# << Do something "in case" something else (long thread).



## cheshire

Is this sentence wrong? If so, what's the reason?
Does the sentence mean, "you should look words up in the dictionary in preparation for such a possibility: I'm sure you'll make spelling mistakes. 


> you should look words up in the dictionary in case you make spelling mistakes.


----------



## liliput

You should have a dictionary to hand in case you don't know how to spell something.
You should look up words in the dictionary to prevent yourself from making spelling mistakes.


----------



## cheshire

I think I get it from your suggested sentences.

(2)...in case you'll make spelling mistakes.

Is this (2) OK?


----------



## liliput

cheshire said:


> I think I get it from your suggested sentences.
> 
> (2)...in case you'll make spelling mistakes.
> 
> Is this (2) OK?


 
Not really. Compare:
"I wear a life jacket in case I drown"
"I wear a life jacket in case the boat sinks" (to prevent me form drowning)
If you drown it's too late for a life jacket, similarly if you make a spelling mistake it's too late for the dictionary.
"I carry a rubber/a bottle of tippex in case I make a spelling mistake"
"I carry a dictionary in case I need to look up a word."


----------



## cheshire

Hi. liliput, thanks for giving me excellent examples!

I noticed that your mother tongue is* British English*. 

One of my dictionaries (_Taishukan's Genius English-Japanese Dictionary, Second Edition_) states in its usage guide that there's a difference in usage between BrEn and AmEn. 



			
				Genius E-J Dictionary said:
			
		

> Give my child this toy in case he cries. =Give my child this toy if he cries. *American English (same as liliput's answer)*
> 
> =Give my child his toy to prevent him crying. *British English*



Do you think this dictionary is wrong in its usage guide? (I'm used to finding mistakes even in dictionaries written by non-native speakers of a language)


----------



## liliput

> I noticed that your mother tongue is* British English*.
> 
> One of my dictionaries (_Taishukan's Genius English-Japanese Dictionary, Second Edition_) states in its usage guide that there's a difference in usage between BrEn and AmEn.
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Genius E-J Dictionary*
> Give my child this toy in case he cries. =Give my child this toy if he cries. *American English (same as liliput's answer)*
> 
> =Give my child his toy to prevent him crying. *British English*
> 
> Do you think this dictionary is wrong in its usage guide? (I'm used to finding mistakes even in dictionaries written by non-native speakers of a language)


 
I would not use either sentence, I don't think "Give my child this toy in case he cries." is quite the same as my answer, and it doesn't make much sense to me. 
I would say:
"*Take this toy with you in case he cries*."
"*Give it to him if he starts crying*."
or 
"*Give him this toy, it will stop him crying*."


----------



## cheshire

Thanks for your opinion. But could you or anybody tell me what is wrong with Taishukan dictionary's sentence?


> Give my child this toy *in case* he cries.


----------



## cycloneviv

I can't see anything wrong with it, it just doesn't mean "Give my child this toy if he cries"; it means "Give my child this toy on the off chance that he might cry."


----------



## cheshire

cycloneviv said:


> I can't see anything wrong with it, it just doesn't mean "Give my child this toy if he cries"; it means "Give my child this toy on the off chance that he might cry."


(3) "Give my child this toy *if *he cries"; 
(4) "Give my child this toy *on the off chance that* he might cry."​What's the difference? Is the (4) more unlikely to happen in the future?


----------



## liliput

cheshire said:


> (3) "Give my child this toy *if *he cries";​
> (4) "Give my child this toy *on the off chance that* he might cry."​What's the difference? Is the (4) more unlikely to happen in the future?


 
(3) Indicates that you should give the toy to the child *when* he starts crying.
(4) Indicates that you should give the toy to the child *before* he starts crying, to prevent him from starting.

On second thoughts, I would probably use "in case" for sentence (4) but not for (3).


----------



## cheshire

S1 V1＋in case S2 V2

I interpreted #2 and #4 of liliput that S2 V2 is a hypothetical event that might take place *prior to* S1 V1. 

In that very sense your position is the same as the dictionary's fisrt example.

In the second example ("British English" in the following example by the dictionary), "giving my child his toy" is a preemptive measure in order not to make the baby cry. In other words, It's the oppisite of the first example.



> Give my child this toy in case he cries. =Give my child this toy if he cries. *American English (same as liliput's answer)*
> 
> =Give my child his toy to prevent him crying. *British English*



Please make your input on this problem.


----------



## cheshire

liliput said:


> (3) Indicates that you should give the toy to the child *when* he starts crying.
> (4) Indicates that you should give the toy to the child *before* he starts crying, to prevent him from starting.
> 
> On second thoughts, I would probably use "in case" for sentence (4) but not for (3).


You and cycloneviv are quite opposite on this.


----------



## liliput

cheshire said:


> You and cycloneviv are quite opposite on this.


 
According to my understanding we are in agreement:


> I can't see anything wrong with it, it just doesn't mean "Give my child this toy if he cries"; it means "Give my child this toy on the off chance that he might cry."





> Originally Posted by *liliput*
> 
> 
> (3) Indicates that you should give the toy to the child *when* he starts crying.
> (4) Indicates that you should give the toy to the child *before* he starts crying, to prevent him from starting.
> 
> On second thoughts, I would probably use "in case" for sentence (4) but not for (3).


We both say that "Give him this toy in case he cries" is a preventative measure.


----------



## cycloneviv

liliput said:


> According to my understanding we are in agreement:
> 
> 
> We both say that "Give him this toy in case he cries" is a preventative measure.




Exactly.

"in case he cries" = "on the off-chance that he might cry"


----------



## AWordLover

Hi,

I will confirm that to my AE ears, "in case he cries" = "if he cries", and that neither is a preventative. They are both considering the situation after he begins to cry. Although it is not spelled out, I would expect the baby to stop crying after receiving the toy.


----------



## cheshire

Nigel D Turton _ABC of Common Grammaticla Errors _writes:



> In British English, we use "*(just) in case*" when we are talking about something that we do as a precaution:
> 'Let's take the umbrella with us *in case* it rains.' [sentence (1)]
> 
> 'I always take a book to bed with me just* in case* I can't sleep.' [sentence (2)]​


In other words, wouldn't Americans say either (1) or (2)?
What is "a precaution" opposed to by the author?


----------



## AWordLover

Hi,

If it is currently raining when I plan to go out then, I take an umbrella because it is raining.

If it may rain, then I take an umbrella in case it rains. [This is the same as, I take an umbrella because it might rain.] I'm taking the umbrella as a precaution so that I can stay dry even if it rains.

Similarly, in sentence two, the book will be used if it turns out I can't sleep. If I can sleep, then the book will not be used.

I would use both sentences. I would not require the word "just" in sentence 1.


----------



## cheshire

Thanks!
Then why would the author (Nigel D Turton) specifically write "In British English"?

I don't know if he's British or American, but does he not know if it's also American usage?


----------



## AWordLover

I don't know what Nigel was thnking. I will say that these examples are different from the examples in your other thread.

After receiving the instruction, "Give the baby this toy in case it cries."
I would only give the baby the toy after it began to cry. I don't know why this is different than the above for me. I'm guessing that is what Nigel is getting at, but his examples are terrible.

It is also possible that I'm just special.


----------



## cheshire

AWordLover said:
			
		

> After receiving the instruction, "Give the baby this toy *in case *it cries."
> I would only give the baby the toy* after it began to cry*.


 That's what several of my dictionaries say as "American usage." The "so as not to" type of usage is what they say as "British English."
What I find here a problem is, are these usages exclusive to each other? 



> "If" and "(just) in case" are often interchangeable in American English but NOT in British English....
> When we are talking about something that will happen as a result of *something else [as opposed to "a precaution"]*, we use "if". 'If it rains on Saturday, I shall bring an umbrella.' (NOT "In case...") 'If you come by train, I'll meet you at the station.' (NOT "In case...)


I don't understand this explanation. Why can't we use "in case" in these examples?​


----------



## cheshire

> you should look words up in the dictionary in case you make spelling mistakes.


 According to British Usage, isn't this sentence OK?


----------



## cheshire

liliput said:


> I would not use either sentence, I don't think "Give my child this toy in case he cries." is quite the same as my answer, and it doesn't make much sense to me.
> I would say:
> "*Take this toy with you in case he cries*."
> "*Give it to him if he starts crying*."
> or
> "*Give him this toy, it will stop him crying*."


Hi. Is there a reason for the "starts" in "Give it to him if he stars crying." instead of saying "Give it to him if he cries."? Is the latter unnatural or wrong?
Thank you very much


----------



## cheshire

liliput said:


> Not really. Compare:
> "I wear a life jacket in case I drown"
> "I wear a life jacket in case the boat sinks" (to prevent me form drowning)
> If you drown it's too late for a life jacket, similarly if you make a spelling mistake it's too late for the dictionary.
> "I carry a rubber/a bottle of tippex in case I make a spelling mistake"
> "I carry a dictionary in case I need to look up a word."





liliput said:


> I would not use either sentence, I don't think "Give my child this toy in case he cries." is quite the same as my answer, and it doesn't make much sense to me.
> I would say:
> "*Take this toy with you in case he cries*."
> "*Give it to him if he starts crying*."
> or
> "*Give him this toy, it will stop him crying*."





liliput said:


> (3) Indicates that you should give the toy to the child *when* he starts crying.
> (4) Indicates that you should give the toy to the child *before* he starts crying, to prevent him from starting.
> 
> * On second thoughts*, I would probably use "in case" for sentence (4) but not for (3).





liliput said:


> According to my understanding we are in agreement:
> 
> 
> We both say that "Give him this toy in case he cries" is a preventative measure.



I think after "On second thoughts" your explanation cotradicts with the previous one: You seem to have said to the effect that "in case" is a non-precaution; later you seem to say that it is a precaution. I'm confused!
Could you or anyone please explain?


----------



## cheshire

cycloneviv said:


> I can't see anything wrong with it, it just doesn't mean "Give my child this toy if he cries"; it means "Give my child this toy on the off chance that he might cry."


I got it! You say this because your mother tongue is similar to British English...right?
You have only the usage of "precaution."
I guess you're Ok with this sentence:  			 				you should look words up in the dictionary in case you make spelling mistakes.

That's my guessing...


----------



## cuchuflete

There may be regions in the US where " 	 	 		 			 				you should look words up in the dictionary in case you make spelling mistakes." would be used, but I found it strange.  Before reading all the other contributions, I thought it
was either BE or some other non-AE variant.  I guessed it was trying to suggest using a dictionary to avoid spelling errors. 

Then came this:



> Originally Posted by *Genius E-J Dictionary*
> Give my child this toy in case he cries. =Give my child this toy if he cries. *American English (same as liliput's answer)*
> 
> =Give my child his toy to prevent him crying. *British English*



My reaction was to suggest a new dictionary. 

 1. The definition called American English is unlike the American English I know.
2. The sentence, "Give my child this toy in case he cries." is not a sentence structure AE would normally use to suggest either "if he cries" or "to prevent him crying".
3. Should you force me to use the sentence and explain what it means, I would protest, turn a nasty shade of purple, bellow, yelp, choke, sputter and cough.  I would, under duress, suggest that it means something like
"give the child the toy to prevent the possible onset of crying".   Then I would suggest you get a new dictionary.


----------



## tomandjerryfan

cheshire said:


> According to British Usage, isn't this sentence OK?



I can't speak for British usage, but in North American usage, this sentence would sound rather odd.

Instead of:

You should look words up in the dictionary in case you make spelling mistakes.

I would say:

_You should have a dictionary (handy/on hand) in case you make spelling mistakes.

_The sentence is implying that in the event that you make a smelling error - should you find yourself in that situation - you will have a dictionary available to help you. You can't be in the situation of looking up words when you make a spelling mistake.


----------



## cheshire

tomandjerryfan said:


> I can't speak for British usage, but in North American usage, this sentence would sound rather odd.
> 
> Instead of:
> 
> You should look words up in the dictionary in case you make spelling mistakes.
> 
> I would say:
> 
> _You should have a dictionary (handy/on hand) in case you make spelling mistakes.
> 
> _The sentence is implying that in the event that you make a smelling error - should you find yourself in that situation - you will have a dictionary available to help you. You can't be in the situation of looking up words when you make a spelling mistake.


Yes, I think your position is what several dictionaries (all written by Japanese) says as "American English."


----------



## cuchuflete

> In British English, we use "*(just) in case*" when we are talking about something that we do as a precaution: 'Let's take the umbrella with us *in case* it rains.' [sentence (1)]
> 
> 'I always take a book to bed with me just* in case* I can't sleep.' [sentence (2)]



I disagree with the author.

I would use sentence (1) both with and without "just".  To me it would be a precaution: Have an umbrella to
use should it begin to rain.  I would be more likely to add "just" if the prospects for rain are small.

I would also use (2).  I don't know if I will have trouble sleeping, but if I can't sleep, I'll always have a book available.


----------



## cheshire

cuchuflete said:


> There may be regions in the US where "                                                 you should look words up in the dictionary in case you make spelling mistakes." would be used, but I found it strange.  Before reading all the other contributions, I thought it
> was either BE or some other non-AE variant.  I guessed it was trying to suggest using a dictionary to avoid spelling errors.
> 
> Then came this:
> 
> 
> 
> My reaction was to suggest a new dictionary.
> 
> 1. The definition called American English is unlike the American English I know.
> 2. The sentence, "Give my child this toy in case he cries." is not a sentence structure AE would normally use to suggest either "if he cries" or "to prevent him crying".
> 3. Should you force me to use the sentence and explain what it means, I would protest, turn a nasty shade of purple, bellow, yelp, choke, sputter and cough.  I would, under duress, suggest that it means something like
> "give the child the toy *to prevent the possible onset of crying*".   Then I would suggest you get a new dictionary.



Thanks for giving me an answer (however hypothetical it may be). 
That is what several of my dictionaries (all written by Japanese) calls "American usage." (= precaution)

Is "precaution" usage and the other usage exclusive to each other?


----------



## cheshire

Thanks!
I'm disappointed, as I can't no longer trust any dictionaries written by non-native speakers, plus, some books written by native speakers.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Quote:
"If" and "(just) in case" are often interchangeable in American English but NOT in British English....
When we are talking about something that will happen as a result of *something else [as opposed to "a precaution"]*, we use "if". 'If it rains on Saturday, I shall bring an umbrella.' (NOT "In case...") 'If you come by train, I'll meet you at the station.' (NOT "In case...) 
I don't understand this explanation. Why can't we use "in case" in these examples?

Not so fast, Cheshire. I'm a BE speaker and think the author has this right for BE practice.

If it rains on Saturday, I shall bring an umbrella

means, in BE

On Saturday should I find that it's raining I shall bring an umbrella.


In case it rains on Saturday, I shall bring an umbrella

means, in BE

I shall bring an umbrella now, lest it turns out that it rains on Saturday. (i.e. as a precaution against its raining on Saturday)



I'll meet you if you come by train

means

Should you decide to come by train I'll be there at the station to meet you.

I'll meet you in case you come by train

is pretty well meaningless in BE. I can't see what I'll meet you lest you come by train could mean. Perhaps I'm short of imagination this morning.


----------



## liliput

cheshire said:


> I think after "On second thoughts" your explanation cotradicts with the previous one: You seem to have said to the effect that "in case" is a non-precaution; later you seem to say that it is a precaution. I'm confused!
> Could you or anyone please explain?


 
The reason I wrote "on second thoughts" was precisely because I had changed my mind.

It seems to me that the Americans use "in case" to mean "in the event that" and the British use it in the sense of "should the event occur".

"Give the baby the toy in case he cries" in AE means give him the toy when he starts crying.
In BE it means give it to him because if he doesn't have it he might cry.


----------



## cheshire

It's very nice of you to help me!
I'm one notch higher thanks to you!


----------



## cheshire

Thanks for helping me so many times!

Usage (1) if some unusual thing happens
Usage (2) a precaution (prevent a thing from happening)

Are these two usages exclusive to each other?
Is (1) only in AmEn, while (2) only BrEn?


----------



## panjandrum

I think part of the confusion is due to the choice of topic.
In BE, "Give the baby a toy in case he cries," really doesn't make sense at all.  You give the baby a toy now in the hope that it will help to prevent him from crying.

A more typical, and simpler, BE "in case" sentence would be:
"Take an umbrella in case it rains."
The umbrella will not prevent the rain.
Right now, you don't need the umbrella.
It may not rain, but if it does, you will be glad you brought your umbrella.


----------



## panjandrum

What did the _ABC of Common Grammatical Errors_ say about American English use of "in case"?

The quoted statement refers only to BE, and the section quoted gives no indication of the writer's view of AE usage.  Had he previously explained the AE usage?


----------



## dobes

Noooo, I don't think 'if' and 'in case' are the same thing at all. If it rains, I'll bring an umbrella means I'll look out the window and if the street is wet an umbrella will be in my hand. I'll bring an umbrella in case it rains means rain or shine when I leave the house an umbrella will be in my hand as a precaution against the possibility of rain. 

I often use these sentences for my students:  If the hotel has a swimming pool, I'll bring a bathing suit. 

And: I'll bring a bathing suit in case the hotel has a swimming pool. 

I tell them that in the first sentence, I will try to ascertain whether the hotel has a swimming pool before I pack my suitcase.  In the second, a bathing suit will be in my bag, and I'll find out whether I get to use it when I arrive at the hotel. 

I don't know any AE speaker who uses the term any other way, and I don't know any who would say 'I'll meet you in case you come by train'!

And, finally, I use 'just' to indicate that I don't think the 'in case' will come to pass.  "I'll bring an umbrella in case it rains" and "I'll bring an umbrella just in case it rains" differ only in that in the second sentence I think it's unlikely that it will rain (but I will still have the umbrella in my hand).


----------



## panjandrum

Dobes has explained "in case" exactly as I would use it.

This topic was thoroughly confusing because of the two simultaneous threads.  
It may now be confusing because I have merged the two threads, but at least all of the confusion is in one place.


----------



## liliput

dobes said:


> Noooo, I don't think 'if' and 'in case' are the same thing at all. If it rains, I'll bring an umbrella means I'll look out the window and if the street is wet an umbrella will be in my hand. I'll bring an umbrella in case it rains means rain or shine when I leave the house an umbrella will be in my hand as a precaution against the possibility of rain.
> 
> I often use these sentences for my students: If the hotel has a swimming pool, I'll bring a bathing suit.
> 
> And: I'll bring a bathing suit in case the hotel has a swimming pool.
> 
> I tell them that in the first sentence, I will try to ascertain whether the hotel has a swimming pool before I pack my suitcase. In the second, a bathing suit will be in my bag, and I'll find out whether I get to use it when I arrive at the hotel.
> 
> I don't know any AE speaker who uses the term any other way, and I don't know any who would say 'I'll meet you in case you come by train'!
> 
> And, finally, I use 'just' to indicate that I don't think the 'in case' will come to pass. "I'll bring an umbrella in case it rains" and "I'll bring an umbrella just in case it rains" differ only in that in the second sentence I think it's unlikely that it will rain (but I will still have the umbrella in my hand).


 
So _Dobes_, an AE speaker, doesn't use the supposed AE definition and _A Word Lover, _another AE speaker, seems to use both definitions. The Brits all use the BE version.


----------



## cheshire

(1)Place a fire extinguisher in your room* in case* there is a fire.
​ 
I heard this sentence is OK in *British* English and it means "Place a fire extinguisher in your room in preparation for a possible event of a fire." 

Do you think this usage is shared by *American* English, too, without changing its meaning?

I thought this sentence might be interpreted by AmEn like this:

(2) Place a fire extinguisher in your room *after* you find out that there is a fire.​


----------



## roxcyn

No, it's fine.  I would say it in AmE meaning the same thing that you said: because perhaps there will be a fire in the future.

EDIT: If you are ever in a building you will see the Fire extinguisher in glass and it will say "Break *in case* of fire", so we definitely use that phrase.  

