# Conditional clause with that-clause



## Иван

Hi everybody. I am an English teacher now but I am a little confused.

We usually say. If I could turn time back I would do sth different.
But when we complicate the sentence with that-clause are the following sentences correct?
If I could turn time back I would tell you _*that life is difficult.*_
If I could turn time back I would tell you _*that life would be difficult.*_
If I Had been at that party I would have told you _*that you needed to drink less.*_
If I Had been at that party I would have told you _*that you should have drunk less.*_
If I could make a wish I would wish _*that my herpes disappeared.*_
If I could make a wish I would wish _*that my herpes would disappear. *_
Please comment on and correct me if I am wrong.


----------



## Parla

I find all of your sentences acceptable, except that "had" shouldn't be capitalized in the third and fourth.

(Please note, though, that "sth" is neither an English word nor a standard abbreviation, and we don't use it.)


----------



## velisarius

These sentences have no context, so your choice of tenses in some of the "that clauses" seems odd to me. 

1 If I could turn time back I would tell you *that life is difficult. *I don't understand why you had to *turn back time *to say that, so I'm puzzled by your use of the present tense. 
2 If I could turn time back I would tell you *that life would be difficult. *Again, I have problems with the meaning of the sentence. That may or may not be due to your having chosen the conditional tense.

3 If I Had been at that party I would have told you _*that you needed to drink less. *_
4 If I Had been at that party I would have told you _*that you should have drunk less. *_

5 If I could make a wish I would wish *that my herpes disappeared. *The simple past tense makes me wonder when the wished for disappearing was to have taken place.
6 If I could make a wish I would wish _*that my herpes would disappear. *_


----------



## VicNicSor

> If I had been at that party I would have told you _*that you should have drunk less.*_


Hello. I guess the direct speech is supposed to be "You *should drink* less", right? If so, is it really necessary to do that back-shifting ("should have drunk")?


----------



## Parla

No, it's not.


----------



## RedwoodGrove

You have too many examples. However, I feel fairly confident that whatever problem is NOT a "that-clause". All the examples above have "I would ..." starting the subordinate clause after "If ...", do they not? The "that" is not really an issue.

What is your concern here? I'm not seeing a difficulty.

Cheers!


----------



## VicNicSor

Parla said:


> No, it's not.


Sorry, you mean -- "not supposed" or "not necessarily"?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Иван said:


> Hi everybody. I am an English teacher now but I am a little confused.
> 
> We usually say. If I could turn time back I would do sth different.
> But when we complicate the sentence with that-clause are the following sentences correct?
> If I could turn time back I would tell you _*that life is difficult.*_
> If I could turn time back I would tell you _*that life would be difficult.*_
> If I Had been at that party I would have told you _*that you needed to drink less.*_
> If I Had been at that party I would have told you _*that you should have drunk less.*_
> If I could make a wish I would wish _*that my herpes disappeared.*_
> If I could make a wish I would wish _*that my herpes would disappear. *_
> Please comment on and correct me if I am wrong.


You've got too many issues running simultaneously here, Иван, for us to be able to help you very easily.

The big ones seem to me to be a. _tense-sequencing in conditional sentences_, and b._ tense-sequencing in indirect speech_.

I'd advise you to ask about only one, and reduce the number of examples you invite us to consider.

I'll look at b._ tense-sequencing in indirect speech_ insofar as it applies to the first sentence:

_If I could turn time back I would tell you *that life is difficult.*_

The usual patterns of tense shifting in indirect speech suggest that the tense in the clause shifts with the tense in the main clause, thus:

_I tell you that life is difficult.
I told you that life was difficult.

I will tell you that life is difficult.
I would tell you that life was difficult._

In normal circumstances, then, I'd expect -  _If I could turn time back I would tell you *that life was difficult*._

However, for present emergencies (_I told him the house is on fire_) and eternal truths (_I told her the earth is round_) we sometimes wish to stress the present force of what we are reporting, and don't shift.

Life's being difficult might be just such a case, so I'd be happy with _If I could turn time back I would tell you *that life is difficult.*_


----------



## Parla

> Sorry, you mean -- "not supposed" or "not necessary"?


Not necessary.


----------



## VicNicSor

Parla said:


> Not necessary.


