, and he may still be ugly at the hypothetical moment in the future.


----------



## Prower

Thomas Tompion said:


> I'll have another try.
> 
> We are concerned here with a type two conditional. (_If he came, I would tell him that...._)
> 
> Type Two conditionals can have two possible meanings:
> 
> _1. A habitual action in the past._
> 
> _2. A hypothetical action in the future._


Yes. I agree with 2. The number one confuses me because of "IF". 

If it is a habitual action in the past then IF doesn't make sence to me. A habitual action conveys action, but if we put IF then we put this action in question. In other words, he might not have been coming to see ....... 

*Do we say - If I used to be a doctor??????? * 
May be this is something what I am completely ignorant about, but I thought in order to express this meaning we could use

If I had been a doctor/ If he had been coming to see me I would have told him.


Thomas Tompion said:


> We backshift (_If he came, I would tell him that he was ugly_), UNLESS
> 
> a. we are concerned with something which is an eternal truth:
> 
> _If he came, I would tell him the earth is round. -_ this could be either 1. or 2.
> 
> b. we are concerned with something which is still true at the time of reporting.
> 
> _If he came, I would tell him he is late for the appointment_ (this can only have sense 2., because 1. is concerned with the past); it also can't apply to very far into the future, for obvious reasons.
> 
> 
> _If he came, I would tell him he is ugly_ could, of course, have either of the two meanings, 1. or 2. He may have been ugly then, he may be ugly now, and he may still be ugly at the hypothetical moment in the future.



This is something what was explained very vaguely before.


----------



## Loob

Prower said:


> May be this is something what I am completely ignorant about


You might find this Wiki article helpful: Conditional sentence.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Prower said:


> Yes. I agree with 2. The number one confuses me because of "IF".
> 
> If it is a habitual action in the past then IF doesn't make sence to me. A habitual action conveys action, but if we put IF then we put this action in question. In other words, he might not have been coming to see .......
> 
> [...]


That could explain a lot of your difficulty, Prower.

In this sort of condition, the habitual action in the past,_ if_ means almost the same as _whenever_ or _on those occasions when_.


----------



## Prower

Loob said:


> You might find this Wiki article helpful: Conditional sentence.



*If he came, I would tell him that he was ugly. 
*
According to TT this is not a conditional sentence. He says it is a fact.....


----------



## Prower

Thomas Tompion said:


> That could explain a lot of your difficulty, Prower.
> 
> In this sort of condition, the habitual action in the past,_ if_ means almost the same as _whenever_ or _on those occasions when_.



*So you mean that these sentences are the same.*


Whenever he came to see me, I would keep him waiting outside my door. = If he came to see me, I would keep him waiting outside my door.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Prower said:


> *If he came, I would tell him that he was ugly. *
> 
> According to TT this is not a conditional sentence. He says it is a fact.....


Loob's link explains that conditional sentences can explain factual implications. It's in almost the opening sentence of the article.

I said it can be a description of what happened habitually in the past, if and when a certain condition was met: i.e. my type 1.

There is an important distinction, which we must observe, between what something* is* and what it* can be*.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Prower said:


> *So you mean that these sentences are the same.*
> 
> 
> Whenever he came to see me, I would keep him waiting outside my door. = If he came to see me, I would keep him waiting outside my door.


They can mean almost exactly the same thing - in meaning 1. There are differences of emphasis.


----------



## Prower

Thomas Tompion said:


> Loob's link explains that conditional sentences can explain factual implications. [/COLOR]



This is hard to understand. Are factual implications the same as a fact?

(The word fact can refer to verified information about past or present circumstances or events which are presented *as objective reality*.)

It is not clear to me how IF can present objective reality.....????


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Prower said:


> This is hard to understand. Are factual implications the same as a fact?
> 
> (The word fact can refer to verified information about past or present circumstances or events which are presented *as objective reality*.)
> 
> It is not clear to me how IF can present objective reality.....????


A conditional sentence with the if-clause in the past tense can mean, when it's of the type I've called 1., that on those occasions when the condition was met (whenever), certain consequences followed.

_If he came, I saw him_ - When the condition (that he came) was met, I saw him.

_If he comes, I will see him_ - When the condition is met (in the future), I will see him.

We can talk of the past as being factual; the future is more a matter of speculation and hypothesis.


----------



## piney

Prower, I think you are wasting your time here because everybody seems to make their own grammar rules as they go.

If he *came *to see you now, I *would say* the following. 

This is what British grammars call *type 2 conditional* (second conditional). 

This type of conditional deals with an unreal present situation. 

It means it is improbable that he comes to see you now, but if he did, I would say the following. 