Pablo


----------



## tomandjerryfan

I wouldn't think so. It sounds fine to me in CaE.


----------



## cheshire

I greatly appreciate your help, both of you

(3) You should dial 119 *in case* there is a fire.​What about (3)? Is this sentence strictly American English?


----------



## roxcyn

Yes, your sentence is good as well.  You could also say:
You should dial 119 in case of fire.

Pablo


----------



## tomandjerryfan

cheshire said:


> I greatly appreciate your help, both of you
> (3) You should dial 119 *in case* there is fire.​What about (3)? Is this sentence strictly American English?



I wouldn't think so - that sentence sounds too normal to my ears.


----------



## Judica

cheshire said:


> I greatly appreciate your help, both of you
> (3) You should dial 119 *in case* there is fire.​What about (3)? Is this sentence strictly American English?



No. It is not strictly AE. The only thing American about the sentence is the national emergency number ... which by the way is *"911"* in the US.


----------



## tomandjerryfan

Judica said:


> No. It is not strictly AE. The only thing American about the sentence is the national emergency number ... which by the way is *"911"* in the US.



That's not strictly American either. 911 is the emergency number in Canada as well.


----------



## cheshire

Thanks again!

I think the below site is dealing with the different usage of "in case." Could anybody give us comment?

http://osdir.com/ml/os.freebsd.chat/2003-06/msg00064.html

...by the way, 119 is the number in Japan!


----------



## DadaMia

If however you are trying to replicate the standard emergency preparation language, you should follow this model:

"In case of [emergency], [command]"

Where you can replace the word "emergency" with any emergency, and you replace the word "command" with the instruction you are giving.  For example:

"In case of fire, break glass."

"In case of emergency, 
dial 911." 

"In case of earthquake, use stairs to exit."


----------



## Judica

tomandjerryfan said:


> That's not strictly American either. 911 is the emergency number in Canada as well.


 ...Aren't you on the American Continent too?  ... notice the last part of my sentence, its distinguishing.


----------



## Judica

cheshire said:


> Thanks again!
> 
> I think the below site is dealing with the different usage of "in case." Could anybody give us comment?
> 
> http://osdir.com/ml/os.freebsd.chat/2003-06/msg00064.html
> 
> ...by the way, 119 is the number in Japan!


 The two sentences at the top  of the linked page (using "in case") say the exact same thing.


----------



## cheshire

> >_ > (3)    In case there is an explosion, call the police._
> >_ > _
> >_ > (4)    Call the police in case there is an explosion._
> >
> >_ Interesting.  I strongly disagree.  Sentence (4) tells me to call the_
> >_ police now to prepare for an explosion which only MIGHT happen.  I guess_
> >_ that's called an "idiomatic" usage, because it doesn't seem right when_


The link is interesting discussion, but it's too complicated to understand for an ESL student like me.
But at least I know they are disgreeing about certain points of the usage of "in case."



			
				made of stone said:
			
		

> (3) You should dial 119 in case there is a fire.
> 
> 
> 
> This is *definitely* not correct in British English!!
> 
> Here 'in case...' can only apply to precautions, and not how to react _after_ something's happened.
Click to expand...

This Englishman says this is not correct in BrEn.


----------



## Q-cumber

*cheshire*

There is such an expression in English - "just in case", which means "be on the safe side", "just to be safe" or so. 
"Place a fire extinguisher in your room, just in case."


----------



## cycloneviv

Q-cumber said:


> *cheshire*
> 
> There is such an expression in English - "just in case", which means "be on the safe side", "just to be safe" or so.
> "Place a fire extinguisher in your room, just in case."



That is not, however, at all the same as the use of "in case" in "in case of fire", which means (in AmEn) in the event of a fire having occurred.


----------



## mjscott

cheshire-
I would never use #4 in your link. It doesn't make sense, now that you mention it. However, I think the wording on those fire extinguishers is, *BREAK GLASS IN CASE OF FIRE*. I'll have to look next time I'm in a public building. The wording that makes more sense to me when I can stand back and look at it would be *IN CASE OF FIRE, BREAK GLASS*.

Cheers!


----------



## LouisaB

roxcyn said:


> No, it's fine. I would say it in AmE meaning the same thing that you said: because perhaps there will be a fire in the future.
> 
> EDIT: If you are ever in a building you will see the Fire extinguisher in glass and it will say "Break *in case* of fire", so we definitely use that phrase.
> 
> Pablo


 
cycloneviv is quite correct to point out these two usages are _not_ the same.

'Keep a fire extinguisher in your room in case of fire' - 'in case' means *'in the event of there being a fire in the future'.*

'In case of fire, break glass' - 'in case' means *'in the event of a fire having already started'.*

In BE, we would use both. 'In case of' simply means 'in the event of'.

We would not, however, use the example from cheshire's link - 'You should dial 911 in case there is a fire' - because it confuses the two usages.
*'In case there is'* = 'as a precaution in the event of a fire happening' - and it makes no sense to call the police before the fire's started!

What's confusing is that we can use the phrase *'in case of'* for _both_ meanings - and I suspect the only way to tell which one is meant is by common sense and context.

Louisa


----------



## cheshire

I get help from here than any other sites, that's because you are here!

If there are any sentences in which "in case" is used and British English speaker would find odd, please let me know.


----------



## cheshire

Thank you very much for everyone who joined in here and helped me. 
Also, I'd like to apologize for several spelling mistakes that no longer I can't edit, and wrong comments (including opposite comments) that may confuse learners who will read this thread. Please trust native speakers only and don't take my comments seriously.



			
				panjandrum said:
			
		

> What did the _ABC of Common Grammatical Errors_ say about American English use of "in case"?
> 
> The quoted statement refers only to BE, and the section quoted gives no indication of the writer's view of AE usage. Had he previously explained the AE usage?


I'm going to the library tomorrow and quote it.



			
				Taishukan's Genius E-J Dictionary said:
			
		

> "Give the baby a toy in case he cries."


Although several forer@ helped me and told me that this sentence doesn't make sense, I don't yet know the reason. Could you explain the reason as if I were a computer?

Give the baby a toy (now).
I'm saying this because the baby might cry, and want to prevent it. [precaution]


----------



## liliput

LouisaB said:


> cycloneviv is quite correct to point out these two usages are _not_ the same.
> 
> 'Keep a fire extinguisher in your room in case of fire' - 'in case' means *'in the event of there being a fire in the future'.*
> 
> 'In case of fire, break glass' - 'in case' means *'in the event of a fire having already started'.*
> 
> In BE, we would use both. 'In case of' simply means 'in the event of'.
> 
> We would not, however, use the example from cheshire's link - 'You should dial 911 in case there is a fire' - because it confuses the two usages.
> *'In case there is'* = 'as a precaution in the event of a fire happening' - and it makes no sense to call the police before the fire's started!
> 
> What's confusing is that we can use the phrase *'in case of'* for _both_ meanings - and I suspect the only way to tell which one is meant is by common sense and context.
> 
> Louisa


 
Excellent explanation, and absolutely correct.


----------



## cuchuflete

cheshire said:


> _(1)Place a fire extinguisher in your room* in case* there is a fire.
> _I heard this sentence is OK in *British* English and it means "Place a fire extinguisher in your room in preparation for a possible event of a fire." ​ *Do you think this usage is shared by American English, too, without changing its meaning?*
> 
> I thought this sentence might be interpreted by AmEn like this2) Place a fire extinguisher in your room *after* you find out that there is a fire.



1. Where did you hear the interpretation you have given for BE?
2. The sentence is not idiomatic in AE.
3. An AE speaker would say -
_Keep a fire extinguisher in your room in case of fire._
or, more likely, 
_Keep a fire extinguiser in your room.
_​AE speakers, just as BE speakers, know what fire extinguishers are for!

The meaning of the non-idiomatic sentence presented is obviously:  Keep a fire extinguisher in your room so that, in the event of fire, you may have a way to put the fire out.

The speculation you have offered for AE interpretation is, to put it kindly, ridiculous.  It doesn't make any logical sense.  I'll confess that AE speakers say and do many things devoid of logic, but this is not one of them.


----------



## Macunaíma

I also have a problem with that expression and I also read somewhere that _in case_ is not the same as _if _in all cases. That's specially troublesome for me because we have an expression in Portuguese identical to_ in case_ and it is perfectly interchangeable with _if_ in all cases I can think of.

I try not to think of subtle nuances in order not to get confused, and stick to the simplest definition of the _in case_ usage I found, in the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary:

(just) in case >> because of the possibility of something happening.

In that sense, I guess it can only be used as a preventative measure, as Liliput put it. 

_"I'll take an umbrella in case it rains" _
_"You'd better take a key in case I'm out when you come back"_
_"You probably won't need to call --but take their phone number, just in case"_

In these examples (all of them from the dictionary), the first actions can be seen as a precaution taken in the face of a possibility.

In your example _"If it rains, I shall bring umbrella",_ what I read is that I will only bring an umbrella if it's already raining. I won't bring umbrella if the weather is fine _just in case_ it rains later.


----------



## liliput

I think there's another thread around on this topic. Somewhere it's been pointed out there are two "in case" expressions:
1) "in case of" - meaning "in the event of" e.g. "break glass in case of fire" (found on fire alarms).
2) "in case there is" - meaning "should the event occur" e.g. "Keep a fire extinguisher handy in case there's a fire."


----------



## Macunaíma

I think it might be a good trick to substitute the word _possibility _for _case _to check if the sentence still makes sense. If so, then you could use _case _there. 

Break the glass in the _possibility_ of/ in the _possibility _there is a fire. 
I'll take a heavier coat in the _possibility_ of being cold there. (_in case_ it's cold)

EDIT: you can replace _possibility _by event in these sentences, as by_ possibility_ I meant _uncertain event_. I think that meaning of _possibility_ is not so obvious in English.

I know this sounds strange to native speakers, as they'd probably never use _possibility _in those cases, but foreign speakers like me often need to resort to tricks like this to fix things in their mind.

_Macunaíma_


----------



## liliput

Macunaíma said:


> I think it might be a good trick to substitute the word _possibility _for _case _to check if the sentence still makes sense. If so, then you could use _case _there.
> 
> Break the glass in the _possibility_ of/ in the _possibility _there is a fire.
> I'll take a heavier coat in the _possibility_ of being cold there. (_in case_ it's cold)
> 
> I know this sounds strange to native speakers, as they'd probably never use _possibility _in those cases, but foreign speakers like me often need to resort to tricks like this to fix things in their mind.
> 
> _Macunaíma_


 
But you'd only break the glass in the fire alarm if there *were* a fire, not if there were a possibility of one. This sentence is not about possibility.
Your second sentence should be something like "I'll take a coat *because of* the possibility of it being cold."


----------



## Macunaíma

Okay, let me give it another try (and see if I can grasp it myself once and for all...)

The word *possibility* indicates a future event which is _uncertain_, which we _cannot predict_. In this case, the fire is a possibility (not a probability, mind you). It's just possible that there might be a fire in this building any time and we should allow for that.

Of course you shouldn't break the glass _just in case_ a fire starts, but _in case _(here I'm allowing for a possibility, an uncertain event, just like in the previous sentence) it starts, then you should break it and ring the alarm.

I guess it's a matter of viewpoint, if you know what I mean (???). My not knowing whether there will be a goddamned fire or not justifies that _in case_ in my sentence.

_Break the glass in case of _fire (_in case_ a fire starts, _if _a fire starts, but how am I supposed to know whether a fire will start?)

I feel like I'm getting bogged down...

Okay, If what I've wrote is wrong, then I hand it to you guys --I don't have a clue what I'm talking about!

_Macunaíma_


----------



## Macunaíma

I found this excellent explanation on the BBC Learning English website:

in case or if ?

I'll leave a link here _in case_ somebody else is interested. It kind of confirms my suspicion that in case of and if are interchangeable.


----------



## cheshire

panjandrum said:


> What did the _ABC of Common Grammatical Errors_ say about American English use of "in case"?
> 
> The quoted statement refers only to BE, and the section quoted gives no indication of the writer's view of AE usage. Had he previously explained the AE usage?


Thanks, I went to library today. I looked at the page on the book, but no mention of American usage particularly: just British usage.

Thanks everyone. I'm going to read this whole thread again, and ask additional posts if need be.


----------



## cheshire

panjandrum said:


> I think part of the confusion is due to the choice of topic.
> *In BE, "Give the baby a toy in case he cries," really doesn't make sense at all. You give the baby a toy now in the hope that it will help to prevent him from crying.*
> 
> A more typical, and simpler, BE "in case" sentence would be:
> "Take an umbrella in case it rains."
> The umbrella will not prevent the rain.
> Right now, you don't need the umbrella.
> It may not rain, but if it does, you will be glad you brought your umbrella.





> *You give the baby a toy now in the hope that it will help to prevent him from crying.*


Do you mean this sentence is what the sentence I quoted is supposed to mean? [precaution] Doesn't it work?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

cheshire said:


> Do you mean this sentence is what the sentence I quoted is supposed to mean? [precaution] Doesn't it work?


I think the answer to your first question, Cheshire, is *yes*, and the answer to the second one is *no *(if *it* is your version of the sentence).

You want to say

*Give the baby a toy in case he cries*

This doesn't work because *in case he cries* means here *against the event of his crying, *as in the other example: *take an umbrella in case it rains *- *take an umbrella against the event of its raining*.

But you give the baby a toy *to prevent it crying*; you don't take your umbrella *to prevent it raining*.

You could say: *give the baby a toy to prevent him crying*.


----------



## panjandrum

I'm not at all sure that I dare to do this after so many posts, but it might be worthwhile to try to summarise the opinions expressed by native AE and BE speakers so far.

*The British English position:
*... is set out in liliput's post (my emphasis) and in the link provided by Macunaíma.


liliput said:


> Somewhere it's been pointed out *there are two "in case" expressions*:
> 1) "in case of" - meaning "in the event of" e.g. "break glass in case of fire" (found on fire alarms).
> 2) "in case there is" - meaning "should the event occur" e.g. "Keep a fire extinguisher handy in case there's a fire."





Macunaíma said:


> I found this excellent explanation on the BBC Learning English website: in case or if ?


Do X ... *in case of* ... Y
Don't do anything until Y happens.
If Y happens, do X.
Perhaps more logically expressed as:
*In case of* Y ... do X.
(See the BBC link above)

Do X ... *in case* ... Y.
Do X.  If Y happens, you will be really glad that you did X.
(#2, #4, #6, #31, #35,

*The American English position:*
Do X ... *in case* ...Y.
Don't do anything until Y happens.
If Y happens, do X.
(#15, #19, #26, #41)

_OR_
Do X ... *in case of* ...Y.
Don't do anything until Y happens.
If Y happens, do X.
(#44, #49, #55)

_OR_
Do X ... *in case* ... Y.
Do X.  If Y happens, you will be really glad that you did X.
(#17, #28, #37, #41)


----------



## cheshire

> I noticed that your mother tongue is* British English*.
> 
> One of my dictionaries (_Taishukan's Genius English-Japanese Dictionary, Second Edition_) states in its usage guide that there's a difference in usage between BrEn and AmEn.
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Genius E-J Dictionary*
> Give my child this toy in case he cries. =Give my child this toy if he cries. *American English (same as liliput's answer)*
> 
> =Give my child his toy to prevent him crying. *British English*
> 
> Do you think this dictionary is wrong in its usage guide? (I'm used to finding mistakes even in dictionaries written by non-native speakers of a language)





			
				Thomas Thompion #31 said:
			
		

> *I'll meet you in case you come by train*
> 
> is pretty well meaningless in BE. I can't see what I'll meet you lest you come by train could mean. Perhaps I'm short of imagination this morning.


Could you explain why it is meaningless in British English?



			
				panjandrum #35 said:
			
		

> In BE, "*Give the baby a toy* *in case* *he cries*," really doesn't make sense at all. You give the baby a toy now in the hope that it will help to prevent him from crying.


Could you tell me why it doesn't make sense? I've been trying, but I don't understand what makes the sentence different from other "precaution" examples (or "in case of" examples).



> I think the answer to your first question, Cheshire, is *yes*, and the answer to the second one is *no *(if *it* is your version of the sentence).
> 
> You want to say
> 
> *Give the baby a toy in case he cries*
> 
> This doesn't work because *in case he cries* means here *against the event of his crying, *as in the other example: *take an umbrella in case it rains *- *take an umbrella against the event of its raining*.
> 
> But you give the baby a toy *to prevent it crying*; you don't take your umbrella *to prevent it raining*.
> 
> You could say: *give the baby a toy to prevent him crying*.


I'm glad you're trying to help me with my question why the sentence is wrong, but unfortunately I don't understand your explanation. Could you help me more?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Hi Cheshire,

To try to answer your question.

The two cases, *I'll meet you in case you come by train* and *Give the baby a toy in case he cries*, which we say are both meaningless in BE are meaningless for the same reason - misuse of *in case* - I'll consider the one about the baby first.

You give the baby the toy, to amuse him, so that he doesn't cry.

*Give the baby a toy in case he cries* is saying *Give the baby a toy, against the event that he cries* - just as *I'll take my umbrella in case it rains* means *I'll take my umbrella against the event that it rains. *Now in the case of the baby this is not what one is trying to say, and in the circumstances the sentence is almost without meaning - give him the toy so that he's got it if he cries: when could one want to say that?

*I'll meet you in case you come by train* is saying *I'll meet you against the event that you come by train *and that is meaningless*, *because if you don't come by train, I won't meet you. 

*I'll go to the station in order to meet you should you come by train* - is meaningful: it means *I'll go to the station so that I meet you if you decide to come by train*.

Interestingly, and this is the real point, *I'll go to the station to meet you in case you come by train* is fine too*,* because I can go to the station even if you don't come by train. *I'll meet you in case you come by train* doesn't work because if you don't come by train I will not meet you.


----------



## cheshire

T.Tompion, you're a great teacher! You almost lit my lightbulb, but only I couldn't understand this part. I'm terribly sorry my understanding is lacking...


> *Give the baby a toy in case he cries* is saying *Give the baby a toy, against the event that he cries* - just as *I'll take my umbrella in case it rains* means *I'll take my umbrella against the event that it rains. *Now in the case of the baby this is not what one is trying to say, and in the circumstances the sentence is almost without meaning - give him the toy so that he's got it if he cries: when could one want to say that?


Only this part, and the rest I got to understand thanks to you!

I'm going to read your post tomorrow once or twice again, though.


----------



## Judica

Macunaíma said:


> I found this excellent explanation on the BBC Learning English website:
> 
> in case or if ?
> 
> I'll leave a link here _in case_ somebody else is interested. It kind of confirms my suspicion that in case of and if are interchangeable.



You are correct. 

This is my observation and the reason why I said all the sentences say the exact same thing.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

cheshire said:


> T.Tompion, you're a great teacher! You almost lit my lightbulb, but only I couldn't understand this part. I'm terribly sorry my understanding is lacking...
> 
> Only this part, and the rest I got to understand thanks to you!
> 
> I'm going to read your post tomorrow once or twice again, though.


Hi Cheshire,

I'm glad the other bit was a help, at least.  I'll have another try at this bit:

*Give the baby a toy in case he cries* is saying *Give the baby a toy, against the event that he cries* - just as *I'll take my umbrella in case it rains* means *I'll take my umbrella against the event that it rains. *Now in the case of the baby this is not what one is trying to say, and in the circumstances the sentence is almost without meaning - give him the toy so that he's got it if he cries: when could one want to say that?

If you want to say *give him a toy to prevent him crying* that's fine, say just that - *give him a toy to prevent him crying*.

But *give him a toy in case he cries* isn't saying that; it's saying *give him a toy against the case that he cries* - i.e. to deal with the situation which will occur if he cries.  Now this probably could just mean *give him a toy to comfort him should he start crying*, but I'm not sure that is what many people want to say.  I think most people want to *give him a toy to prevent him crying*.