So maybe it would even be better not to change anything?

Reported speech: _If I had been at that party I would have told you_ _*that you should have drunk less.* _(Direct speech:_* You should have drunk less*_.)

Reported speech:_ If I had been at that party I would have told you *that you should drink less.*_ (Direct speech: *You should drink less*.)


----------



## Иван

Thomas Tompion, Thank you for such helpful advice. But I still wonder what should I say if my intention to show that life is going to be difficult in the future. 
Is that incorrect? If I could turn time back I would tell myself _*that life would be difficult.*_ (is going to be difficul in the future)


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Иван said:


> Thomas Tompion, Thank you for such helpful advice. But I still wonder what should I say if my intention to show that life is going to be difficult in the future.
> Is that incorrect? If I could turn time back I would tell myself _*that life would be difficult.*_ (is going to be difficul in the future)


Hi Иван.

There are still too many imponderables for my taste.

_If I could turn time back I would tell myself *that life would be difficult* - _is fine but you go on to say_ "is going to be difficult in the future".
_
If you are saying this now and turning time back, you are taking yourself to a moment in the past.  Life immediately after that moment is going to still be in the past, so you shouldn't talk about the future, perhaps.


----------



## Иван

*Velisarius, *Thank you for help. But I still don't see the difference between these two sentences. How come the first is incorrect?

5 If I could make a wish I would wish *that my herpes disappeared. *The simple past tense makes me wonder when the wished for disappearing was to have taken place.
6 If I could make a wish I would wish _*that my herpes would disappear. *_[/QUOTE]


----------



## Иван

Thomas Tompion said:


> Hi Иван.
> 
> There are still too many imponderables for my taste.
> 
> _If I could turn time back I would tell myself *that life would be difficult* - _is fine but you go on to say_ "is going to be difficult in the future".
> _
> If you are saying this now and turning time back, you are taking yourself to a moment in the past.  Life immediately after that moment is going to still be in the past, so you shouldn't talk about the future, perhaps.



Then could you give an appropriate example?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Иван said:


> Then could you give an appropriate example?


Of what?  Your sentence is fine; it was your explanation of it which left me puzzled.


----------



## velisarius

Иван said:


> *Velisarius, *Thank you for help. But I still don't see the difference between these two sentences. How come the first is incorrect?
> 
> 5 If I could make a wish I would wish *that my herpes disappeared. *The simple past tense makes me wonder when the wished for disappearing was to have taken place.
> 6 If I could make a wish I would wish _*that my herpes would disappear. *_


[/QUOTE]

I didn't say that 5 is incorrect, but with no context I find it hard to imagine what is implied by the use of the simple past tense. I would wish that my herpes (had) disappeared at some time in the past? The "would" conditional in 6 seems more straightforward to me.


----------



## Иван

Thomas Tompion said:


> Of what?  Your sentence is fine; it was your explanation of it which left me puzzled.



Then please would you explain to me what is the difference between these 2 sentences?
_If I could turn time back I would tell you *that life is difficult.*
If I could turn time back I would tell you* that life was difficult.*_
As far as I understood both are acceptable.


----------



## Иван

I didn't say that 5 is incorrect, but with no context I find it hard to imagine what is implied by the use of the simple past tense. I would wish that my herpes (had) disappeared at some time in the past? The "would" conditional in 6 seems more straightforward to me.[/QUOTE]

I would wish that you *were *here. Is that appropriate?


----------



## velisarius

The grammar of the first two sentences is fine, I think. I was a little confused by the meaning of the whole sentence.

If I understand "turning time back" to mean "go back in time", you are talking about life having been very hard in former times. In that case, I would use "that life was difficult" (in those times).


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Иван said:


> Then please would you explain to me what is the difference between these 2 sentences?
> _If I could turn time back I would tell you *that life is difficult.*
> If I could turn time back I would tell you* that life was difficult.*_
> As far as I understood both are acceptable.


Yes, but the one with the present tense is more urgent, more emphatic.

The second (using *was*) is more usual, perhaps; it's the slightly less usual choice which makes the first more striking, perhaps.