If he *came* to see you now, I *would say* that you *are* not home.  'that you are not home' replaces 'the following' in the above sentence. This is type 2 conditional and deals with an unreal present situation.


----------



## Prower

Thomas Tompion said:


> A conditional sentence with the if-clause in the past tense can mean, when it's of the type I've called 1., that on those occasions when the condition was met (whenever), certain consequences followed.
> 
> _If he came, I saw him_ - When the condition (that he came) was met, I saw him.
> 
> _If he comes, I will see him_ - When the condition is met (in the future), I will see him.
> 
> We can talk of the past as being factual; the future is more a matter of speculation and hypothesis.


You know, TT, it seems to me that I have understood what you mean.

Let me put it the way I see it now. I need to change the context so that it be more clear now (at least for me)


There were three guys. Two used to sell meat and one was a customer. The customer would come to buy meat from one of them. 
So, one of these butchers can say.


*- If the customer came to me I would always give him pork, but if he came to my oponent he would give him mutton.* So, the fact of the customer's coming is not in question. It is only the destination which is in question. Right?


*Another thing*
1) If he came, I saw him VS 2) If he had come I would have seen him.

What is the difference?

1) Does it mean a series of actions (comings)?
2) Does it mean one action (coming)?


----------



## Prower

piney said:


> Prower, I think you are wasting your time here because everybody seems to make their own grammar rules as they go.


I would kindly ask you not to say such things to me any more. Because

1) It is up to me how to spend my time and how to classify the spending.

2) It is not true that everybody makes their own grammar rules. There are different aprroaches not the rules. Only he who doesn't know the rules may think that there are different rules about the same things.

3) I would prefer to think that I am communicating here with proffesional linguists or at least with advanced enthusiasts who enjoy the process of finding the truth. If my meticulous approach irritates you then you can just ignore this thread. I hope you were not made to participate here neaither by me nor by someone else.



piney said:


> If he *came *to see you now, I *would say* the following.
> 
> This is what British grammars call *type 2 conditional* (second conditional).
> 
> This type of conditional deals with an unreal present situation.




It is not what bothered me. 



piney said:


> It means it is improbable that he comes to see you now, but if he did, I would say the following.
> 
> If he *came* to see you now, I *would say* that you *are* not home.  'that you are not home' replaces 'the following' in the above sentence. This is type 2 conditional and deals with an unreal present situation.



The problem is that at first nobody accepted this option and only you, to be honest, did come forward with this variant. However, you were hesitating about it. Hesitating answers don't infuse confidence. 

I hope you find my arguments fair and can understand my feedback.

Regards.


----------



## JamesM

Prower said:


> You know, TT, it seems to me that I have understood what you mean.
> 
> Let me put it the way I see it now. I need to change the context so that it be more clear now (at least for me)
> 
> 
> There were three guys. Two used to sell meat and one was a customer. The customer would come to buy meat from one of them.
> So, one of these butchers can say.
> 
> 
> *- If the customer came to me I would always give him pork, but if he came to my oponent he would give him mutton.* So, the fact of the customer's coming is not in question. It is only the destination which is in question. Right?


 
This makes sense to me. I agree that this is one meaning of "If he came..."


*



			Another thing
		
Click to expand...

*


> 1) If he came, I saw him VS 2) If he had come I would have seen him.
> 
> What is the difference?
> 
> 1) Does it mean a series of actions (comings)?
> 2) Does it mean one action (coming)?


 
1) can mean (at least) three things, depending on context:

a) I don't recall him coming (one or many times), but if he did, I saw him.
b) I don't know if he came (one or many times), but if he did, I saw him.
c) Whenever he came, I saw him.

2) means that he did_ not_ come. If things had been different and he had come I would have seen him.


Examples:

Meaning 1-a

A: "Did Mr. Jones get his flu shot from you?"
B: "I've seen so many people since the outbreak started that I can't recall, but I'm the only one giving out shots in this community. If he came, I saw him.

Meaning 1-b

A: "Did Mr. Jones get his flu shot from you?"
B: "Our shots are free and our customers remain anonymous, so I can't say. However, I'm the only one who administers the shots, so if he came, I saw him.

Meaning 1-C

A: "Kayla Smith has dropped out of school due to failing grades, Professor Jones. We're concerned about the level of support she received at our school."
B: "I'm afraid she was not up to the work, but I did offer to help her whenever I could. If she came to my office, I saw her. If she asked for help in class, I took time out of the lesson and reviewed the problem for her benefit. I even recommended a study group that I thought would bring her up to speed."


----------



## panjandrum

This thread has stopped being a discussion about a specific problem.
It has transformed into a tutorial on conditional structures.
There are many other threads that address all aspects of conditionals.
As it is now rambling and in places becoming both personal and polemical, I have closed it.


----------