Congratulations on getting the point about meeting the train; it's rather a nice idea.


----------



## cuchuflete

Judica said:
			
		

> Originally Posted by *Macunaíma*
> 
> 
> I found this excellent explanation on the BBC Learning English website:
> 
> in case or if ?
> 
> I'll leave a link here _in case_ somebody else is interested. It kind of confirms my suspicion that in case of and if are interchangeable.
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct.
> 
> This is my observation and the reason why I said all the sentences say the exact same thing.
Click to expand...

The linked site shows some situations in which 'if' and 'in case' are interchangeable, and some in which they are not:



> _I'll fill up the car with petrol *in case you need to go                  to Brighton*. ( = I'll fill up now, because you might need                  it later.)
> 
> _
> _I'll fill up the car with petrol *if you need to go to                  Brighton*. ( = Let me know if you need to go to Brighton and                  then I'll fill up with petrol.)_


I'll close the window in case it rains.   (as a precaution against water coming into the house should it rain )

I'll close the window if it rains.  (I will not close the window as a precaution, but will close it should rain begin to fall.)


----------



## Judica

My response is in reference to the original linked site .... and once again, Macunaíma is correct.


----------



## cuchuflete

Judica said:


> My response is in reference to the original linked site ....



My response is to the link in your post in which you state that 'if' and 'in case' are interchangeable.
They are, except when they are not.

To avoid further confusion, perhaps you would post the link you are referring to, if it is different from the one you quoted in Macunaíma's post.  The link in his post takes us to two cases, including
samples of 'if' and 'in case' as interchangeable, and 'if' and 'in case' as having quite distinct meanings.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/grammar/learnit/learnitv261.shtml


----------



## Judica

You are free to read my posts for yourself.


----------



## cuchuflete

Judica said:


> You are correct.
> 
> This is my observation and the reason why I said all the sentences say the exact same thing.



I have read your post.  I quoted it in full, including the link in it.  Your statement is wrong and misleading if it refers to the link you quoted in your own post.  

If your statement refers to something other than the link you quoted ,perhaps you might explain why you say something about a link other than the one you quoted.

 "If" is sometimes, but not always, interchangeable with "in case".  If you maintain that this is not true, please explain why the BBC site shows so clearly by examples that there are sentences in which one may not be substituted for the other without a total change in meaning.


----------



## Judica

Please take the time to actually READ my posts ... and this will be my last response to you on this subject.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Judica said:


> Please take the time to actually READ my posts ... and this will be my last response to you on this subject.


Judica,

 I've read all your posts.  They have left me unclear on one point: are you saying?:

1. that *if* and in *case* *of* have very similar applications? So:

*Take an umbrella in case of rain.*

means something very similar to:

*Take an umbrella if it rains.*

or
2. that *if* and *in case* have very similar applications.  So:

*Take an umbrella in case it rains*

means something very similar to:

*Take an umbrella if it rains.*

or
3.  Something else, and, if you are saying something else, what precisely is it?


----------



## AWordLover

Hi,

Cheshire said that this was the only part of the explanation Thomas T gave that was still a problem.



> Thomas T wrote:
> *Give the baby a toy in case he cries* is saying *Give the baby a toy, against the event that he cries* - just as *I'll take my umbrella in case it rains* means *I'll take my umbrella against the event that it rains. *Now in the case of the baby this is not what one is trying to say, and in the circumstances the sentence is almost without meaning - give him the toy so that he's got it if he cries: when could one want to say that?


 
After Thomas explained it again and now that you've had a day to think about it, is it still confusiong?

I wanted to observe that the problem with the baby crying sentence is the same as the meet at the train station sentence. If when the baby has the toy in it's possession it doesn't cry, the sentence suggests your preventing something that won't happen. 

In the potentially crying baby sentence, my AE sensibilities let me interpret *in case* as *if*, so the sentence has meaning to me.

EDIT: My very careful reading of Judica's posts suggest Thomas's choice #1 above.


----------



## cuchuflete

Another careful reading of previous posts shows even more confusion:

Post#51:



> Originally Posted by cheshire  View Post
> Thanks again!
> 
> I think the below site is dealing with the different usage of "in case." Could anybody give us comment?
> 
> http://osdir.com/ml/os.freebsd.chat/.../msg00064.html
> 
> ...by the way, 119 is the number in Japan!
> 
> 
> 
> Judica:
> The *two sentences at the top of the linked page (using "in case") say the exact same thing.*
Click to expand...

*emphasis added.

*
Here are the two sentences at the top of the linked page:
Note that neither contains “if”:



> > >
> > > (3)    In case there is an explosion, call the police.
> > >
> > > (4)    Call the police in case there is an explosion.


Here is post#74, again:



> Originally Posted by Macunaíma View Post
> I found this excellent explanation on the BBC Learning English website:
> 
> in case or if ?
> 
> I'll leave a link here in case somebody else is interested. It kind of confirms my suspicion that in case of and if are interchangeable.
> 
> 
> 
> Judica:  You are correct.
> 
> This is my observation and the reason why *I said all the sentences say the exact same thing*.
Click to expand...

No, Judica did not say previously that *all* the sentences say the exact same thing. There are at least seven example sentences on the linked page, and Judica's previous comment, quoted above, refers only to the first two.

The proximity to a different link in Macunaíma's post, quoted by Judica just before the statement about "all the sentences" may have sent us astray. The confusion about two sentences and all sentences remains.


----------



## Loob

For me, panj's post #70 neatly summarises a complex issue. Perhaps we could reach a consensus on the basis of that?

Loob

PS Personally, I tend to avoid "in case of" simply because it can mean something so confusingly different from "in case X happens". I use "in the event of" instead: _in the event of fire, in the event of a breakdown_...


----------



## Loob

OK, OK, I know I've started talking to myself, which must be (after hairy palms) the second sign of madness. 

But my last post in this thread has made me wonder: does anyone use "in case of" "with the same meaning as "in case X happens?"

_I'll take an umbrella in case it rains_ (against the possibility that it may rain)

_I'll take an umbrella in case of rain_ (against the possibility that it may rain).

I suspect I sometimes do - which might explain why I avoid like the plague "in case of" meaning "in the event of".

Oh dear, I fear I've muddied the waters as well as exposing my own mental loopiness ....

Loob


----------



## Macunaíma

I'm feeling guilty for posting that link...

What I made from the explanation on the BBC site is that _*in case of* (followed by a noun)_ has a different meaning from_* in case* (followed by a clause)_, and that has a tremendous implication in terms of logic.

The link says _*in case* followed by a clause_ implies a preventative measure (very useful expression first used here by Liliput). _*In case of* followed by a noun_ has about the same meaning as an _if-clause_. In terms of logic (cause/consequence) they are in inverted order.

I'll leave the window open just in case a fire starts _(no fire yet)_
Leave the room through the window in case of fire /if a fire starts. _(only if there is a fire)_

And this is what happens when you get the two meanings muddled up:

Leave the room through the window in case there is a fire (_do it so that, if a fire begins, you are out of the building already)_


_Yeah, I think now I got it! (punching the air)_

_Macunaíma_


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I think that's mostly fine, Macunaima, except, dare I say it, for the line:

Leave the room through the window in case of fire /if a fire starts. _(only if there is a fire)_


*Leave the room through the window in case of fire*

is not the same thing (_pace_ the BBC) as 

*Leave the room through the window if there is a fire*

Please don't apologize for starting this thread. I expect it's teaching us all a lot.


----------



## AWordLover

Thomas Tompion said:


> I think that's mostly fine, Macunaima, except, dare I say it, for the line:
> 
> Leave the room through the window in case of fire /if a fire starts. _(only if there is a fire)_
> 
> 
> *Leave the room through the window in case of fire*
> 
> is not the same thing (_pace_ the BBC) as
> 
> *Leave the room through the window if there is a fire*
> 
> Please don't apologize for starting this thread. I expect it's teaching us all a lot.


I agree, I'm learning a great deal.

Thomas T, please say a bit more about what you think the bold sentences mean and how they differ.

Thanks,
AWordLover


----------



## Thomas Tompion

AWordLover said:


> I agree, I'm learning a great deal.
> 
> Thomas T, please say a bit more about what you think the bold sentences mean and how they differ.
> 
> Thanks,
> AWordLover


 
A little while back, AWL, you suggested that you found my explanations rather wearisome - a view with which I have a lot of sympathy. I'll try to keep this one brief.

Imagine you take a hotel room and written on a notice on the wall is:

*Leave the room by the window if there is a fire.*

Fine. I know what to do in the event of fire - I leave by the window.

If the notice said:

*Leave the room by the window in case of fire*

I would think it was suggesting that I ought now to leave the room by the window, to prevent fire breaking out.


----------



## AWordLover

Thomas Tompion said:


> A little while back, AWL, you suggested that you found my explanations rather exhausting - a view with which I have a lot of sympathy. I'll try to keep this one brief.
> 
> Imagine you take a hotel room and written on a notice on the wall is:
> 
> *Leave the room by the window if there is a fire.*
> 
> Fine. I know what to do in the event of fire - I leave by the window.
> 
> If the notice said:
> 
> *Leave the room by the window in case of fire*
> 
> I would think it was suggesting that I ought now to leave the room by the window, to prevent fire breaking out.


 
Thank you Thomas T.
[I don't recall every suggesting that your explanations were exhausting]

In one BBC link we got earlier, they made a point of saying that "in case *of*" was equivalent to "if".

I don't detect any difference in the two sentences, the idea of leaving the room to prevent fire breaking out is not an interpretation I would have considered.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

AWordLover said:


> In one BBC link we got earlier, they made a point of saying that "in case *of*" was equivalent to "if".
> 
> Have another look. There's a section where they point the differences and tell you to study the distinctions between the two meanings.
> 
> I don't detect any difference in the two sentences, the idea of leaving the room to prevent fire breaking out is not an interpretation I would have considered.
> 
> Neither did the BBC man. In fact the example which Macunaima chose was very close to a supposedly correct example on the link, except the *in case of fire* was at the beginning of the warning.


----------



## Malaya

I think I’ve understood something. 

If it rains on Saturday, I shall bring an umbrella.

Means: if it actually rains the moment I go out.

I shall bring an umbrella in case it rains on Saturday.

Means: I’ll bring an umbrella even if it doesn’t actually rain at the moment I go out. But might rain later.

If you come by train, I’ll meet you at the station. I can’t come to the airport in case you come by plane.

The first sounds more like a planned action. The second more like possible but not probable.

I would appreciate opinions of native speakers.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Malaya said:


> I think I’ve understood something.





Malaya said:


> If it rains on Saturday, I shall bring an umbrella.
> 
> Means: if it actually rains the moment I go out.
> 
> or* if it is raining*, which is what you may mean.
> 
> I shall bring an umbrella in case it rains on Saturday.
> 
> Means: I’ll bring an umbrella even if it doesn’t actually rain at the moment I go out. But might rain later.
> 
> Exactly (*doesn't actually rain* should be *isn't actually raining*, but you've got the big point here, Malaya)
> 
> If you come by train, I’ll meet you at the station. I can’t come to the airport in case you come by plane.
> 
> The first sounds more like a planned action. The second more like possible but not probable.
> 
> I'm not sure this bit is right:
> 
> *If you come by train, I'll meet you at the station* is fine.
> 
> *In case you come by train, I'll meet you at the station* doesn't work because you can't meet him if he doesn't come.
> 
> *In case you come by train, I'll go to the station* is fine because you can go to the station, even if he doesn't come on the train.
> 
> *I can't come to the airport, in case you come by plane* is strange, because the possibility of your coming by plane doesn't affect my ability to come to the airport. I expect you mean something like* I'm afraid I can't come to the airport to meet you, in the event of your coming by plane.* Most people would ignore the logical problem and say:* I can't meet you at the airport if you come by plane.*
> 
> Your example - *I can't come to the airport, in case you come by plane* - is interesting because the logic is almost reversed. You'd be more likely to say *I won't go to the airport, in case you come by train*, or *I won't go to the train station in case you come by car.*
> 
> I would appreciate opinions of native speakers.


----------



## cheshire

I mulled over Thomas Tompion's explanation, and finally reached this conclusion (hypothesis...could you correct me if I'm wrong?). I'd like to thank you all who cooperated and helped me, and be patient with me all along; It must have taken great energy and time!

Since yesterday, the only point I've gotten stuck in was a sentence in _Genius E-J Dictionary Second Edition_'s usage guide: **Give my child this toy in case he cries.*

Why is this sentence wrong? All the forer@ asked about this sentence all say that this sentence is wrong. Why? This was racking my brain this past few days.

Thanks to Thomas Tompion's detailed, clear, logical explanation, together with AWordLover's comment, I finally reached the following conclusion.


There are two main usages of "in case" (1: in the event that, 2: as a precaution against a stated possibility). These are common in that its *apodosis* should be based on the premise that the hypothesis proposed in its *protasis* is inevitable, and the outcome proposed there can't be changed.

*Give my child this toy* *in case he cries*.​If the contents described in its apodosis are executed AND prevent or change the outcome or event proposed in its protasis, the sentence is *un*grammatical.

The hope expressed or implicit in the sentence can't be the inversed content of its protasis; the hope should be outside the protasis-apodosis.

This was the source of my misunderstanding and confusion, which I believe I share with millions of Japanese people. I believe this is partly due to the Japanese education: Japanese students are taught...

in case= lest...should​ 

*I took my umbrella* *lest it should rain*.​But most of them never take note that *apodosis* never affects the outcome of its *protasis*.

They are mistakenly think that "in case" = lest...should =so as not to = to prevent from...

As you've explained it to me, that's simply wrong.
"in case"=lest...should, but not equal to "so as not to" or "to prevent... from.."


----------



## gaer

Cheshire,

I feel very strongly that there is something surprisingly simple going on that is terribly difficult to explain.

Look at these two sentences:

1) *If* you are still confused about the AE use of "in case", please feel free to ask me more questions.

2) *In case* you are still confused about the AE use of "in case", please feel free to ask me more questions.

In informal speech, at least some Americans will use "in case" in place of "if", and the meaning will not change. _However, deciding when it might happen—and when it might not—is so confusing to me that I can't even give you an informal "rule"._

My advice, if you choose to take it is this: avoid this American usage. In your own speech and writing, when you mean "if", use "if". Then be aware that now and then you may find "in case" used in this rather sloppy manner. I'll try to give you a few more examples:

_If you end up confused after reading my advice, just ignore it._
_(In case you end up confused after reading my advice, just ignore it.)_

Use if…

This use of "in case", in my opinion, is sloppy, although typically American, and you would be best off never to use it. If you are aware that it exists, potentially, in informal situations, you will probably understand the meaning of a sentence, in context.

I would say to an advanced student at the end of a lesson:

_If you have any problems with this song when you get home, please don't worry about them. Wait for more help from me next week._

_(In case you have any problems with this song when you get home, please don't worry about them. Wait for more help from me next week.)_

Use if…

Again, this is non-standard, and I believe it is an AE habit too.

I think the comments about the correct usage of "in case" are no problem for you.

Please let me know if this clarifies anything!

Gaer


----------



## panjandrum

Let's look at the crucial sentence in light of the algebraic analysis I offered earlier.  Here is the sentence:
*Give my child this toy in case he cries.*

In AE, this makes sense because it follows the model:
Do X ... *in case* ...Y.
 Don't do anything until Y happens.
 If Y happens, do X.
This instruction says do nothing now.
If my child cries, give my child this toy.
That is very sensible.

But in BE, things are different. In BE this structure means:
Do X ... *in case* ... Y.
 Do X.  If Y happens, you will be really glad that you did X.
Remember that the essence of this expression is that doing X will be really useful when Y happens.
Now, think about what happens in this specific context.
First, you must give my child the toy.
Some time later, my child, who already has the toy, starts to cry.
What good is the toy now?
None at all - my child has started to cry despite already having the toy.

Here is a genuine BE example:
Take this toy with you *in case he cries.*
First you take the toy with you.
Some time later, my child starts to cry.
Now you are really glad that you have the toy because you can give the toy to my child and he will stop crying because it is his favourite toy.


----------



## cuchuflete

panjandrum said:


> Let's look at the crucial sentence in light of the algebraic analysis I offered earlier.  Here is the sentence:
> *Give my child this toy in case he cries.*
> 
> In AE, this makes sense because it follows the model:
> Do X ... *in case* ...Y.
> Don't do anything until Y happens.
> If Y happens, do X.
> This instruction says do nothing now.
> If my child cries, give my child this toy.
> That is very sensible.



It may be very sensible, even algebraic, but I still have a difficulty with it.
According to this interpretation, which seems to sit well with one or more AE speakers,
'in case' means the same thing as 'if' when parked in the middle of a sentence. 
I don't use it that way, and am not familiar with that usage.  If we move things around, that all changes:

In case/if he cries, give my child this toy.

That's ok as far as Gaer's examples and my own experience of AE.

It also follows panjandrumian algebra, in that it means, "Do nothing now.  If my child cries, give the precious darling the toy."  But I do not read the sentence in bold as "Give my child this toy *if* he cries".  I read it as unidiomatic and essentially meaningless.

In case of self-contradiction, just ignore these comments._

Afterthought:

_


> Here is a genuine BE example:
> Take this toy with you *in case he cries.*
> First you take the toy with you.
> Some time later, my child starts to cry.
> Now you are really glad ...


  This works in AE too.


----------



## dobes

That "genuine BE example" is the ONLY use I'm familiar with. I don't recognize the "AE" use of 'in case' where 'if' would do. The only other use I know is 'in case of', which is closer to 'if': Break glass in case of fire.

One thing that's beginning to get under my skin in this forum is that it seems that every time there's a grammatical and an ungrammatical usage of a term, the people who want the ungrammatical thing to be acceptable start labeling it "AE".  Most of the time, it's an "AE" that I've never heard, or one that is immediately recognizable to me as ungrammatical and in use only in informal speech. Then, as in the above example, the correct, grammatical use of the term is happily labeled "BE".  This is truly getting on my last nerve.  Americans are not the village idiots of grammar!


----------



## cheshire

dobes, are you American brought up surrounded by British English speakers? If so, that's make sense to me.
I checked a lot of dictionaries for "in case," but I found to my surprise that most (more than half) American dictionaries (like Webster, Longman, etc.) don't even cover British English usages. 

Panjandrum, bravo! There could be nothing clearer! 

This question arises:



			
				panjandrum said:
			
		

> But in BE, things are different. In BE this structure means:
> Do X ... *in case* ... Y.
> Do X.  If Y happens, you will be really glad that you did X.
> Remember that the essence of this expression is that doing X will be really useful when Y happens.
> Now, think about what happens in this specific context.
> First, you must give my child the toy.
> Some time later, my child, who already has the toy, starts to cry.
> What good is the toy now?
> None at all - my child has started to cry despite already having the toy.


--->We don't expect "taking an umbrella" to be able to prevent rain from falling down!
Even though "giving a toy to a baby" can't prevent a baby from crying 100%, it could help prevent the possibility, however small. We don't necessarily have to assume the magic wand of a toy, do we?



> First, you must take an umbrella.
> Some time later, it begins to rain.
> What good is an umbrella?
> It prevents him from getting wet. The rain started despite already taking an umbrella.


--->But the umbrella served the purpose!


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I'm interested in the application of Panj's algebra to a case we considered earlier:

*I'll meet him at the station in case he comes by train.*

(I've changed the *you* to *him*, to avoid ambiguity later)

This case seems to me interesting because obviously you cannot meet him at the station unless he comes by train, so you have a logical link between X and Y in the algebra (X cannot occur if Y doesn't occur). This makes the statement meaningless, to my ear, in BE. Let's apply the algebra:

In BE: 

Do X..... in case ....Y.
Do X. If Y happens, you will be really glad you did X.
*I'll meet him at the station. If he comes by train, I'll be really glad I met him at the station.*

What do you think? 