----------



## Иван

Thomas Tompion said:


> Yes, but the one with the present tense is more urgent, more emphatic.
> 
> The second (using *was*) is more usual, perhaps; it's the slightly less usual choice which makes the first more striking, perhaps.



Now I see. But I have found one example.
If I knew him better I wouldn't believe *what he has just said.  *
_Due to sequence of tences we have to shift the time. But if we do that the sentence will lose its meaning. 
Is that acceptable to say If I knew him better I wouldn't believe *what he had just said? *Or it would be if it was indirect speech?
_


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Иван said:


> Now I see. But I have found one example.
> If I knew him better I wouldn't believe *what he has just said.  *
> _Due to sequence of tences we have to shift the time. But if we do that the sentence will lose its meaning.
> Is that acceptable to say If I knew him better I wouldn't believe *what he had just said? *Or it would be if it was inderect speech?_


No, if would need to be _If I had known him better I wouldn't have believed *what he had just said. *_ This is talking about a moment in the past.

_If I knew him better I wouldn't believe *what he has just said* _is fine.  This is talking about the present.

The suggestion that the better you know someone, the less likely you are  to understand him gives the reader pause for thought.


----------



## Иван

Thomas Tompion said:


> No, if would need to be _If I had known him better I wouldn't have believed *what he had just said. *_ This is talking about a moment in the past.
> 
> _If I knew him better I wouldn't believe *what he has just said* _is fine.  This is talking about the present.
> 
> The suggestion that the better you know someone, the less likely you are  to understand him gives the reader pause for thought.



But if we compare this sentence with my first one would it be the same situation with the sequence of tences?
If I could turn time back I would tell you _*that life was difficult. (as we normally would change)*_
If I knew him better *I wouldn't believe*_* what he just said (is that also correct? but if we add stress we use The present simple in the clause?)*_


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Иван said:


> If I knew him better *I wouldn't believe*_* what he just said (is that also correct? *_





Thomas Tompion said:


> _If I knew him better I wouldn't believe *what he has just said* _is fine


----------



## Иван

But what about sequence of tences? If I could turn time back I would tell you _*that life was difficult. - *In this sentence we use Past simple_
If I knew him better I wouldn't believe_* what he just said - *Why can't we use Past Simple here?_


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Иван said:


> But what about sequence of tences? If I could turn time back I would tell you _*that life was difficult. - *In this sentence we use Past simple_
> If I knew him better I wouldn't believe_* what he just said - *Why can't we use Past Simple here?_


The past simple of* to have just*  is* he had just*.  We can say *I wouldn't believe what he had just said.*

I'm not clear if you are using the verb *to have just done X* (to have done X very recently) - , or *to just do X* (to do only X).

In BE we don't use the second much to mean the first.

Post amended


----------



## Иван

Thomas Tompion said:


> The past simple of* to have just*  is* he has just*, so we can.
> 
> I'm not clear if you are using the verb *to have just done X* (to have done X very recently) - , or *to just do X* (to do only X).
> 
> In BE we don't use the second much to mean the first.



I can't put the fact in my Russian head that *he has just is a Past form of *_*to have just. *_I thought it is singular for the 3rd person.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Иван said:


> I can't put the fact in my Russian head that *he has just is a Past form of *_*to have just. *_I thought it is singular for the 3rd person.


You are quite right, forgive me.

If you are using the verb *to have just* _done X_ (*to have very recently* done X), then you can say *If I knew him better, I wouldn't believe what he had just said*.

You can also use the form without tense-shifting - *If I knew him better, I wouldn't believe what he has just said* - if you wished to stress its present nature.

Back at post #8, I tried to explain that we sometimes have reasons for not shifting the tense.

I'm sorry about my error in post #26.  I've corrected my post.


----------



## Иван

Thomas Tompion said:


> You are quite right, forgive me.
> 
> If you are using the verb *to have just* _done X_ (*to have very recently* done X), then you can say *If I knew him better, I wouldn't believe what he had just said*.
> 
> You can also use the form without tense-shifting - *If I knew him better, I wouldn't believe what he has just said* - if you wished to stress its present nature.
> 
> Back at post #8, I tried to explain that we sometimes have reasons for not shifting the tense.
> 
> I'm sorry about my error in post #26.  I've corrected my post.



So, if we sum up we will have that 
Sequence of tences is not strict. It depends on the focus. If the focus if the present, we can say 
If I knew him better, I wouldn't believe what* he has just said*
If the focus is the past we can say If I knew him better, I wouldn't believe what* he had just said.  *And it is not a mistake.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Иван said:


> So, if we sum up we will have that
> Sequence of tences is not strict. It depends on the focus. If the focus if the present, we can say
> If I knew him better, I wouldn't believe what* he has just said*
> If the focus is the past we can say If I knew him better, I wouldn't believe what* he had just said.  *And it is not a mistake.


I'm having difficulty because we are in a world of modal auxiliaries and this means your sentence is ambiguous.  Whether it's correct or not depends on what you wish it to mean, and you haven't always been very clear about that.

Try it this way.

*I wouldn't believe what he had just said *can mean _I refused to believe the statement that he had made just previously_.

It couldn't easily mean _Don't believe what he had just said._

Not knowing what you wish it to mean, I can't be sure whether it is a mistake or not.

*I wouldn't believe X* can easily be either a statement about what I did in the past, but is also, very frequently, a recommendation to someone else about what they should do now or in the future.

In the second sense *I wouldn't believe what he has just said* would be fine.


----------



## Иван

Thomas Tompion said:


> I'm having difficulty because we are in a world of modal auxiliaries and this means your sentence is ambiguous.  Whether it's correct or not depends on what you wish it to mean, and you haven't always been very clear about that.
> 
> Try it this way.
> 
> *I wouldn't believe what he had just said *can mean _I refused to believe the statement that he had made just previously_.
> 
> It couldn't easily mean _Don't believe what he had just said._
> 
> Not knowing what you wish it to mean, I can't be sure whether it is a mistake or not.
> 
> *I wouldn't believe X* can easily be either a statement about what I did in the past, but is also, very frequently, a recommendation to someone else about what they should do now or in the future.
> 
> In the second sense *I wouldn't believe what he has just said* would be fine.



I see. Again gramatically they are both correct but all depends on the context. Am I right?
The purpous of my having created the subject was that I was confused about sequence of tences. Because our grammar books teach us that after would in subordinate clause we cannot use present simple.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Иван said:


> I see. Again gramatically they are both correct but all depends on the context. Am I right?
> The purpous of my having created the subject was that I was confused about sequence of tences. Because our grammar books teach us that after would in subordinate clause we cannot use present simple.


That's a very limited view.  I can see why learners should be told this, because the normal sequence of tenses is:

*He says that he will come.
He said that he would come.
He would say that he would come.*

Maybe you need a more comprehensive grammar book, for English often, as in this case, uses the same form of words to mean different things.  It's one of the things which makes is difficult, particularly in writing.  In speech we use intonation and stress to differentiate.

There are aspects which are easier than many languages however, like the simplicity of the conjugations.

*He would say that he is coming* is entirely possible and correct to mean * Saying he is coming is just the sort of irritating thing he is in the habit of saying.*


----------



## Иван

Thomas Tompion said:


> That's a very limited view.  I can see why learners should be told this, because the normal sequence of tenses is:
> 
> *He says that he will come.
> He said that he would come.
> He would say that he would come.*
> 
> Maybe you need a more comprehensive grammar book, for English often, as in this case, uses the same form of words to mean different things.  It's one of the things which makes is difficult, particularly in writing.  In speech we use intonation and stress to differentiate.
> 
> There are aspects which are easier than many languages however, like the simplicity of the conjugations.
> 
> *He would say that he is coming* is entirely possible and correct to mean * Saying he is coming is just the sort of irritating thing he is in the habit of saying.*



I see. So after would in subordinate clause we can use Both Simple and Past?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Иван said:


> I see. So after would in subordinate clause we can use Both Simple and Past?


You must see that we can't answer this question unless we know what you are wishing to say.


----------



## RedwoodGrove

I'm having a little trouble following this thread. TT's analysis of this is correct: He _would_ say that he would come. However, I just wanted to point out that it is a BE colloquialism, to my AE ears.

Also:


Иван said:


> I see. So after would in subordinate clause we can use Both Simple and Past?


_Would_ is both the past tense and the conditional/subjunctive of _will_. It is used a lot. Can you provide an example?