The algebra highlights two problems:

a. The opening sentence - *I'll meet him at the station* - can't be true if he doesn't come by train.
b. *If he comes by train, I'll be really glad I met* *him at the station* has the wrong tenses. To mean something it has to be *If he comes by train I'll be really glad to meet him at the station.*

Have I been unfair to the algebra? The algebra uses imperatives: have I muddled the tenses in shifting to indicatives? Or does the fact that the sentence doesn't work - if you think it doesn't - show that the algebra works, for, after all, the sentence, to my ear, didn't work in the first place. To my mind, the algebra has shown that the sentence doesn't work.

Let's apply the algebra to Panj's two AE uses:

Use 1.
Do X.... in case........Y.
Don't do anything until Y happens. If Y happens, do X.

*I'll meet him at the station in case he comes by train*

in AE (use 1) means, according to the algebra:

*I won't do anything until he comes by train; if he comes by train, I'll meet him at the station.*

This seems to be perfectly meaningful and gets round the problem, in BE, of the logical link between Y and X. 

Use 3. (I'm ignoring Panj's Use 2, because that examined use of *in case of*)

Do X .... in case .... Y.
Do X. If Y happens, you will be really glad that you did X.
*I'll meet him at the station. If he comes, I shall be really glad that I met him at the station.*

This is the same as the BE case we've already looked at, so I would expect AE speakers who deploy Use 3 to be as stymied by the logical bind as I am in BE.

I've two questions?

1. Do AE users of the expression (*in case*) fall into two camps (specific users of Use 1 and specific Users of Use 3) or do some use both meanings? 
2. Does the sentence *I'll meet him at the station in case he comes by train* sound logically unacceptable to finely tuned AE ears?


----------



## dobes

No, Cheshire - I'm American through and through, born and bred in New England, with ancestors who arrived there (yes, from England) in 1624.  I grew up in Boston, Connecticut, and Vermont, lived in New York City for 16 years, then moved to Texas for 7 months, and now I've been in Slovakia for 4 years. 

If reliable dictionaries say that in AE 'if' and 'in case' are used interchangeably, then I guess I have to believe them, and believe that it is correct usage, too. But I've never heard that,  and I've never used 'in case' that way. 

But if, instead, the idea that interchangeable 'if' and 'in case' are AE arises because a few AE speakers on the forum are familiar with that use, then I suggest it might just be a regional thing, or an occasional verbal shorthand, and not accepted AE usage.

And no, Thomas, "I'll meet him at the station in case he comes by train" does not sound right to me. In fact, it sounds a little stupid -- like I'll be waiting at the train station no matter what, just on the off chance that, of all the transportation modes available to him in his quest to get to me, he happens to choose the train!  I would say that right there is a clear situation for, "If he comes by train, I'll meet him at the station."


----------



## panjandrum

dobes said:


> [...] One thing that's beginning to get under my skin in this forum is that it seems that every time there's a grammatical and an ungrammatical usage of a term, the people who want the ungrammatical thing to be acceptable start labeling it "AE". [...]


Just in case, the original bit of summary I did was a questioning reflection of what I'd read in the thread up to that point - with no intent to be critical. 
But you're right, it is very easy to presume that what I consider ungrammatical is your common usage.  We who live on the edge of BE get this as well.

There turns out to be a fair balance of the ungrammatical usage on either side of the Atlantic - and it is fascinating to discover that many of the differences arise because BE has moved away from what had at one time been common usage.

What about the traveller who may arrive at the station?
*
I'll meet him at the station in case he comes by train.*
Do X..... in case ....Y.
Do X. If Y happens, you will be really glad you did X.
This sentence doesn't work with the algebra.  It does not fit because you cannot do X until Y has happened.  With a small change this problem would be resolved.

*I'll go to the station in case he comes by train.*
That is understandable.
For example, we know we are expecting Bill this afternoon, but we don't know whether he will arrive by bus or by train.  He usually comes by bus, so you go to the bus stop. I'll go to the station in case he comes by train.


----------



## cuchuflete

Panjandrum said:
			
		

> *I'll go to the station in case he comes by train.*
> That is understandable. For example, we know we are expecting Bill this afternoon, but we don't know whether he will arrive by bus or by train. He usually comes by bus, so you go to the bus stop. I'll go to the station in case he comes by train.


  With the context provided, this would work exactly the same way in AE.  Without that context,
the bold sentence might be ambiguous, but it would still have a theoretically logical meaning.



> *
> I'll meet him at the station in case he comes by train.*


I agree with Panj that this doesn't work with the algebra.  In AE, as I know it, it doesn't work at all.
It would work if the order were changed to: In case (if!) he comes by train, I'll meet him at the station.

Ooops! I see that I'm just repeating what dobes has told us:



> And no, Thomas, "I'll meet him at the station in case he comes by train" does not sound right to me. In fact, it sounds a little stupid -- like I'll be waiting at the train station no matter what, just on the off chance that, of all the transportation modes available to him in his quest to get to me, he happens to choose the train! I would say that right there is a clear situation for, "If he comes by train, I'll meet him at the station."


----------



## gaer

dobes said:


> If reliable dictionaries say that in AE 'if' and 'in case' are used interchangeably, then I guess I have to believe them, and believe that it is correct usage, too. But I've never heard that, and I've never used 'in case' that way.


My suggestion is that _when_ "if" and "in case" are used interchangeably in AE, context will make the "if" meaning clear.

I also believe that this usage ("in case" used in the place of "if") is idiomatic and/or regional, which is why I suggested to Cheshire to learn to recognize it (passive usage) it but to avoid using it (actively)—since it is entirely unnecessary. 

Gaer


----------



## Loob

If we've been trying to disentangle AmE and BrE usage in this thread, it's because one of cheshire's early posts suggested there was a distinction:



> One of my dictionaries (_Taishukan's Genius English-Japanese Dictionary, Second Edition_) states in its usage guide that there's a difference in usage between BrEn and AmEn.
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Genius E-J Dictionary*
> Give my child this toy in case he cries. =Give my child this toy if he cries. *American English (same as liliput's answer)*
> 
> =Give my child his toy to prevent him crying. *British English*
> 
> Do you think this dictionary is wrong in its usage guide? (I'm used to finding mistakes even in dictionaries written by non-native speakers of a language)


 
That doesn't imply one version is more valid than the other; or that cheshire's dictionary is right (or wrong) in suggesting there is an AmE/ BrE difference..... Long live WRF attempts to tease out what expressions such as 'in case' really mean...

Loob


----------



## Malaya

cuchuflete said:


> With the context provided, this would work exactly the same way in AE. Without that context,
> the bold sentence might be ambiguous, but it would still have a theoretically logical meaning.
> 
> I agree with Panj that this doesn't work with the algebra. In AE, as I know it, it doesn't work at all.
> It would work if the order were changed to: In case (if!) he comes by train, I'll meet him at the station.
> 
> *So, have I understood right that, if placed at the beginning of the sentence, “in case” becomes = “if”?*


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Malaya said:


> *So, have I understood right that, if placed at the beginning of the sentence, “in case” becomes = “if”?*


 
Do you know, Malaya, after all these posts I don't think we've agreed on this point. As I see it, Cuchu thinks this works:

*In case (if!) he comes by train, I'll meet him at the station.*

but doesn't accept the sentence with the clauses reversed.

But dobes, whom Cuchu thought he was duplicating was insisting on:

*If he comes by train, I'll meet him at the station*, which almost all of are agreed is fine.

I'm not sure if any Americans have been clear that they often follow Panj's AE use 1 - which is the one different from BE usage, in which *I'll meet him in case he comes by train* is meaningful.


----------



## JamesM

Very interesting, Thomas.  I drift in and out of this thread; it's a little confusing to me.  Thanks for the clarification.

I suppose I'm in the "cuchu camp" on the "In case he comes by train" sentence.

1) In case he comes by train, I'll meet him at the station. 
2) I'll meet him at the station in case he comes by train.  

The first one is identical to me to "in the event that he comes by train I will meet him at the station."  In other words, I'm committing to going to the station to pick him up if we find out he's coming by train.  My going to the station is dependent on finding out he is coming by train.

The second one sounds to me like I will wait at the station on the off chance that he is arriving by train.  I don't know if he's coming by train at all.  I'm willing to go to the station and stand there based on the possibility he might have chosen the train as his method of transport.  Because of that, the "I'll meet him" sounds wrong in this context because I have no certainty that he's coming by train.  I would expect "I'll wait for him at the station in case he comes by train."  

I can see that it might be strange that they mean two different things to me just by reversing the clauses, but they do.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Thank you for that, James. This is exactly the elusive Use 1 which works in Panj's algebra like this: 





> Use 1
> Do X.... in case........Y.
> Don't do anything until Y happens. If Y happens, do X.
> 
> *I'll meet him at the station in case he comes by train*
> 
> in AE (use 1) means, according to the algebra:
> 
> *I won't do anything until he comes by train; if he comes by train, I'll meet him at the station.*


 
The BE and (AE use 3) brigades are caught in the bind of its not being possible to meet anyone who doesn't come; meeting involving both being in the same place at the same time.


----------



## cheshire

Thomas Tompion said:


> If the notice said:
> 
> *Leave the room by the window in case of fire*
> 
> I would think it was suggesting that I ought now to leave the room by the window, *to prevent fire breaking out.*


But can you  "prevent" a fire breaking out in that sentence?


----------



## cheshire

cuchuflete said:


> *In case/if he cries, give my child this toy.
> *





cuchuflete said:


> That's ok as far as Gaer's examples and my own experience of AE.
> 
> It also follows panjandrumian algebra, in that* it means, "Do nothing now.  If my child cries, give the precious darling the toy."  *But I do not read the sentence in bold as "Give my child this toy *if* he cries".  I read it as unidiomatic and essentially meaningless.


I see. Does AmEn also allow for the interpretation: "Do this thing now. If my child cries, you will be happy you've made a precaution."?


----------



## cheshire

cuchuflete said:


> With the context provided, this would work exactly the same way in AE.  Without that context,
> the bold sentence might be ambiguous, but it would still have a theoretically logical meaning.
> 
> I agree with Panj that this doesn't work with the algebra.  In AE, as I know it, it doesn't work at all.
> It would work if the order were changed to: In case (if!) he comes by train, I'll meet him at the station.
> 
> Ooops! I see that I'm just repeating what dobes has told us:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dobes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And no, Thomas, "I'll meet him at the station in case he comes by train" does not sound right to me. In fact, it sounds a little stupid -- like I'll be waiting at the train station no matter what, just on the off chance that, of all the transportation modes available to him in his quest to get to me, he happens to choose the train! I would say that right there is a clear situation for, "If he comes by train, I'll meet him at the station."
Click to expand...




gaer said:


> My suggestion is that _when_ "if" and "in case" are used interchangeably in AE, context will make the "if" meaning clear.
> 
> I also believe that this usage ("in case" used in the place of "if") is idiomatic and/or regional, which is why I suggested to Cheshire to learn to recognize it (passive usage) it but to avoid using it (actively)—since it is entirely unnecessary.
> 
> Gaer


But I wonder--Did dobes oppose to the sentence because of the position of "in case", or the usage of "in case = if" altogether in AmEn?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

cheshire said:


> But can you "prevent" a fire breaking out in that sentence?


 
Cheshire, I felt the sentence implied that my not leaving by the window (which is a bit more than saying my staying in the room - the notice said to leave by the window) might be a sufficient condition for a fire to break out.  I put that more simply by saying that I needed to leave by the window to prevent fire breaking out.  That seemed a reasonable way of saying *to avoid causing a fire.*

We aren't talking about how likely it is that my leaving by the window will prevent fire, of course.  Indeed, it was the absurd nature of the instruction that excited my interest.


----------



## dobes

Guys, "in case *of*" and "in case" are two different phrases with two different meanings.  "In case of" does not have anything to do with preventing or anticipating anything.  "In case of" means, "If this happens".


----------



## Thomas Tompion

dobes said:


> Guys, "in case *of*" and "in case" are two different phrases with two different meanings. "In case of" does not have anything to do with preventing or anticipating anything. "In case of" means, "If this happens".


 
Hi dobes,

I think Cheshire was asking about a bit of my post 90, where I said:

*Leave the room by the window in case of fire*

was suggesting that I ought now to leave the room by the window, to prevent fire breaking out.

A view with which you seem to be at odds. I'll have a further think about it.


----------



## cheshire

Thanks TT! Now #111 is clear. 
That leaves #112 and #113...
Thank you very much!!!


----------



## dobes

I understand that some people believe that AE usage allows for substituting "in case" for "if".  And it seems that, with the crying baby, that is meant to be the case. It has nothing to do with preventing crying, but instead has an identical meaning to "If the baby cries, give him this toy." 

In my AE world, in case is never used that way.  I would simply use "if" for the sentence above, because giving the child the toy is conditional on his crying, and 'if' is the correct word for that situation.   Now, suppose you were babysitting my child, and I was handing you his paraphernalia, while he slept quietly nearby. THEN I might say, "I'm giving you this toy in case he cries." As with all 'in case' situations, that means Here is the toy now, when it is not needed, for use in a possible future situation.  Compare: I'll take my umbrella in case it rains.

I don't believe "Give him this toy in case he cries" makes any more sense than "I'll meet him at the station in case he comes by train". I also don't believe that reversing the order makes the situation any better. 

The only exception I see -- and it's a confusing one -- is the one TT refers to in his last post.  But there, the phrase is "in case *of*" and it does mean "in the event of" or "if X happens".  Leave the room by the window in case of fire or In case of fire, leave the room by the window DOES mean IF there is a fire, leave the room by the window.  

Similarly, in my odd AE world, it would be possible to say, "In case *of* crying, give the toy to the baby."  It would sound strange, but it would be possible.


----------



## cheshire

(1)JamesM, cuchuflete: The usage of "in the event that" exists in AmEn, only if "in case SV" comes before.

(2)dobes: The usage of "in the event that" doesn't exist in AmEn.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

dobes said:


> I don't believe "Give him this toy in case he cries" makes any more sense than "I'll meet him at the station in case he comes by train". I also don't believe that reversing the order makes the situation any better.


Hello Dobes,

You can give him the toy even if he doesn't cry.
You can't meet him at the station if he doesn't come by train.

Don't you think this difference in logical relationship makes a difference to the force of *in case* in the two sentences you consider?  Aren't they wrong for different reasons?


----------



## AWordLover

Thomas Tompion said:


> Hello Dobes,
> 
> You can give him the toy even if he doesn't cry.
> You can't meet him at the station if he doesn't come by train.
> 
> Don't you think this difference in logical relationship makes a difference to the force of *in case* in the two sentences you consider? Aren't they wrong for different reasons?


 
Hi Thomas T,

I think that they would be wrong for very similar reasons. Under the view that we are going to take some action regardless.

In the station case, I can go to the station, with the intent of meeting someone if it happen that they come by train. But if the person doesn't come by train I can't meet them.

In the baby case, I can give the baby the toy now, with the intent of preventing the baby from crying. But if the baby cries, giving the toy doesn't prevent the baby from crying.


----------



## dobes

In "Give him this toy..." it's wrong because "in case" is used instead of "if", but "if" and "in case" don't mean the same thing and cannot be used interchangeably.   But the train sentence also makes sense only if "if" and "in case" have been used interchangeably.  

I guess I just don't buy "in case" as a preventative measure, perhaps that's the problem here? I don't believe "Give him the toy in case he cries" means "Give him the toy to prevent his crying".   I don't think I've ever heard it used like that.  For that, I would use a cause and effect construction -- "Give him the toy so he doesn't cry."

The only way I have ever used 'in case' without 'of' is to mean I don't know if X will happen, but in the event that it might, I will do Y first. 

I'll bring an umbrella (Y) in case it rains (X).  I don't know if it will rain, but I when I leave I will bring an umbrella for that eventuality. 

I'll pack a bathing suit in case the hotel has a pool.  I don't know if the hotel has a pool, so before I go I will put a bathing suit in my suitcase for that eventuality.  

And I completely and totally and without question KNOW that "in case *of*" and "in the event of" are synonymous throughout the US!


----------



## Thomas Tompion

AWordLover said:


> In the station case, I can go to the station, with the intent of meeting someone if it happen that they come by train. But if the person doesn't come by train I can't meet them.


Hi AWL,

In a way you make my case for me. You say *in the station case, I can go to the station*
But you say *In the baby case, I can give the baby the toy now.*

In the station case, notice that you don't say *I can meet him at the station;* you shift the ground to *I can go to the station*.

I think we are agreed we can say: *I will go to the station, in case he comes by train. *That's a classic case of BE use, which is the same as AE use 2.


----------



## dobes

I will go to the station in case he comes by train means "in the event that" he comes by train and is apparently fine in BE and certainly fine in AE.  But, TT, what's the alleged AE use 1?


----------



## cheshire

dobes said:
			
		

> I guess I just don't buy "in case" as a preventative measure, perhaps that's the problem here? I don't believe "Give him the toy in case he cries" means "Give him the toy to prevent his crying". I don't think I've ever heard it used like that.


"Give him the toy* in case* he cries"​ 
A Japanese made this sentence to mean (1)[BrEn] Give him the toy now, so that if and when he cries, the giving him the toy will have helped somewhat to prevent the crying.<<Not altogehter "prevent," but somewhat helped to "prevent.">>
(2)[AmEn] When he starts crying, give him the toy.

...Is this impossible?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

dobes said:


> I will go to the station in case he comes by train means "in the event that" he comes by train and is apparently fine in BE and certainly fine in AE. But, TT, what's the alleged AE use 1?


 
Look at Panj's famous post 70, which tries to explain the differences algebraically.

Here is AE use 1. In which both sentence are meaningful:

Do X ... *in case* ...Y.
Don't do anything until Y happens.
If Y happens, do X.
(#15, #19, #26, #41)

*Give the baby a toy, in case he cries.*

*Translation: *Do nothing until he cries. If he cries give him the toy.

*I'll meet him at the station, in case he comes by train.*

*Translation:* I'll do nothing until he comes by train. If he comes by train I'll meet him.


----------



## dobes

OK, friends. I looked up the subject in Cambridge University Press's _English Grammar in Use_. This is a book which religiously and, I believe, accurately, identifies differences between AE and BE use, but no differences are noted here. 

It says:

_"Geoff wears two watches in case one of them stops.  *'In case' *_= 'because it is possible one of them will stop.'

More examples:  I'll draw a map for you in case you can't find our house (because it is possible you won't be able to find it).

We use '*just in case' *for a smaller possibility:  I don't think it will rain, but I'll take an umbrella just in case."

Then:

*"In case is not the same as if. We use 'in case' to say why somebody does or doesn't do something.  You do something now in case something happens later."

*And -- " *'In case of...' is not the same as 'in case'.  'In case of' = 'if there is'.  *In case of fire, leave the building as quickly as possible. "

Really, I couldn't have said it better myself, and I certainly didn't.  This is EXACTLY how I use 'in case' and 'in case of'.

And thanks, TT, for that explanation. But I don't believe that is valid AE use.  For those situations -- do nothing now, but if Y happens, do X, we have our lovely conditionals: Give him the toy if he cries.  I believe 'in case' is used wrongly there.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

cheshire said:


> "Give him the toy* in case* he cries"​A Japanese made this sentence to mean (1)[BrEn] Give him the toy now, so that if and when he cries, the giving him the toy will have helped somewhat to prevent the crying.<<Not altogehter "prevent," but somewhat helped to "prevent.">>
> (2)[AmEn] When he starts crying, give him the toy.
> 
> ...Is this impossible?


 
Nearly Cheshire.

The Panjian algebra suggests that your explanation (2) is pretty well what it means to some Americans - the ones who use the first of Panj's uses of *in case.*

In BE, and for some AE speakers, the meaning is different, however, and not quite as you describe it in your (1)

Here is Panj's explanation:

Do X ... *in case* ... Y.
Do X. If Y happens, you will be really glad that you did X.
(#2, #4, #6, #31, #35,

*Give the baby the toy, in case it cries.
*
Give the baby the toy.  If it cries you'll be really glad you gave it the toy.

Notice this means something - you may be glad because its having the toy may *stop* it crying, after it's started.  That's got nothing to do with *preventing* it crying.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

dobes said:


> Really, I couldn't have said it better myself. This is EXACTLY how I use 'in case' and 'in case of'.


 
Then that suggests to me that you use it as we do in BE and as described by Panj in his post (70) for the second AE use of *in case,* which is inconveniently his third example (the second example examined *in case of*).  If you want examples of the contrary view to yours, look at the numbered entries in Panj's post, and at James's recent post, which described his position very clearly.


----------



## Loob

dobes said:


> I will go to the station in case he comes by train means "in the event that" he comes by train and is apparently fine in BE and certainly fine in AE.


 
Dobes, the use of "in case he comes" to mean "in the event (that) he comes" is the one that doesn't work in BrE and which you later argue is not correct in AmE

Loob


----------



## cheshire

Hi. Could it be possible that dobes might be of a NY or Texan dialect?


----------



## dobes

Hi cheshire -- although I lived in New York City for 16 years and Austin, Texas for 7 months, I am from New England in general and Boston in particular, though my parents, both writers from Connecticut, punished me whenever any Bostonian idiom or accent crept into my speech.  And, according to Cambridge University, I am not using any particular dialect, but accepted usage. 


Loob -- maybe 'in the event that' and 'if' are too close in meaning? Then I should use another phrase to describe 'in case'.   I don't want to use any substitute phrase that suggests that 'if' and 'in case' are interchangeable. My point there is that 'in case' involves preparation for a possible future event, while 'if' involves reaction to a possible future event.   

On re-reading James' post, I disagree with him because he suggests the interchangeability of 'if' and 'in case' which is what I am arguing against.


----------



## Loob

dobes said:


> Loob -- maybe 'in the event that' and 'if' are too close in meaning? Then I should use another phrase to describe 'in case'.


 
Yes, "in the event that" - certainly to me - equates to "if".

I don't use "in case" (+verb) to mean "in the event that"; I do use it to mean "against the possibility that..."

Loob


----------



## dobes

So if I read Panj's post #70 correctly, the only proposed AE/BE difference is that people here believe that AE allows the substitution of "in case" for "if". (AE #1).  It seems to me that that is the only area of disagreement. Is that right? If so, I cast my AE vote against it.

And yes, Loob, we are in agreement there.


----------



## cuchuflete

cheshire said:


> Hi. Could it be possible that dobes might be of a NY or Texan dialect?




1- There is no regional variation in AE that I am aware of.  I am not from NY or Texas, though I've sent time in both states.

2- As I said in post #98,

*Give my child this toy in case he cries.*

*is unidiomatic and essentially meaningless in AE.*   It would not be said to express any of the following:

a. Give my child this toy to prevent or reduce the likelihood of his crying.
b. Give my child this toy if and when he may begin to cry.  
c. Give my child this toy after he has begun to cry.

I can think of no idiomatic AE use for the bold, underlined sentence above.

Again, if you move 'in case' to the front of the sentence, things change:

_In case my child cries, give him this toy.
_
That, however, is a different sentence, in which 'in case' is interchangeable with 'if'.


----------



## panjandrum

dobes said:


> OK, friends. I looked up the subject in Cambridge University Press's _English Grammar in Use_. [...]


Thanks dobes - that also reflects how I think I use these phrases.  It's useful to have a reference.



Thomas Tompion said:


> [...]
> Do X ... *in case* ... Y.
> Do X. If Y happens, you will be really glad that you did X.
> (#2, #4, #6, #31, #35,
> 
> *Give the baby the toy, in case it cries.
> *
> Give the baby the toy.  If it cries you'll be really glad you gave it the toy.
> 
> Notice this means something - you may be glad because its having the toy may *stop* it crying, after it's started.  That's got nothing to do with *preventing* it crying.


That really doesn't work for me. If the baby already has the toy and starts crying, I am not going to be really glad that I gave her the toy.  Perhaps she may stop crying sooner because she has the toy, but I feel that we are struggling and contorting the situation to match the normal meaning of the phrase.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

cuchuflete said:


> 1- There is no regional variation in AE that I am aware of.


 
So you think posts 15, 19, & 26 are just wrong, Cuchu?


----------



## panjandrum

It is a pity that the idea of prevention got tangled with this thread.  Prevention seems to be complicating things enormously.

I don't think any of the uses of *in case X* , or *in case of X*, convey any sense of preventing X.
They suggest that the thing that you do in case X, or in case of X, will reduce the unpleasant consequences of X, or perhaps increase the pleasant consequences of X.


----------



## JamesM

Thomas Tompion said:


> So you think posts 15, 19, & 26 are just wrong, Cuchu?


 
I certainly do, for American English usage, that is.  Post #15, it should be noted, is an Austrailan English speaker. Post #19 states that the person might be quirky in his understanding of the phrase, and post #26 says that the construction is odd and needs to be re-worded.

*"Give the baby a toy in case he cries."*

I agree with cuchuflete. This is not an idiomatic construction in the U.S. and does not mean the same thing in American English as:

"In case he cries, give the baby a toy."


----------



## dobes

YAY! fellow AE speakers Cuchu and James! Although Cuchu and I have apparently lived in all the same places (!) James is from the other side of the country and agrees with us -- interchangeable 'if' and 'in case' are not idiomatic AE usage. 

And, Panj, I totally agree that the idea of prevention should never have entered this discussion and has needlessly complicated it.  After all, I don't carry an umbrella in an effort to PREVENT the rain -- my effort is only in PREPARATION for rain. 

Unfortunately, though, I cannot quite agree on "In case he cries, give the baby a toy." Sorry, but I'd still have to vote for 'if' there.


----------



## cuchuflete

Thomas Tompion said:


> So you think posts 15, 19, & 26 are just wrong, Cuchu?



Without quoting each and every post that came before  #s 15, 19, and 26, it would be confusing as all hell to give a meaningful answer to such a broad question.  I'll see what I can do...
#15:





AWordLover said:


> I will confirm that to my AE ears, "in case he cries" = "if he cries", and that neither is a preventative. They are both considering the situation after he begins to cry._ Although it is not spelled out,_ I would expect the baby to stop crying after receiving the toy.


 _Emphasis added.

1- I don't know if AWL was referring to the term 'if he cries' in any and all circumstances.  As I, and others, have pointed out, the meaning changes when it is in the middle of a sentence and when it begins a sentence.  I will not put words or interpretations in AWL's mouth, but if and only if he meant that the sentence, as given by Chesire's dictionary, was correct and meaningful in AE, then we have a disagreement.   

Here is what Chesire gave us:  _


> Originalmente publicado por *Genius E-J Dictionary*
> Give my child this toy in case he cries. =Give my child this toy if he cries. *American English*


 If AWL found this acceptable, then we do not agree.  An AE speaker
might very well say "Give my child this toy if he cries", and is highly unlikely to try to say that
by replacing 'if' with 'in case' in the same position in the sentence.  

On to #19:



AWordLover said:


> I don't know what Nigel was thnking. I will say that these examples are different from the examples in your other thread.
> 
> After receiving the instruction, "Give the baby this toy in case it cries."
> I would only give the baby the toy after it began to cry. I don't know why this is different than the above for me. I'm guessing that is what Nigel is getting at, but his examples are terrible.
> 
> It is also possible that I'm just special.


 Again I leave it to AWL to explain whether he or she finds the E-J Dictionary sentence idiomatic, whether it is very, somewhat or not at all likely to be used by an AE speaker.
 
Post #26 





tomandjerryfan said:


> *I can't speak for British usage, but in North American usage, this sentence would sound rather odd.*
> 
> Instead of:
> 
> You should look words up in the dictionary in case you make spelling mistakes.
> 
> I would say:
> 
> _You should have a dictionary (handy/on hand) in case you make spelling mistakes.
> 
> _The sentence is implying that in the event that you make a smelling error - should you find yourself in that situation - you will have a dictionary available to help you. You can't be in the situation of looking up words when you make a spelling mistake.


I am in complete agreement with tomandjerryfan's statement above, *in bold letters.  


*This conversation has become sufficiently tangled that we need either a new thread, or a 
restatement of the matter you and I are—I think—trying to address now:

An AE speaker, addressing another AE speaker, wants to tell the listener what to do
a. if the speaker's child should start to cry...or...
b. to prevent the speaker's child from starting to cry

In either case, would the speaker convey the thought by,

"Give my child the toy in case he starts to cry"?

I maintain that this is not the way any typical AE speaker would speak.

For (a.), it would most likely be, "If (or maybe 'in case') my child starts to cry, give him the toy."
For (b.), it would be, "Give my child the toy so he won't cry" or "Give my child the toy to keep him from crying". 

If we want to stop beating a dead horse, finding possible interpretations that just might be
somehow acceptable to some AE speakers some of the time, without speculation about
what a dictionary sample sentence might mean, then it would be cleaner and simpler to
describe the scenarios that match whatever possbile interpretations one has in mind, and 
then ask AE speakers how they would express the thought.


----------



## JamesM

dobes said:


> Unfortunately, though, I cannot quite agree on "In case he cries, give the baby a toy." Sorry, but I'd still have to vote for 'if' there.


 
I agree that if is more straightforward.  I also think, though, that "in case" at the beginning of the sentence does commonly mean "in the event that", as in "in case of fire, break glass."


----------



## dobes

Agreed, James, but that's "in case of", which is different from "in case" and does mean "if".


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I'm afraid I'm still troubled by the application of the algebra of the so-called BE use (favoured by some Americans too, including Cuchu), to a certain sort of sentence.

Here's the algebra:

Do X ... *in case* ... Y.
Do X. If Y happens, you will be really glad that you did X.
(#2, #4, #6, #31, #35,

This works fine in the classic example we have considered.

*Take an umbrella in case it rains.*
Take an umbrella. If it rains you'll be really glad you took an umbrella.

But look at it in this case:

*Don't touch the red button, in case you cause an explosion*

Don't touch the red button. If you cause an explosion you'll be really glad you didn't touch the red button.

As you can see. The algebraic translation is far from the meaning of the sentence in BE and both AE senses, I imagine.


----------



## dobes

That's why I prefer the 'English Grammar in Use' explanation I mentioned above -- because it is possible X will happen.  Don't touch the red button because if you do it is possible you will cause an explosion.  It makes sense!


----------



## river

Wow! This thread reminds of a quote from Mark Twain: "I don't have the time to be brief."


----------



## Loob

cuchuflete said:


> This conversation has become sufficiently tangled that we need either a new thread, or a
> restatement of the matter you and I are—I think—trying to address now


 
I vote for a new thread: I can't believe future foreros will have the energy to read this one in the archive

Loob


----------



## JamesM

dobes said:


> Agreed, James, but that's "in case of", which is different from "in case" and does mean "if".


 
What about "In case you were wondering, I do love you"?  What is the function of "in case" in that sentence?


----------



## tomandjerryfan

Loob said:


> I vote for a new thread: I can't believe future foreros will have the energy to read this one in the archive
> 
> Loob



I second that, Loob.

This thread is just too lengthly now to know who's saying what.


----------



## cuchuflete

Thomas Tompion said:


> I'm afraid I'm still troubled by the application of the algebra of the so-called BE use (*favoured by some Americans too, including Cuchu*), to a certain sort of sentence.



I think you have taken some liberties with my previous statements.
First, I have not commented on BE usage.  
Second, my comment on the  algebraic summary of AE contributors' understandings...and there were very few of these AE contributors'...was one of clear disagreement:



> Originalmente publicado por *panjandrum*
> 
> 
> Let's look at the crucial sentence in light of the algebraic analysis I offered earlier.  Here is the sentence:
> *Give my child this toy in case he cries.*
> 
> In AE, this makes sense because it follows the model:
> Do X ... *in case* ...Y.
> Don't do anything until Y happens.
> If Y happens, do X.
> This instruction says do nothing now.
> If my child cries, give my child this toy.
> That is very sensible.
> 
> 
> 
> *It may be very sensible, even algebraic, but I still have a difficulty with it.*
> According to this interpretation, which seems to sit well with one or more AE speakers,
> 'in case' means the same thing as 'if' when parked in the middle of a sentence.
> * I don't use it that way, and am not familiar with that usage.*
Click to expand...



For the _n_th time, when 'in case' begins a sentence, it is often interchangeable with 'if'.  When 'in case' is in the middle of a sentence, the sentence may be meaningless gibberish in AE, or it may be meaningful.  It may be ambiguous without context.  I offer no generalization.


----------



## Loob

While the thread still lives, let me attempt a summary.

The area on which we had reached a consensus (prior to JamesM's post 148) was that: 

"in case" + verb means something like "against the possibility that": _take an umbrella in case it rains_
"in case of" + noun means "in the event of": _in case of fire, smash glass._
Some AmE contributors also felt that "in case" + verb might mean "if"/"in the event that" - so _In case there's a fire, smash the glass_ would mean "if there is...". BrE contributors, and some AmE contributors, felt this was not possible.

James' post 148 adds a new dimension to the story, I think. I'm quite happy to accept "in case" + verb as meaning ""if"/"in the event that" in the context of his example


> "In case you were wondering, I do love you"


And I'd be equally happy to accept it if it were shifted to the present: 
_In case you are wondering, I do love you. _But this is still, to me, very different from _In case there's a fire, smash the glass._

I'll need to be less scatty than I've been today to work out why, though!

Loob


----------



## cuchuflete

I fear much of what has been discussed in this thread may be badly misleading to non-native learners of English.
We have spent lots of posts trying to reach consensus or civil disagreement about what some sentences might
mean, without context, in theory.  We have given less attention to whether native speakers would actually construct such sentences.  Dobes has been a ray of light in this department!

Loob, in post #151, provides one more of these theoretical cases: _In case there's a fire, smash the glass.

_ 
Sure, we can discuss whether 'in case', in that particular example, means 'if' or 'in the event of' or something else, and we may come up with one or more logical interpretations.
Yet that ducks the real issue: Would native speakers use this particular construction, and if they would, is it likely to be the most frequently used, or a plausible oddity?


----------



## gaer

cuchuflete said:


> For the _n_th time, when 'in case' begins a sentence, it is often interchangeable with 'if'. When 'in case' is in the middle of a sentence, the sentence may be meaningless gibberish in AE, or it may be meaningful. It may be ambiguous without context. I offer no generalization.


I attempted to make the same point in #96. No one listened to me either. 

Gaer


----------



## Loob

Gaer's post 96 exactly parallels JamesM's post 148. I (BrE) have no difficulty with either.  So why do I have problems with _In case there's a fire, smash the glass_?
I do, though!

Loob


----------



## tomandjerryfan

Loob said:


> Gaer's post 96 exactly parallels JamesM's post 148. I (BrE) have no difficulty with either.  So why do I have problems with _In case there's a fire, smash the glass_?
> I do, though!
> 
> Loob



Fire extinguishers usually read _"In case of fire, break glass" _(in Canada, at least). Perhaps that's why you have problems with it?

_In case there's a fire, smash the glass_ sounds strange to me too, but I wouldn't say it's an incorrect use of "in case."


----------



## cuchuflete

In case there's a fire, smash the glass.  Use the stem of the smashed wine goblet to cut the leather thongs that hold the box shut.  Open the box. There is a key inside, and it will unlock the metal canister with the cell phone in it.  Open the canister, take out the cell phone, and call Uncle Ferndinand.  He used to be a fireman, and will know what to do.

A CE speaker, a BE speaker, and now an AE speaker all agree that the sentence sounds strange.  There is no apparent problem with the grammar.  We might even dream up a context in which it makes some sense.  The meaning seems clear. 

It sounds strange.  We wouldn't normally use it.  Why on earth should we discuss it?  Will linguistic curiosities provide deep insights into ordinary written or spoken English? In case If they will, please explain why a frequently used, idiomatic sentence would not.


----------



## Loob

Instead of trying to find a comprehensive solution, why don't we just end this thread with a recommendation addressed to users of English as a second language:

(1) Use "in case of"+noun to mean _in the event of_

(2) Use "in case"+verb to mean only _against the possibility that/because it is possible that; _but be aware that you may come across it with the meaning _if._

I'm off to walk the dogs in case it rains later...

Loob

EDIT: I meant to acknowledge gaer's post no 96!


----------



## gaer

Loob said:


> Instead of trying to find a comprehensive solution, why don't we just end this thread with a recommendation addressed to users of English as a second language:
> 
> (1) Use "in case of"+noun to mean _in the event of_
> 
> (2) Use "in case"+verb to mean only _against the possibility that/because it is possible that; _but be aware that you may come across it with the meaning _if._
> 
> I'm off to walk the dogs in case it rains later...
> 
> Loob
> 
> EDIT: I meant to acknowledge gaer's post no 96!


I would only add to that: When "in case" also clearly means "if", I think those learning English as a second language would be wise to use "if", with no exceptions. 

Gaer


----------



## cheshire

cuchuflete said:


> 1- There is no regional variation in AE that I am aware of.  I am not from NY or Texas, though I've sent time in both states.
> 
> 2- As I said in post #98,
> 
> *Give my child this toy in case he cries.*
> 
> *is unidiomatic and essentially meaningless in AE.*   It would not be said to express any of the following:
> 
> a. Give my child this toy to prevent or reduce the likelihood of his crying.
> b. Give my child this toy if and when he may begin to cry.
> c. Give my child this toy after he has begun to cry.
> 
> I can think of no idiomatic AE use for the bold, underlined sentence above.
> 
> Again, if you move 'in case' to the front of the sentence, things change:
> 
> _In case my child cries, give him this toy.
> _
> That, however, is a different sentence, in which 'in case' is interchangeable with 'if'.


In case my child cries, give him this toy.​Could anybody tell me (X) who feel this sentence is strange, (Y) who feel this sentence is OK?


----------



## tomandjerryfan

cheshire said:


> In case my child cries, give him this toy.​Could anybody tell me (X) who feel this sentence is strange, (Y) who feel this sentence is OK?



My vote is Y, it sounds okay to me in CaE. 

Say you're a babysitter and you're working with the parent. While the parent is giving you the toy, s/he might tell you _In case my child cries, give him this toy_ to state that you should give the child the toy *whenever he starts crying. *It is not preventative in this case.


----------



## cheshire

panjandrum said:


> It is a pity that the idea of prevention got tangled with this thread. Prevention seems to be complicating things enormously.
> 
> I don't think any of the uses of *in case X* , or *in case of X*, convey any sense of preventing X.
> 
> They suggest that the thing that you do in case X, or in case of X, will reduce the unpleasant consequences of X, or perhaps increase the pleasant consequences of X.


In case my child cries, give him this toy.​I'm sorry I seem to have mistook the meaning of "prevent." "prevent" doesn't mean reducing the bad result.

But then, I don't understand why this sentence sounds wrong to you, (in the sense of "precaution").
Could you please tell me why?

T&J, thanks for your input!
So, I guess you (Americans) will never interpret that sentence as meaning "precaution" (in preparation for the possibility that...)?



			
				dobes said:
			
		

> After all, I don't carry an umbrella in an effort to PREVENT the rain -- my effort is only in PREPARATION for rain.


----------



## panjandrum

cheshire said:


> In case my child cries, give him this toy.​Could anybody tell me (X) who feel this sentence is strange, (Y) who feel this sentence is OK?


You have reversed the order of the sentence, "Give my child this toy in case he cries."
That does not change my reaction - this is alien to me.