Edit: I'm slow in posting. Didn't see TT's comment directly above.


----------



## Иван

RedwoodGrove said:


> I'm having a little trouble following this thread. TT's analysis of this is correct: He _would_ say that he would come. However, I just wanted to point out that it is a BE colloquialism, to my AE ears.
> 
> Also:
> 
> _Would_ is both the past tense and the conditional/subjunctive of _will_. It is used a lot. Can you provide an example?
> 
> Edit: I'm slow in posting. Didn't see TT's comment directly above.



I guess is not easy for you to understand me. But I am talking about grammar and nothing more.
When I learn sequence of tences it was something like this.
He said that he was
He said that he would
He said that he had been
But if we complicate the sentence with if + that in subordinate clause my grammar book is silent on this matter what options should I use.
For example. If I knew him better I wouldn't believe *what he has just said *(Now I see that it is possible to use Present in subbordinate clause However my grammar book says that it is imposible unless it is general truth)
Another example If I knew him better I wouldn't believe *what he had just said *(According to my grammar book it is correct but it means that it happened BEFORE)
Am I right?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

We seem to have gone back 30 posts or so, but you are now restricting the context and that helps.

I'm going to alter the if-clause to get round what seems to me the strange logic of your example, without altering the grammar:

_If I didn't know him well, I wouldn't believe _*what he has just said *- I know him well, and so I believe this strange thing he has just said.

_If I hadn't known him well, I wouldn't have believed* what he had just said*_* - *I knew him well, and so I believed this strange thing he had just said.

_If I didn't know him well, I wouldn't believe _*what he had just said* - I know him well, and so I believe this strange thing he had just said. (You've been telling a story in which you describe his saying something strange.  You are describing your present reaction to what he had said).

_If I didn't know him well, I wouldn't have believed _*what he had just said - *I know him well now and I knew him well then, so I believed this strange thing he had just said. (You've been telling a story in which you describe his saying something strange.  You are describing your past reaction to what he had said).


----------



## RedwoodGrove

The original poster said:

For example. If I knew his better I wouldn't believe *what he has just said *(Now I see that it is possible to use Present in subbordinate clause Hovever my grammar book says that it is imposible unless it is general truth)
Another example If I knew his better I wouldn't believe *what he had just said *(According to my grammar book it is correct but it means that it happened BEFORE)
Am I right?

Yes, I believe you are right. The second example is in the past perfect, or as some people would call it, the pluperfect. The past perfect happened BEFORE something else indicated. I think you mean *him* instead of *his*, however. (?)

How might you render your name in English?

Edit: TT is just ahead of me.


----------



## Иван

Thomas Tompion said:


> We seem to have gone back 30 posts or so, but you are now restricting the context and that helps.
> 
> I'm going to alter the if-clause to get round what seems to me the strange logic of your example, without altering the grammar:
> 
> _If I didn't know him well, I wouldn't believe _*what he has just said *- I know him well, and so I believe this strange thing he has just said.
> 
> _If I hadn't known him well, I wouldn't have believed* what he had just said*_* - *I knew him well, and so I believed this strange thing he had just said.
> 
> _If I didn't know him well, I wouldn't believe _*what he had just said* - I know him well, and so I believe this strange thing he had just said. (You've been telling a story in which you describe his saying something strange.  You are describing your present reaction to what he had said).
> 
> _If I didn't know him well, I wouldn't have believed _*what he had just said - *I know him well now and I knew him well then, so I believed this strange thing he had just said. (You've been telling a story in which you describe his saying something strange.  You are describing your past reaction to what he had said).



Now I see the deffrerence. And if we compare these two sentences again. As I understood they are both gramatically correct but in the first the stress is on the past
If I turn time back i would tell my younger self *that life was difficult.*
If I turn time back i would tell my younger self *that life is difficult.*

And nevertheless As I understood from all information I gleaned It is completely GRAMATICALLY correct to use The present tence after *that* in the sentences above?