----------



## tomandjerryfan

cheshire said:


> In case my child cries, give him this toy.​I'm sorry I seem to have mistook the meaning of "prevent." "prevent" doesn't mean reducing the bad result.
> 
> But then, I don't understand why this sentence sounds wrong to you, (in the sense of "precaution").
> Could you please tell me why?
> 
> T&J, thanks for your input!
> So, I guess you (Americans) will never interpret that sentence as meaning "precaution" (in preparation for the possibility that...)?



You could interpret it that way I guess, but it's definitely a stretch (in CaE). There is no indication that giving the child the toy will _prevent_ the child from crying. You would give the child the toy should he start crying; in the event that he starts crying. Perhaps when the child stops crying, you'll take the toy away.

In case it matters, this works whether "in case" is in the middle or at the beginning, in my opinion.


----------



## cheshire

Thomas Tompion said:


> I'm afraid I'm still troubled by the application of the algebra of the so-called BE use (favoured by some Americans too, including Cuchu), to a certain sort of sentence.
> 
> Here's the algebra:
> 
> Do X ... *in case* ... Y.
> Do X. If Y happens, you will be really glad that you did X.
> (#2, #4, #6, #31, #35,
> 
> This works fine in the classic example we have considered.
> 
> *Take an umbrella in case it rains.*
> Take an umbrella. If it rains you'll be really glad you took an umbrella.
> 
> But look at it in this case:
> 
> *Don't touch the red button, in case you cause an explosion*
> 
> Don't touch the red button. If you cause an explosion you'll be really glad you didn't touch the red button.
> 
> As you can see. The algebraic translation is far from the meaning of the sentence in BE and both AE senses, I imagine.


What doe the red sentence mean?


----------



## cheshire

cuchuflete said:


> For the _n_th time, *when 'in case' begins a sentence, it is often interchangeable with 'if'.* When 'in case' is in the middle of a sentence, the sentence may be meaningless gibberish in AE, or it may be meaningful. It may be ambiguous without context. I offer no generalization.


I looked over many dictionaries, and funnily, no dictionary mentioned that! 
But as you say it, I checked all the example sentences. They are all in agreement with the rule you say.
I hope dictionary writers will add that description from now on!


----------



## Thomas Tompion

*Don't touch the red button, in case you cause an explosion*


cheshire said:


> What does the red sentence mean?


 
Hi Cheshire,

It means *Don't touch the red button, because, if you do, you may very possibly cause an explosion.*


----------



## dobes

And mine is Y. I would understand it to mean what tomandjerryfan said, but it would sound strange to me and I would have to think about it for a second.


----------



## tomandjerryfan

> *Don't touch the red button, in case you cause an explosion*


This sentence would be interpreted in CaE to mean don't touch the button until you have already caused an explosion. Once you've caused an explosion it's time to race for that button!

To express the idea that Thomas Tompion had in mind, and pushing the envelope a little, we might say instead:

*Don't touch the red button, in which case you may cause an explosion.

*We don't use "in case" as a precaution in all contexts, just some. BrE appears to use it that way in most contexts.


----------



## AWordLover

Thomas Tompion said:


> *Don't touch the red button, in case you cause an explosion*
> 
> Hi Cheshire,
> 
> It means *Don't touch the red button, because, if you do, you may very possibly cause an explosion.*


 
Hi all,

I noticed, that my interpretation of "in case" seems very context sensitive.

Take the sentence in red as an example. I might break it down as,
Don't X, in case you cause Y.

If I substitute a different X and Y than in the red sentence I'm happy to interpret it as "in the event that" or the (now famous) AE "if".

For example:
Don't throw water on it, in case you cause a grease fire.
Meaning: If you cause a grease fire, don't throw water on it.

In the sentence in red a matching transformation would form the following.
If you cause an explosion, don't touch the red button.

Because I consider that unlikely advice, I would instead (automatically) interpret the red sentence as Thomas T. has done. I believe I interpret the sentence as if it were poor English and something important has been elided, maybe

*Don't touch the red button, in case you [will] cause an explosion*

This would still be very awkward, but would be interpreted as Thomas T. and I would.


----------



## tomandjerryfan

AWordLover said:


> [...]
> Because I consider that unlikely advice, I would instead (automatically) interpret the red sentence as Thomas T. has done. I believe I interpret the sentence as if it were poor English and something important has been elided, maybe
> 
> *Don't touch the red button, in case you [will] cause an explosion*
> 
> This would still be very awkward, but would be interpreted as Thomas T. and I would.



Maybe pushing the red button will notify the fire department of the emergency so they may send a fire engine out.

You're very bright.  It would take me a while before I arrived at the interpretation Thomas T. had.


----------



## AWordLover

tomandjerryfan wrote:


> Maybe pushing the red button will notify the fire department of the emergency so they may send a fire engine out.
> 
> You're very bright.  It would take me a while before I arrived at the interpretation Thomas T. had.


 
The problem with thinking that that pushing the red button notifies the fire department, is that the sentence is a command to "*DON'T*" push the button.

In case the part in red is a complement, thank you. 

As I try to interpret sentences I do suffer from the "I hear what I want to hear" syndrome [or so my wife tells me].

Because the sentence is a warning/command telling me not to push the red button, I expect something bad to happen if I disobey the warning and push the button. So, my expectation allows me to interpret the sentence as an explanation of what bad thing would happen.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Look Guys; stop messing with my beautiful red sentence in case I become seriously annoyed.

That ridiculous *will* renders it ungrammatical.


----------



## dobes

No ungrammatical 'will' is necessary if you think of 'in case' as meaning 'because it is possible' as suggested by the Cambridge grammar book I mentioned earlier in this thread. 

Then, the sentence means "Don't push the red button because it is possible you will cause an explosion."


----------



## gaer

cheshire said:


> In case my child cries, give him this toy.
> 
> 
> Could anybody tell me (X) who feel this sentence is strange, (Y) who feel this sentence is OK?


Y: The sentence is OK. I understand it.

It means: _*If*_ my child cries, give him this toy.

I would use "if", but I would understand "in case".


Thomas Tompion said:


> *Don't touch the red button, in case you cause an explosion*
> 
> Hi Cheshire,
> 
> It means *Don't touch the red button, because, if you do, you may very possibly cause an explosion.*


The sentence in red makes _no sense to me at all_. I can't think of any situation in which that sentence would be used.

Gaer


----------



## AWordLover

dobes said:


> No ungrammatical 'will' is necessary if you think of 'in case' as meaning 'because it is possible' as suggested by the Cambridge grammar book I mentioned earlier in this thread.
> 
> Then, the sentence means "Don't push the red button because it is possible you will cause an explosion."


 
Hi,
1) Are you saying you think the sentence with "will" is grammatical?

2) Or are you saying that the sentence was perfectly grammatical without will, and that adding will makes the sentence ungrammatical.

Between your comment and Thomas T's I'm [even more] confused.


----------



## dobes

I'm saying the sentence with 'will' is ungrammatical,  and that 'will' is unnecessary to make the sentence meaningful.  TT and I agree on that.  And yes, I'm saying it was perfectly grammatical without will, and adding it makes the sentence ungrammatical.


----------



## AWordLover

dobes said:


> No ungrammatical 'will' is necessary if you think of 'in case' as meaning 'because it is possible' as suggested by the Cambridge grammar book I mentioned earlier in this thread.
> 
> Then, the sentence means "Don't push the red button because it is possible you *will* cause an explosion."


 


> I'm saying it's ungrammatical and unnecessary to make the sentence meaningful. TT and I agree on that.


 
Why is it ok for you to add will?


----------



## tomandjerryfan

dobes said:


> I'm saying the sentence with 'will' is ungrammatical, and that 'will' is unnecessary to make the sentence meaningful. TT and I agree on that. And yes, I'm saying it was perfectly grammatical without will, and adding it makes the sentence ungrammatical.


 
*



Don't touch the red button, in case you cause an explosion.

Click to expand...

* 
Hi Dobes,

Would you actually say a sentence like the one in red or are you just acknowledging the fact that it's grammatical? I'm sure we're quite clear by now that the sentence in red is in fact grammatical, but we still haven't come to an agreement about how the average North American would interpret it. Right off I wouldn't interpret that sentence the way TT, AWL or you are interpreting it. I would interpret it to mean don't press the button when you cause an explosion. So any time when you cause an explosion, this red button will appear tempting in nature to press, but by golly you better not press it.

Only with some additional thought might I arrive at the interpretation of _don't touch the button because it may cause an explosion._


----------



## JamesM

In case this helps,  I've researched some examples of sentences beginning with "In case there's a" in Google Books.  There are not as many occurrences at the beginning of a sentence as there are in the middle, but there are quite a few examples where the sentence starts with "In case there's a".   I can't see a definite pattern to them.  Some of them are written in conversational style, while others are found in technical reports and intellectual writings.  Sometimes it means "if", and sometimes it means "In the event that."

Anyway, I thought I'd share my findings in case others might be interested in looking at them.

http://books.google.com/books?id=-pmNSO6b2j8C&pg=PT88&dq=%22In+case+there%27s+a+%22&sig=emeJPnMhcD2dmm-qsBrHPZESQes#PPT88,M1
_
In case there's a sniper outside, I open the blinds and stand my gross obese body in the window. _

http://books.google.com/books?id=89...e+there's+a+"&sig=SwPaIcrOhgANK4f480UcppgWhjs

_In case there's a chance of deficit, the company will bail out the pension fund by making cash contributions equaling the potential deficit amount._

http://books.google.com/books?id=1MsSAAAAIAAJ&q=%22In+case+there's+a+%22&dq=%22In+case+there's+a+%22&pgis=1

_In case there's a motion picture producer in our readership, I'll list my casting choices for the screen version:..._

http://books.google.com/books?id=0zgQAAAAIAAJ&q=%22In+case+there's+a+%22&dq=%22In+case+there's+a+%22&pgis=1
(William F. Buckley... no slouch as a writer)
_Just in case there's a slipup somewhere along the line, mightn't it be a good idea to include a few dollars that could be used for tests, if we wanted ..._

http://books.google.com/books?id=FE...e+there's+a+"&sig=nKUvThyZyEGUyRKAEfoAi54BSpk

_Now, in case there's a crowd and lots of lights and reporters when we set down, don't be alarmed._

http://books.google.com/books?id=pE_DnYHSNAQC&q=%22In+case+there's+a+%22&dq=%22In+case+there's+a+%22&pgis=1
_
In case there's a tie about whether you should buy, sell, or wait, you'll have to step in yourself to serve as a tie breaker. _

http://books.google.com/books?id=dO...e+there's+a+"&sig=RihkqlXKOXMpiCdHmJ9Xlob0PdE
_
In case there's a tie, each player turns up two more cards and totals them._


----------



## dobes

Hi, Tomandjerryfan --

I think I would say a sentence like the one in red. And if I heard it, I would immediately understand that it might cause an explosion. 

AWordLover -- it was OK to add 'will' because the whole meaning of an 'in case' sentence points to the future. I did not use 'will' in the sentence that used 'in case' because it is ungrammatical, but in my explanatory sentence, where I used other words instead of 'in case', I needed something to point to future consequences. 

And JamesM, 4 of those sentences (and not the Buckley one) use 'in case' to mean 'if':  In case there's a chance of deficit....., Now, in case there's a crowd and lights...., and the two that start "In case there's a tie..."

In all the others, 'in case' means 'because there is a possibility that...'

In my opinion, that is an improper use of 'in case', and 'If' would have been better and clearer in all those sentences. But although it isn't correct, it seems to be in usage, and people just have to decide if they want to use it that way.


----------



## gaer

dobes said:


> And JamesM, 4 of those sentences (and not the Buckley one) use 'in case' to mean 'if': In case there's a chance of deficit....., Now, in case there's a crowd and lights...., and the two that start "In case there's a tie..."
> 
> In all the others, 'in case' means 'because there is a possibility that...'
> 
> In my opinion, that is an improper use of 'in case', _*and 'If' would have been better and clearer in all those sentences*_. But although it isn't correct, it seems to be in usage, and people just have to decide if they want to use it that way.


I have said the same thing from the start of this thread. If "in case" at the start of a sentence means "if", use "if" to be safe.

But using "in case" in this way is hardly a "crime against grammar". 

Gaer


----------



## dobes

Well, Gaer, I admire your easygoing attitude, I really do, but in my mind it almost IS a crime against grammar. We have the word 'if' to express that idea, and using 'in case', which has another meaning altogether, seems to me to needlessly complicate the language. But I am discovering through this forum that I really do lean in the direction of language purism. That is, I like to know what is correct grammar and what is not, and when I deviate from correct grammar, I like to do it intentionally and because I think it makes sense. I don't mind breaking rules, but I want to know what the rules are first, and why I think it's OK to break them. 

In this case, I am still a bit confused over whether this initial 'in case', when it is used at the beginning of a sentence and substituted for 'if', is accepted as grammatical in either the US or UK, or whether it is simply a matter of long and frequent use. Does anyone know?  I really am not very familiar with this use -- I understand what those sentences mean but would never say them myself.


----------



## Loob

From the OED:

*b.* as conjunction (with sentence): in the event or contingency that, if it should prove or happen that, if. *in case*, esp. in *just in case*, ... to indicate an unspecified apprehension of accident. ...

*c.* lest, in provision against the case that. ...

*d.* *in case of*: in the event of. 

Loob


----------



## dobes

Thanks, Loob -- and except for d, which is in case OF, and which pretty much means 'if', and which we have all agreed means 'if' --

I don't see the meaning of 'if', as argued for in this thread. Oh dear.


----------



## panjandrum

I am sure you have all been eagerly waiting for this -an update to the descriptive analysis I posted earlier - #70.   Remember that this is indeed descriptive. I made no claim before, and make none now, that this is a statement of correctness or of rule in either AE or BE. 
I have included only posts where native speakers put forward an opinion on their own usage.  Questions about usage, or speculation by an xE speaker that something is yE usage have not been listed.  My apologies to CaE and OzE contributors.​ I have changed the order of the examples.  It wouldn’t do to make things simple.
​ *… in case of …

*​ *Do X ... in case of ... Y*
Don't do anything until Y happens. If Y happens, do X.​ AE #41, #44, #55, #60, #98, #99, #118​ BE #55, #59, #62, #97, #157​ 
*In case of* Y ... do X.​ Don’t do anything until Y happens.  If Y happens, do X.
AE #49, #55, #118​ BE #56, #59, #157

​ *… in case …

*​ *Do X ... in case ... Y.*
Do X.  If Y happens, you will be really glad that you did X.​ AE #17, #28, #37, 76, #104, #118, #122, #124, #127​ BE #2, #4, #6, #31, #35, #62, #69, #72, #86, #103, #157​ Do X because Y might happen if you don’t – to reduce the probability of Y happening.​ AE #83​ BE #32​ Don't do anything until Y happens. If Y happens, do X.
AE #15, #19, #26, #44
​ *In case Y … do  … X.*​ If Y is, or becomes, true, do X.​ AE #96, #98, #109, #135
​ Do X.  If Y happens, you will be really glad that you did X.​ BE #31
​ *Don’t do X … in case … Y.*​ Don’t do X because there is some possibility that Y might happen if you do.​ AE #169, #173
BE #144, #145, #166
​ *Don’t do X … in case … Y.*​ If Y happens, don’t do X, it would be a bad thing.​ AE #169​ 
<<Noted up to and including #184>>

This leads to some generalised conclusions.

*In case of:*
_In both AE and BE:_
Do X in case of Y, 
In case of Y, do X,
Don't do anything now, if Y happens, do X.

*Do X in case Y.*
_In both AE and BE:_
Do X - If Y happens you will be glad that you did X.

Less common alternatives:_
In AE only: _
Don't do anything until Y happens.  If Y happens do X._
In both AE and BE:_
Do X because Y might happen if you don't - to reduce the probability of Y happening.
*
In case Y, do X.
*_In AE only:
_If Y is (or becomes) true, do X.
_In BE only:_
Do X.  If Y happens, you will be really glad that you did X.

*Don't do X in case Y.*
_In both AE and BE:_
Don’t do X because there is some possibility that Y might happen if you do.

Less common alternative:
_In AE only:_
If Y happens, don’t do X, it would be a bad thing.


​


----------



## JamesM

dobes said:


> Thanks, Loob -- and except for d, which is in case OF, and which pretty much means 'if', and which we have all agreed means 'if' --
> 
> I don't see the meaning of 'if', as argued for in this thread. Oh dear.


 
Really?  What about:

if it should prove or happen that

To me, it looks like this fits the meaning exactly of the sentences you saw as "if":

_Now, *if it should prove or happen that* there's a crowd and lots of lights and reporters when we set down, don't be alarmed._


----------



## cuchuflete

I trust the accuracy of Panj's descriptions.  I am too lazy to review all ten pages of posts to
tally the number of participants, or the number of participants' posts which are repetitions of an interpretation.
If my memory is any good—and it is often faulty—we have had just a handful of AE speakers.  Some of these,
including Gaer, dobes and myself, have focused on what AE speakers really say in normal conversation.  Others have given more attention to possible AE interpretations of sentences which have been presented here, with no regard to whether these are apt to be heard more than once in a blue moon.

That's a cautionary note.  Some AE speakers may be able to capture the intent, for example, of TTs big red
sentence, while others find it nonsensical to the average AE ear.  The likelihood of an ordinary AE speaker ever constructing such a sentence is another matter entirely.



One more time:   *Don't touch the red button, in case you cause an explosion*

I'll assume, because TT presented it, that this sentence is meaningful and easily understood by BE speakers.
I cannot imagine any circumstance under which an average AE speaker would use it.  It may be comprehensible to
some, especially those of us who have had frequent contact with written or spoken BE.  It will be confusing or incomprehensible
to far more AE speakers.  

Thomas explained, "It means _Don't touch the red button, because, if you do, you may very possibly cause an explosion._"

I maintain that if you were to give that explanation to just about any AE speaker, and ask them to paraphrase it, you would 
never receive the big red sentence in reply.  

Never. 


_That doesn't make it wrong or incorrect in BE._


----------



## Thomas Tompion

cuchuflete said:


> I maintain that if you were to give that explanation to just about any AE speaker, and ask them to paraphrase it, you would
> never receive the big red sentence in reply.
> 
> Never.
> 
> 
> _That doesn't make it wrong or incorrect in BE._


 
Cuchu,

I'm confident that you believe this point - that my red sentence wouldn't be interpreted by many AE speakers as I have indicated. I fully accept that you aren't questioning that, in BE, it can have the meaning I gave it. What intrigues me is that Dobes, educated in Boston, has suggested support for my reading of the sentence, in the post below, and possibly elsewhere in the thread.



dobes said:


> No ungrammatical 'will' is necessary if you think of 'in case' as meaning 'because it is possible' as suggested by the Cambridge grammar book I mentioned earlier in this thread.
> 
> Then, the sentence means "Don't push the red button because it is possible you will cause an explosion."


 
Dobes's final: *Dont push the red button because it is possible you will cause an explosion,*

is close enough, for my taste, to my own initial translation for Cheshire:

*Don't touch the red button, because, if you do, you may very possibly cause an explosion.*

Now there may be an easy explanation for this: that Dobes's Cambridge book is referring to BE practice alone, and Dobes is pointing out that the books support my interpretation in some circumstances, even though as an AE speaker he wouldn't. But Dobes also says:



dobes said:


> Hi, Tomandjerryfan --
> 
> I think I would say a sentence like the one in red. And if I heard it, I would immediately understand that it might cause an explosion.


 
And that suggests to me that he would, as an AE speaker, accept my interpretation of the red sentence as a possible meaning.

Have I gone wrong somewhere? Are you surprised at Dobes's reaction? I fully accept that other AE users were very surprised at my translation.


----------



## AWordLover

Hi All,

I (an AE speaker) also interpreted the "red sentence" as TT suggested. But I, not to throw a spanner in the works of TT's analysis, may have had my pure AE speech corrupted by exposure to BE speakers. 

AWordLover


----------



## Malaya

I cite Webster’s dictionary: 
*in case:*

if it should happen that: supposing that: IF
_In case _we are surprised, keep by me_ – _Washington Irving


as a precaution against the event that
People still carry guns _in case _they need them.

And so far you all seem more or less to agree. (We’ll just keep in mind better not to use _in case _in the first meaning if it is not at the beginning of the sentence)

*But there are no other meanings in the dictionary.*

So how can you state that *Don't touch the red button, in case you cause an explosion *
means _If you touch the button, you’ll cause an explosion._

To my non-native-speaker’s understanding, _in case _can only mean _if __it happens that there is an explosion _here. But it comes into contradiction with _you cause,_ which makes the sentence meaningless. (in what way, different from touching the red button, can you cause an explosion?) Or we need a broader context here.
Or, otherwise, you should present a valid *third meaning* of _in case._


----------



## Loob

Malaya said:


> So how can you state that *Don't touch the red button, in case you cause an explosion *
> means _If you touch the button, you’ll cause an explosion._


Hi Malaya 

"In case" is being used here in the sense of the second dictionary definition: 


> as a precaution against the event that


If you think of "Don't touch the red button" as equivalent to "Keep your hands off the red button" you'll see how the sentence can have the meaning given.

Loob

This thread is now the longest one there's ever been on the English Only forum!


----------



## cuchuflete

Thomas Tompion said:


> Cuchu,
> 
> I'm confident that you believe this point - that my red sentence wouldn't be interpreted by many AE speakers as I have indicated. I fully accept that you aren't questioning that, in BE, it can have the meaning I gave it. What intrigues me is that Dobes, educated in Boston, has suggested support for my reading of the sentence, in the post below, and possibly elsewhere in the thread.



You have totally missed my point.  Dobes, and perhaps a few other AE speakers, including myself,
would accept your translation of the sentence.  The great majority of AE speakers would be perplexed by it.  What I am trying, unsuccessfully so far, to communicate is that

—Discussion of the meaning of the big red sentence, in terms of general AE usage is a total
waste of time, because it is a sentence that would not be used by other than a miniscule minority of AE speakers.  So far, we have a single data point, dobes, who have said that they might express the idea using the big red sentence.  I have no reason to doubt dobes's statement, but you really ought to ask dobes how many other AE speakers are likely, in his considered judgment,
to speak or write that combination of words.  

—If the objective of this thread is to understand common patterns of meaning for 'in case' and 'in case of', we really ought to focus on things people actually say and write.  In AE, the sample given earlier, and the big red sentence, do not reflect idiomatic usage at all.  They are curiosities.  They will be understood by a minority of AE speakers.  They will be used by next to none.  That makes them very poor choices for explaining how AE speakers, in reality, use 'in case' and 'in case of'.  
In short, drawing conclusions from exceptions is bad practice.





> Dobes's final: *Dont push the red button because it is possible you will cause an explosion,*
> 
> is close enough, for my taste, to my own initial translation for Cheshire:
> 
> *Don't touch the red button, because, if you do, you may very possibly cause an explosion.*
> 
> Now there may be an easy explanation for this: that Dobes's Cambridge book is referring to BE practice alone, and Dobes is pointing out that the books support my interpretation in some circumstances, even though as an AE speaker he wouldn't. ...  And that suggests to me that he would, as an AE speaker, accept my interpretation of the red sentence as a possible meaning.



Yet again, I have said that some AE speakers will understand the sentence as you understand it.
That has nothing to do with common use.  Ability to comprehend a foreign-sounding sentence is
not at all the same as speaking or writing it.  I also accept your interpretation.  I would never write or say something to express your—our—interpretation as the big red sentence does.  It is not
idiomatic in AE.  It is very strange sounding in AE.  A great many AE speakers would be befuddled by it.  

Please ask dobes and A Word Lover if they believe AE speakers would write or say it.
Please ask dobes and A Word Lover if they believe most AE speakers would understand it without difficulty, whether their understanding were consistent with ours, or different.
Please ask dobes and A Word Lover if they believe many or most AE speakers would be confused by the big red sentence.






> Have I gone wrong somewhere? Are you surprised at Dobes's reaction?


I am only slightly surprised at dobes's reaction...just the part about actually using the big red sentence.  He is highly educated about language, so I am not at all surprised that he understands it as you do (and as I do).  I am not mistaking his understanding, or his personal usage tendencies, as any sort of general commentary on what he thinks most AE speakers would do if
confronted with that sentence.  He hasn't told us his thoughts on that matter yet.

AE speakers don't generally say, following the big red example,

*Don't jump out the seventh floor window, in case you break your neck.
*
Nor do they say,
*Don't throw lit matches into a pool of gasoline,  in case you start a conflagration. 

*Because these are not at all idiomatic in AE, they are a poor basis on which to discuss usage and meaning of 'in case' in AE.  If a student or native speaker wishes to find useful generalities about how 'in case' is used in AE, a good starting point would be something a normal AE speaker is apt to say.


----------



## dobes

Cuchu, among the AE speakers I know and love, TT's red sentence and the two you suggest would absolutely be understood and used the way I have been talking about. I'm just as surprised that you don't think so as you are that I do! 

And Malaya -- I read that definition in Webster's too, and was puzzled enough about it to send a letter to the editors. First, they give the definition - "If". Then the example -- "In case we are surprised, keep by my side." But in that example, "in case" does not mean 'if'!  I don't think anyone would argue that the speaker is saying, "IF the enemy jumps out of the bushes, run to my side and stay there!"  We all know that the meaning of that sentence is "Stay by my side, because there is a possibility the enemy will jump out of the bushes."

TT-- I think, given people's vehemence in arguing the point, that in AE there may be an _additional_ definition of 'in case' to mean 'if'. But I also believe the meaning you and I have given it is common AE usage, and I'm surprised that other people don't!  The 'Grammar In Use' book I quoted from often distinguishes between BE and AE usage, but in this case it didn't, which means that the editors, as well as I, were unaware of any such differences. 

And Loob and JamesM -- I see your point, and I'm trying to find that passage in the OED, but no luck yet. I have an abbreviated version that gives only the definition I believe in -  "*in case*-- so as to provide for the possibility of something happening or being true."  I'll keep looking!


----------



## cuchuflete

dobes said:


> Cuchu, among the AE speakers I know and love, TT's red sentence and the two you suggest would absolutely be understood and used the way I have been talking about. I'm just as surprised that you don't think so as you are that I do!


  Putting aside my surprise, and yours, are you saying that the AE speakers you know and love are typical AE speakers?  Or are they more well-read, or more familiar with BE usage than the average NASCAR event attendee?  I ask not for the sake of argument, but because I've tried out the big red sentence on some friends and neighbors.  These folks are either highly educated in medicine and marine biology, or are high school graduates who earn a living pulling fish and lobsters from the ocean.  They are not a scientifically selected, representative sample of the U.S. population.  They were all perplexed by the sentence.  Some figured out what it meant.  All said they would never say anything like that.  



> And Malaya -- I read that definition in Webster's too, and was puzzled enough about it to send a letter to the editors. First, they give the definition - "If". Then the example -- "In case we are surprised, keep by my side." But in that example, "in case" does not mean 'if'!  I don't think anyone would argue that the speaker is saying, "IF the enemy jumps out of the bushes, run to my side and stay there!"  We all know that the meaning of that sentence is "Stay by my side, because there is a possibility the enemy will jump out of the bushes."


  I take "in case we are surprised, keep by my side." to mean, "If we are surprised, by whatever creatures jumping out of the bushes, stay close to me."  We *all *know that the meaning of that sentence is...what we interpret it to mean.  

Here is an "expert" statement about our topic:

Source: A Dictionary of Modern American Usage, Garner, Bryan A.,   NY/Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1998  ISBN 0-19-507853-5

> _[He quotes Arthur Quiller-Couch and H.W. Fowler in their condemnations of the word 'case'.]_
> 
> The offending phrases include_ in case_(better made _if_), _in cases in which_ (usually verbose for_ if, when, or whenever_,)  _in the case of_ (usually best deleted or reduced to _in_), and...



​Evans and Evans, in A Dictionary of Contemporary American Usage, are even more blunt:



> In case means _if_.  _In case of_ means in the event of.


----------



## cuchuflete

dobes said:


> In this case, I am still a bit confused over whether this initial 'in case', when it is used at the beginning of a sentence and substituted for 'if', is accepted as grammatical in either the US or UK, or whether it is simply a matter of long and frequent use. Does anyone know?  I really am not very familiar with this use -- I understand what those sentences mean but would never say them myself.





> Kenneth G. Wilson (1923–).  The Columbia Guide to Standard American English.  1993. *in case* (_subord. conj._), *in case* of (_subord. conj., prep._)             These are idioms and clichés, often used where _when_ or _if_ might serve: _I’ll be there *in case*_ [_when, if_] _you need me. *In case* of_ [_If, When there is_] _fire, break glass._


This doesn't say that 'in case' is ungrammatical.  The author's disapproval oozes through the screen, but I wouldn't take naming something an idiom to be quite so strong as calling it wrong.

No disapproval is evident here:



> *In case* means _*if*_ something else should happen:
> I don't expect much traffic, but in case there is, I think we should leave early.
> 
> (from Cambridge Dictionary of American English)



No disapproval here, either:

Random House Unabridged:



> 17.*in case*, if it should happen that; *if*: In case I am late, don't wait to start dinner.


----------



## tomandjerryfan

Thomas Tompion said:


> [...]
> And that suggests to me that he would, as an AE speaker, accept my interpretation of the red sentence as a possible meaning.
> 
> Have I gone wrong somewhere? Are you surprised at Dobes's reaction? I fully accept that other AE users were very surprised at my translation.


 
I have just never heard "in case" used that way in the 30-odd years I've been speaking English. I'm not suggesting that your interpretation has no meaning. I'm also not suggesting that _no one _in North America would use that sentence. My point is merely that your usage of "in case" occurs to a much lesser extent in AmE/CaE than it does in BrE.


----------



## Loob

We seem now to have two distinct issues: _in case_ meaning _if; _and TT's red sentence.

Would I be right in assuming that where people have difficulty with TT's sentence, this is because _in case _follows a negative?

Just to test that assumption, how do people feel about the following (taken from the British National Corpus):

(1) I don't want to ask him *in case* he tells Mr Jackson.

(2) I didn't want any delay *in case* the Press got it.

(3) Nigel did not risk arguing *in case* she was telling the truth.

(4) I won't even go back to my flat just *in case* someone is watching it. 

(5) she would not go to sleep, *in case* we left her.


Loob

_EDIT: please read (2) as meaning "....in case the Press got hold of the story"_


----------



## tomandjerryfan

Good idea, Loob. As a speaker of North American English, here's how I would interpret the sentence you've listed. Some would make sense while others wouldn't, although I'm not sure if my interpretations would be the same as yours. I don't think the fact that _in case_ follows a negative has anything to do with it.



> I don't want to ask him *in case* he tells Mr Jackson.


This makes sense to me. It means I don't want to ask him. If I ask him, he might tell Mr. Jackson.



> I didn't want any delay *in case* the Press got it.


This wouldn't make much sense to me. It would mean I didn't want any delay. The press might get/suffer from the delay.



> Nigel did not risk arguing *in case* she was telling the truth.


This makes sense. It would mean she might actually be telling to truth, so Nigel didn't risk arguing.



> I won't even go back to my flat just *in case* someone is watching it.


This makes sense. Someone might be watching my flat, so I don't even want to go back.



> She would not go to sleep, *in case* we left her.


This would be confusing for me. With some thought, I might interpret it to mean she would not go to sleep unless we left her.


----------



## Loob

Thanks, tomand jerryfan.  I think you've just blown my theory out of the water, but let's see what others say!

By the way, I'm sorry about the - with hindsight - unclear second example.  I'm going to post an EDIT to clarify it as soon as I've checked the original context.

Loob


----------



## Malaya

tomandjerryfan said:


> .
> 
> 
> This would be confusing for me. With some thought, I might interpret it to mean we left her because she would not go to sleep.


 
Or can it be that she wouldn’t go to sleep because she was afraid that if she did we would leave. And she didn't want us to leave.
 
could you please explain to me the usage of commas in these "in case-sentences"? Why do you sometimes use them and sometimes not.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

tomandjerryfan said:


> Loob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't want any delay *in case* the Press got it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This wouldn't make much sense to me. It would mean I didn't want any delay. The press might get/suffer from the delay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Loob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nigel did not risk arguing *in case* she was telling the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This makes sense. It would mean she might actually be telling to truth, so Nigel didn't risk arguing.
Click to expand...

 
Hi Tomandgerryfan,

I'm interested in your reactions to these two sentences. I can't see why if the second sentence means *she might actually be telling the truth, so Nigel didn't risk arguing,* the first doesn't mean *the press might actually get it, so I didn't want any delay.*

I'm simply basing my question on the grammatical similarity between the sentences, and your different interpretations left me puzzled. Is there further context? or are you reading something into the sentences which I am missing? Is one absurd in some way, where the other is a sensible interpretation? or is there some other explanation?


----------



## tomandjerryfan

> I didn't want any delay in case the press got hold of the story.


Adding "hold of the story" makes the sentence a bit clearer. I would interpret it to mean should the press have gotten hold of the story, something terrible might have happened, so I didn't want any delay in the story being destroyed or something.

Also, I gave the _Give the child the toy in case he cries_ sentence a bit more thought on a day when my head was clearer. I might also interpret it as we don't know if this is the type of child who cries a lot or not, but just in case  he is , give him the toy now - as a preventative measure - so he doesn't cry the whole time he's under your care. That seems like a more accurate use of "in case" in CaE but it's not an interpretation I would come up with immediately after hearing that sentence. If we replace "in case" with "if," I would interpret it to mean give the child the toy only when he cries.


----------



## cuchuflete

Loob said:


> Just to test that assumption, how do people feel about the following (taken from the British National Corpus):



I'll follow Tomandjerryfan's example, and take them one at a time.  He and I have similar reactions, except for the first two.

 (1) I don't want to ask him *in case* he tells Mr Jackson.
I understood it instantly, with no confusion or difficulty.  Neither I nor any AE speaker I know would ever say it this way.  We would say, for example, "I don't want to ask him because he might tell Mr. Jackson" or "I don't want to ask him. He might tell Mr. Jackson".  

(2) I didn't want any delay *in case* the Press got it.    Easily understood, it is not anywhere near idiomatic AE.

(3) Nigel did not risk arguing *in case* she was telling the truth.  Easily understood, and might be said by a native AE speaker.

(4) I won't even go back to my flat just *in case* someone is watching it. Easily understood, and would probably be said exactly this way by most native AE speakers.  

 (5) she would not go to sleep, *in case* we left her.   Gibberish to AE ears (except those on the sides of dobes's head?)  It might mean quite a few things.  I have no idea what the real intention of the writer is.   This sounds like pure nonsense, or English constructed by a non-native learner.

The possibility that it is good, idiomatic NZE or AusE or BE or some other E exists, so I wouldn't just dismiss it as a failed attempt at English.


----------



## tomandjerryfan

cuchuflete said:


> I'll follow Tomandjerryfan's example, and take them one at a time.  He and I have similar reactions, except for the first two.



Excuse me if this makes me seem very persnickety , but I understood the first sentence with no problem. I had a problem with the second sentence but I easily understood it as well - with two meanings - after Loob edited her post.

I agree with you that the second sentence is not at all idiomatic (in AmE/CaE).


----------



## Loob

Ok, she says, stepping very slowly and cautiously into this minefield..

It's clear that the reason that many AmE speakers reject the "TT sentence" is not because the first part of his sentence is negative.

So let's look at the reactions to my British National Corpus examples, all of which (to me) had the meaning "against the possibility that"/"because it was possible that".  The example which mainly attracted different interpretations from AmE commentators was the last one:

(5) she would not go to sleep, *in case* we left her.

Is the comma (pause in speech) significant?

Loob


----------



## tomandjerryfan

Loob said:


> [...]
> 
> (5) she would not go to sleep, *in case* we left her.
> 
> Is the comma (pause in speech) significant?
> 
> Loob



Hi Loob,

Not really. I personally wouldn't know how to interpret this sentence with or without the comma. 

So does this mean you had the same interpretation of those sentences as we did?


----------



## Loob

I nterpreted them all as  "against the possibility that"/"because it was possible that". 

I give in: my brain hurts!

Loob


----------



## Thomas Tompion

cuchuflete said:


> (2) I didn't want any delay *in case* the Press got it. Easily understood, it is not anywhere near idiomatic AE.
> 
> (3) Nigel did not risk arguing *in case* she was telling the truth. Easily understood, and might be said by a native AE speaker.


 
The problems I have with this are:

1. When Cuchu says 'Easily understood', I'm not clear what he would understand. A lot of his AE interpretations have left me as puzzled as my BE interpretations have left AE speakers incredulous.

2. It looks inconsistent:

If 3. *Nigel did not risk arguing in case she was telling the truth* means
*Nigel did not risk arguing because it was possible she might be telling the truth.*

Why doesn't 
2. *I didn't want any delay in case the press got it* mean
*I didn't want any delay because it was possible the press might get it*?


I can't see any grammatical or logical difference between the sentences, yet Cuchu says that, while both are understandable to AE speakers, only no 3 is likely to be said by one.

Incidentally is this a first? I thought Cuchu up to now had been saying that, while this use of *in case* would be understood in AE, it would *never* naturally cross the lips of an AE speaker.

I suspect, of course, that what is *easily understood* is a different sense of *in case*, but, in the absence of an explanation of what is understood, I can't be sure.


----------



## tomandjerryfan

Thomas Tompion said:


> Why doesn't
> 2. *I didn't want any delay in case the press got it* mean
> *I didn't want any delay because it was possible the press might get it*?



It does, at least to me. I had no problem understanding that sentence. I just wouldn't say it myself. I would probably say:

_I didn't want any delay because the press might have gotten it._


----------



## Thomas Tompion

tomandjerryfan said:


> *
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't want any delay in case the press got it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *This wouldn't make much sense to me. It would mean I didn't want any delay. The press might get/suffer from the delay.


 


			
				Thomas Tompion said:
			
		

> Why doesn't
> 2. *I didn't want any delay in case the press got it* mean
> *I didn't want any delay because it was possible the press might get it*?


 


tomandjerryfan said:


> It does, at least to me. I had no problem understanding that sentence. I just wouldn't say it myself. I would probably say:
> 
> _I didn't want any delay because the press might have gotten it._


 
Now you've got me puzzled, TomandGerryfan. As you can see, earlier you said the sentence didn't make much sense to you, now you say you have no problem understanding the sentence.


----------



## tomandjerryfan

Thomas Tompion said:


> Now you've got me puzzled, TomandGerryfan. As you can see earlier you said the sentence didn't make much sense to you, now you say you have no problem understanding the sentence.



My apologies. I got stuck in a groove back there by that "it" floating at the end without a modifier. When Loob edited her sentence, I had no problem understanding it.


----------



## Malaya

I think that a bit of confusion might be due to the fact that we do not distinguish between a bare grammar frame and a lexical filling.
If there is a grammar construction
X in case Y,
it does or it does not have its own grammatical meaning (or a limited number of meanings). If it does, this meaning mustn’t change whatever lexical filling we use. 
For example,
X because Y 
has the same grammatical meaning in all possible sentences.

So the discussion should be focused, perhaps, on whether its *nice* to use this construction to convey a certain lexical meaning. Thus we will not discuss grammar any more, but rather stilistics.


----------



## cuchuflete

> Originalmente publicado por *Thomas Tompion*
> 
> 
> Why doesn't
> 2. *I didn't want any delay in case the press got it* mean
> *I didn't want any delay because it was possible the press might get it?* ?





tomandjerryfan said:


> It does, at least to me. I had no problem understanding that sentence. I just wouldn't say it myself. I would probably say:
> 
> _I didn't want any delay because the press might have gotten it._



I agree with tomandjerryfan.  