----------



## Иван

RedwoodGrove said:


> The original poster said:
> 
> For example. If I knew his better I wouldn't believe *what he has just said *(Now I see that it is possible to use Present in subbordinate clause Hovever my grammar book says that it is imposible unless it is general truth)
> Another example If I knew his better I wouldn't believe *what he had just said *(According to my grammar book it is correct but it means that it happened BEFORE)
> Am I right?
> 
> Yes, I believe you are right. The second example is in the past perfect, or as some people would call it, the pluperfect. The past perfect happened BEFORE something else indicated. I think you mean *him* instead of *his*, however. (?)
> 
> How might you render your name in English?
> 
> Edit: TT is just ahead of me.



Thank you for your help. It is John or Ivan.


----------



## RedwoodGrove

Greetings John/Ivan! I never knew that Ivan was the Russian equivalent to John.



Иван said:


> Now I see the deffrerence. And if we compare these two sentences again. As I understood they are both gramatically correct but in the first
> If I turn time back i would tell my younger self *that life was difficult.*
> If I turn time back i would tell my younger self *that life is difficult.*
> 
> And nevertheless As I understood from all information I gleaned It is completely GRAMATICALLY correct to use The present tence after *that* in the sentences above?



Murphry's Law states that when you try to correct someone's grammar you will then make mistakes, so bear with me. OK, I'm going to get a little tough on you. First, it is *difference* not *deffrerence*. Now, make this a complete sentence: "As I understood they are both gramatically correct but in the first"

You need to use FEWER examples.

This is correct:
If I turn*ed* back time I would tell my younger self *that life would be difficult*.

Your other two examples are colloquial in my opinion. In other words you hear them, but they are not "correct" for written English. Look, English is not logical and well organized. These grammar books try to make it seem as if the system works like an engineer's dream but it doesn't.

Edit: You can also say "as if the system worked ..." Probably would have been better.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

RedwoodGrove said:


> Your other two examples are colloquial in my opinion. In other words you hear them, but they are not "correct" for written English.


Oh dear, RG!

I'm delighted you've taken up the torch, but whatever is incorrect about those forms?

People have been telling learners that both forms are entirely correct for many moons now, and several people have said as much in this thread already.  They follow accepted forms of tense use, in BE certainly.

Perhaps you should try hearing them in as many contexts as possible in your mind's ear.  It's very easy to become fixed into a single context, and rule things out because they don't fit into that imagined context.


----------



## RedwoodGrove

TT:

Well, I am struggling a bit. The pace of this website is phenomenal and I am a slow typist. The question of conditional phrases is difficult. Yes, the phrases indicated are correct. I defer to your greater knowledge and experience. Can you suggest a good reference book for providing grammar to English learners?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

RedwoodGrove said:


> TT:
> 
> Well, I am struggling a bit. The pace of this website is phenomenal and I am a slow typist. The question of conditional phrases is difficult. Yes, the phrases indicated are correct. I defer to your greater knowledge and experience. Can you suggest a good reference book for providing grammar to English learners?


Take it bits at a time, and be very careful about saying things are not correct unless the error is obvious.  English is very flexible; if  you imagine the right circumstances, many apparently strange things can be entirely apposite, correct, and idiomatic.

This thread is concerned both with conditional constructions and with tense shifting.



Иван said:


> Now I see the deffrerence. And if we compare these two sentences again. As I understood they are both gramatically correct but in the first the stress is on the past
> If I turn time back i would tell my younger self *that life was difficult.*
> If I turn time back i would tell my younger self *that life is difficult.*
> 
> And nevertheless As I understood from all information I gleaned It is completely GRAMATICALLY correct to use The present tence after *that* in the sentences above?


This is essentially the question which you asked in posts #17  and to which you had answers in  posts #19 and #20.

Why have we gone back there?  Were  you unhappy with those earlier answers?


----------



## Иван

Thomas Tompion said:


> Take it bits at a time, and be very careful about saying things are not correct unless the error is obvious.  English is very flexible; if  you imagine the right circumstances, many apparently strange things can be entirely apposite, correct, and idiomatic.
> 
> This thread is concerned both with conditional constructions and with tense shifting.
> 
> This is essentially the question which you asked in posts #17  and to which you had answers in  posts #19 and #20.
> 
> Why have we gone back there?  Were  you unhappy with those earlier answers?



Unfortunately yes. And I don't know how to ask so that you would help me to understand.


----------