There is another possible interpretation for an AE—and maybe a CaE?—speaker:
The press may already have got it, and so I didn't want any delay.  This was not my
first take on it, but it might be read that way.

If we begin with Thomas's explanation, which is the interpretation both tomandjerryfan and I had initially, I would expect an NamE (to use Oxford UP's label) speaker to say it
as tomandjerryfan has proposed, or possibly something like:

_Because the press might have gotten hold of it, I didn't want any delay.

_


----------



## tomandjerryfan

cuchuflete said:


> [...]
> There is another possible interpretation for an AE—and maybe a CaE?—speaker:
> The press may already have got it, and so I didn't want any delay.  This was not my
> first take on it, but it might be read that way.
> _[...] _



Interesting. That was the second interpretation I had included in my post #202, but I edited it out thinking it wouldn't be a likely interpretation of that sentence.

To my understanding - which is very limited in this topic - that interpretation seems to have a similar logic to it as interpreting _Don't touch that red button in case you cause an explosion _to mean don't touch the red button because it may cause an explosion.


----------



## cheshire

I've read up to #203 now and had the following impression and guessing.

(1)The usage of "in case SV" for the meaning "for the precaution against" in AmEn might be quite limited compared to BrEn.

(2)I noted the acceptance by T&Jfan and the disapproval by some of the usage "in case SV" for "for the precaution against." Why are same Americans have that difference of mountain and sea?
Some say it's not the matter of dialects or social groups. Could it be age factor?
As it often happens, younger generations are apt to be generous about relatively newer usages. Couldn't it be the reason?


----------



## tomandjerryfan

Hi cheshire,

I think it just has limited usage. I'm not quite sure how to define when "in case" sounds okay in AmE/CaE used the BrE way, but in case it helps here's a list of sentences of five sentences that might be said by a speaker of AmE and four that might not. It seems to have something to do with tenses or how clearly we understand when one action happened in relation to another.

_I brought an umbrella in case it rained. (Perfect)
I'm just reminding you in case you forgot. (Perfect)__
I didn't want to rush through it in case I made a mistake. (Perfect)
I told her just in case she didn't know already. (Perfect)
I'll phone a taxi in case she shows up late. (Perfect)

__Don't stay up too late in case you miss class tomorrow. (Strange but easily understood)__
I didn't rush through it in case I made a mistake. (Strange)
I phoned a taxi in case she showed up late. (Strange)
I didn't want to ask in case he told Mr. Jackson. (Strange but easily understood)
_


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Hi Tom and Jerry Fan,

I'm interested in your different reactions to the two sentences below.  Could you possibly explain the differences a little, please?  I want to understand your reactions a bit.

_I didn't want to rush through it in case I made a mistake. (Perfect)_

_I didn't rush through it in case I made a mistake. (Strange)_


----------



## cuchuflete

tomandjerryfan said:


> I think it just has limited usage. I'm not quite sure how to define when "in case" sounds okay in AmE/CaE used the BrE way, but in case it helps here's a list of sentences of five sentences that might be said by a speaker of AmE and four that might not. It seems to have something to do with tenses or how clearly we understand when one action happened in relation to another.
> 
> _I brought an umbrella in case it rained. (Perfect)
> I'm just reminding you in case you forgot. (Perfect)__
> I didn't want to rush through it in case I made a mistake. (Perfect)
> I told her just in case she didn't know already. (Perfect)
> I'll phone a taxi in case she doesn't show up. (Perfect)
> 
> __Don't stay up too late in case you miss class tomorrow. (Strange but easily understood)__
> I didn't rush through it in case I made a mistake. (Strange)
> I phoned a taxi in case she didn't show up. (Strange)
> I didn't want to ask in case he told Mr. Jackson. (Strange)
> _



First and foremost, tomandjerryfan has my full agreement.  The post quoted above perfectly represents my understanding of the use of 'in case' in the middle of a sentence.  I would be more emphatic than he has been in saying " I think it just has limited usage", but we do not disagree at all.  Too much of this thread has been spent over-analyzing why something doesn't work in some variants of English, as if lack of usage implied some sort of grammatical or logical error.

Why don't North American speakers feel at ease with some of the sample sentences?  The answer is ridiculously simple:  we are unaccustomed to their forms.  That is distinct from calling them 'wrong', or from being unable to comprehend them.  

The topic, and all the good BE contributions, make it relatively easy for CaE and AE speakers to
figure out one or more plausible interpretations of the constructions we don't normally use.  They still sound strange.  I can easily understand lots of BE usages that are foreign to AE ears, just as our BE speaking colleagues can correctly interpret AE expressions they would never (or, at best, very rarely) use.

This is not about whether a sentence is correct.  Plenty of correct constructions are thoroughly idiomatic in one variant of English, and foreign to another.


----------



## gaer

Thomas Tompion said:


> Hi Tom and Jerry Fan,
> 
> I'm interested in your different reactions to the two sentences below. Could you possibly explain the differences a little, please? I want to understand your reactions a bit.
> 
> _I didn't want to rush through it in case I made a mistake. (Perfect)_
> 
> _I didn't rush through it in case I made a mistake. (Strange)_


I don't understand either of those sentences. What do they mean?


> I didn't want to rush through it in case I made a mistake.


I didn't want to rush through it because it would/might cause me to make a mistake?


> I didn't rush through it in case I made a mistake.


I didn't rush through it because it would/might cause me to make a mistake?

Such sentences seem extremely confusing and/or ambiguous to me.

Gaer


----------



## tomandjerryfan

Thomas Tompion said:


> Hi Tom and Jerry Fan,
> 
> I'm interested in your different reactions to the two sentences below.  Could you possibly explain the differences a little, please?  I want to understand your reactions a bit.
> 
> _I didn't want to rush through it in case I made a mistake. (Perfect)_
> 
> _I didn't rush through it in case I made a mistake. (Strange)_



I don't think there is much of a difference grammatically. I don't know how to explain why one sounds strange to me while the other doesn't. 

Edit:

Yes Gaer, the first means I didn't want to rush through it, because if I did, I might have made a mistake. The second means I didn't rush through it. If I did, I might have made a mistake.


----------



## gaer

tomandjerryfan said:


> I don't think there is much of a difference grammatically. I don't know how to explain why one sounds strange to me while the other doesn't.
> 
> Edit:
> 
> Yes Gaer, the first means I didn't want to rush through it, because if I did, I might have made a mistake. The second means I didn't rush through it. If I did, I might have made a mistake.


My problem throughout this whole thread is that many of the sentences constructed that supposedly illustrate common AE and BE usage of "in case" do not seem common or idiomatic to me.

_I brought an umbrella in case it rained. 
I'm just reminding you in case you forgot. 
I didn't want to rush through it in case I made a mistake. 
I told her just in case she didn't know already.  
I'll phone a taxi in case she shows up late.  _

The "x's" indicate my confusion. I'm not saying that these sentences are wrong, but I would not write them or say them. 

I do not recall ever stumbling over any usage of "in case" in any book or in any conversation, AE or BE, and for this reason I have been perplexed by most of the replies in this thread. 

Gaer


----------



## Thomas Tompion

gaer said:


> _I'm just reminding you in case you forgot. _
> 
> Gaer


 
Here's one that's got me puzzled.  

I'd have to say one of:

*I'm just reminding you, in case you forget.*

*I'm just reminding you in case you have forgotten.*

*I'm just reminding you in case you had forgotten.*

depending on the circumstances.


----------



## tomandjerryfan

gaer said:


> My problem throughout this whole thread is that many of the sentences constructed that supposedly illustrate common AE and BE usage of "in case" do not seem common or idiomatic to me.
> 
> _I brought an umbrella in case it rained.
> I'm just reminding you in case you forgot.
> I didn't want to rush through it in case I made a mistake.
> I told her just in case she didn't know already.
> I'll phone a taxi in case she shows up late.  _
> 
> The "x's" indicate my confusion. I'm not saying that these sentences are wrong, but I would not write them or say them.
> 
> I do not recall ever stumbling over any usage of "in case" in any book or in any conversation, AE or BE, and for this reason I have been perplexed by most of the replies in this thread.
> 
> Gaer



But they are all the same grammatically.

Now that you've contributed, I'm quite sure it's just a matter of inconsistency in personal preference among AmE speakers and has a lot to do with what you're accustomed to hearing. All those sentence that I said were perfect would be sentences that I might say myself, and that would be easily understood by me. The ones that I labelled as strange would be sentences that I may or may not understand if I heard them. I would likely not use any of them.



Thomas Tompion said:


> Here's one that's got me puzzled.
> 
> I'd have to say one of:
> 
> *I'm just reminding you, in case you forget.*
> 
> *I'm just reminding you in case you have forgotten.*
> 
> *I'm just reminding you in case you had forgotten.*
> 
> depending on the circumstances.



I understand these sentences perfectly. I think I would be more likely to say the second sentence than the first or the third.


----------



## gaer

Thomas Tompion said:


> Here's one that's got me puzzled.
> 
> I'd have to say one of:
> 
> *I'm just reminding you, in case you forget. *


That must be the AE/BE difference. I would not say it or write it. (Again, the "x" does not mean "wrong". It means that it seems odd to me.)

I would write: I'm just reminding you to keep you from forgetting.

However, I'll be very aware in the future if I see or hear it use that way. 



> *I'm just reminding you in case you have forgotten. *
> 
> *I'm just reminding you in case you had forgotten. *
> 
> depending on the circumstances.


Both of those are completely natural to me. The use of simple past in place of present perfect, for instance, seems to be rather common in AE, but the forms you have used seem familiar and comfortable.

Gaer


----------



## gaer

tomandjerryfan said:


> Now that you've contributed, I'm quite sure it's just a matter of inconsistency in personal preference among AmE speakers and has a lot to do with what you're accustomed to hearing.


It's for that reason that I have been so reluctant to comment in this thread. 

In addition, I'm not convinced that usage is more consistent among those who use BE only. Rather than comment more, I'll make myself hyper-aware of any usage of "in case", written or spoken, that I see or hear. I usually listen to book recordings for at least a couple hours daily, and at least half of them are books by BE authors and read by "BE-readers".

Gaer


----------



## tomandjerryfan

gaer said:


> It's for that reason that I have been so reluctant to comment in this thread.
> 
> In addition, I'm not convinced that usage is more consistent among those who use BE only.
> 
> _[...]_
> 
> Gaer



Have you read Loob's sentences on page 10 (#197)? I would never say most of the sentences there, but I understood most of them.


----------



## gaer

tomandjerryfan said:


> Have you read Loob's sentences on page 10 (#197)? I would never say most of the sentences there, but I understood most of them.


There were two that I absolutely would not understand without context:


> (2) I didn't want any delay *in case* the Press got it.
> (5) she would not go to sleep, *in case* we left her.


I will be looking for sentence such as these in the future.

I suspect that both sentences might be completely clear as part of a larger thought (paragraph or so).

The problem with constructing example sentences is that they may or may not be representative of what we actually say or write naturally.

For instance, I said this to a student, today, as she was leaving a lesson:

"Remind me next week in case I forget." I did not use a comma there because I did not pause as I said it.

My meaning was: "Remind me next week if I forget."

An hour ago I would have sworn I would never say that. I can't tell you how many times I've caught myself saying something that I've just claimed I don't say. It's really quite embarrassing. 

Gaer


----------



## cheshire

*


			
				Thomas Tompion#72 said:
			
		


Give the baby a toy in case he cries is saying Give the baby a toy, against the event that he cries - just as I'll take my umbrella in case it rains

Click to expand...

Thomas T explained to me why "Give the baby a toy in case he cries." doens't make sense. I didn't undestand then, but now I think I got it.

(1)Give the baby a toy in case he cries.
(2)Take an umbrella in case it rains.
​Taking an umbrella now helps if and when it starts raining.

Giving the baby a toy now helps if and when the baby starts crying.

Giving the baby a toy now helps to reduce the possibility of baby crying.

In (2), an umbrella helps even after it begins to rain. In (1), a toy doesn't help after the baby has already begun to cry. The toy serves its purpose when it prevents.

But "toy" has two purposes: prevention of a child crying, and making a child crying less.
In any case, Sentence (1) seems to make sense to me.

Why is it that (1) sounds nonsense?
*


----------



## Thomas Tompion

cheshire said:


> *Thomas T explained to me why "Give the baby a toy in case he cries." doens't make sense. I didn't undestand then, but now I think I got it.*
> 
> 
> <B>(1)Give the baby a toy in case he cries.​</B>
> 
> *(2)Take an umbrella in case it rains.*​*Taking an umbrella now helps if and when it starts raining.*
> 
> *Giving the baby a toy now helps if and when the baby starts crying.*
> 
> *Giving the baby a toy now helps to reduce the possibility of baby crying.*
> 
> *In (2), an umbrella helps even after it begins to rain. In (1), a toy doesn't help after the baby has already begun to cry. The toy serves its purpose when it prevents.*
> 
> *But "toy" has two purposes: prevention of a child crying, and making a child crying less.*
> *In any case, Sentence (1) seems to make sense to me.*
> 
> *Why is it that (1) sounds nonsense?*


 
Hi Cheshire, 

You put the point very well here. *Give the baby a toy to prevent him crying* would be fine. But *Give the baby a toy in case he cries* means *Give the baby a toy, so that he's got it (to comfort him) if he cries*. That's just not what people are trying to say. The object of giving the toy is to prevent him crying, not to calm him once he starts.

If you wanted to say *Give him the toy now, so that he's got it if he cries*, then you'd say: *Give the baby a toy in case he cries*. So it's not that it 'sounds nonsense', but that it's just not what you are trying to say.


----------



## cheshire

Finally, Thomas Tompion solved my question. It turned out that it's the difference of view on what function "giving a toy to a child" has that prevented me from understanding your explanations. It's a matter of sociology or culture, not grammar. 





> But "toy" has two purposes: prevention of a child crying, and making a child crying less.


Thank you very much, I've never put so much of my energy in one single phrase. It was hard to read through, but it was more than worth reading.

I'd also like to defend one thing. Error analysis and elimination method are no less important in learning grammar, language acquisition and applied linguistics than the top-to-bottom approach. The process on the course of this thread is, therefore, quite meaningful.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

cheshire said:


> Finally, Thomas Tompion solved my question. It turned out that it's the difference of view on what function "giving a toy to a child" has that prevented me from understanding your explanations. It's a matter of sociology or culture, not grammar.
> Thank you very much, I've never put so much of my energy in one single phrase. It was hard to read through, but it was more than worth reading.
> 
> I'd also like to defend one thing. Error analysis and elimination method are no less important in learning grammar, language acquisition and applied linguistics than the top-to-bottom approach. The process on the course of this thread is, therefore, quite meaningful.


This is very interesting, Cheshire.

It might be worth adding that, if you wanted to say that the toy should be given to the child, _to reduce the possibility of his crying,_ you could say: *Give him a toy, in case he feels like crying*. That would show that the measure was to prevent the crying, rather than to deal with the crying once it started, which is what *give him the toy, in case he cries* suggests.


----------



## sb70012

liliput said:


> Not really. Compare:
> "I wear a life jacket in case I drown"



Hello dear liliput. I disagree with you about your first sentence.
It's grammatically correct to say: I wear a life jacket in case I drown

It means (I wear a life jacket because i might drwon.)
Nothing is wrong with this sentence.

My best wishes.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

sb70012 said:


> Hello dear liliput. I disagree with you about your first sentence.
> It's grammatically correct to say: I wear a life jacket in case I drown
> 
> It means (I wear a life jacket because i might drwon.)
> Nothing is wrong with this sentence.
> 
> My best wishes.


I'm on Liliput's side here.  I think plenty is wrong with the sentence.  It seems to be saying that when I drown I shall be glad to have the life jacket.

I suspect that someone who thinks it's right think it means *I wear a life jacket lest I drown*.

For me* in case that* here means *in the event that*.  A life jacket won't do you much good once you've drowned.

One could say *I wear a life jacket in case I find myself drowning*.  A lot is changed by altering the simple present to the continuous tense.


----------



## sb70012

In case you run out of money on your travels, bring a credit card.

(Bring a vredit card because you might run out of money on your travels)

Does that mean (when I run out of money I shall be glad to have the redit card) ?

If yes then the life jacket can be ok.


----------



## panjandrum

sb70012 said:


> Hello dear liliput. I disagree with you about your first sentence.
> It's grammatically correct to say: I wear a life jacket in case I drown
> 
> It means (I wear a life jacket because i might drwon.)
> Nothing is wrong with this sentence.
> 
> My best wishes.


Looking back at the summary in post #185, "I wear a life jacket in case I drown" is probably a first person equivalent to "Wear a life jacket in case you drown".
Now, what have people said about this structure?
*Do X ... in case ... Y.*
Do X.  If Y happens, you will be really glad that you did X.​ AE #17, #28, #37, 76, #104, #118, #122, #124, #127​ BE #2, #4, #6, #31, #35, #62, #69, #72, #86, #103, #157​ Do X because Y might happen if you don’t – to reduce the probability of Y happening.​ AE #83​ BE #32​Don't do anything until Y happens. If Y happens, do X.
AE #15, #19, #26, #44​
The first and third of these interpretations are clearly impossible, because you cannot do anything after you have drowned.

But the second is considered valid by two people in this thread - meaning "I wear a life jacket because I might drown if I don't."
From #32:
In BE it means give it to him because if he doesn't have it he might cry.
In the life jacket context: Wear a life jacket because if you don't you might drown.
From #83
If when the baby has the toy in it's possession it doesn't cry, the  sentence suggests your preventing something that won't happen.
In the life jacket context: If when you wear a life jacket you don't drown, the sentence suggests your preventing something (drowning) that won't happen.

I'm not suggesting a right answer here. But I am suggesting that this particular construction has a very wide range of possible interpretations, and that it is really quite pointless to try to arrive at a specific interpretation that fits all contexts and cultures.

That comment applies equally to life jackets and to credit cards.

Anyone wanting to pursue this topic needs to specify the context, in terms of location and register, in which the expression is to be interpreted.
Those not intimately acquainted with that location and register should not comment.
There is no hope of consensus.

_FOOTNOTE: Though the journey and the analysis has been/is very entertaining _


----------



## Thomas Tompion

sb70012 said:


> In case you run out of money on your travels, bring a credit card.
> 
> (Bring a vredit card because you might run out of money on your travels)
> 
> Does that mean (when I run out of money I shall be glad to have the redit card) ?
> 
> If yes then the life jacket can be ok.


There's an important difference: when you have drowned, you have no use for the life jacket, but when you have run out of money the credit card might come in handy.

I'd still prefer *Bring a credit card lest you run out of money*, because *in case  you run out of money* means *in the event that you run out of money*, so* bring the card, in case you run out of money* strictly suggests the bringing of the card is subsequent to the running out of money.

Of course you could correctly say *Be sure to have your credit card with you, in case you run out of money.  *Here there's no suggestion that the one follows the other.

I freely admit that many native speakers use this expression laxly and it's often only when you point out the strangeness of *I wear a life jacket in case I drown* that they see the point.


----------



## wandle

Chambers English Dictionary (1990) gives two meanings for '*in case'*: _'in the event that_' and '_lest_'.
'Lest' means _'in order that ... not'_.

Oxford English Dictionary Pro version online also gives both meanings:

*(just) in case*

*1* _as a provision against something happening or being true_:

Examples quoted for this meaning include:

_I wanted the police to know what was taking place in case something happened to us.
I wrapped it in cardboard and a jumper then put it in a bin liner in case it rained.
My colleagues said I should stock up on food in case the storm made it difficult to shop.
What are all the available exit routes in case I need to get out in a hurry?_

All these sentences are about taking steps _in advance_ to prepare against something that_ may happen later._

*2* _if it is true that:_

Examples quoted for this meaning include:

_in case you haven’t figured it out, let me explain
Oh, and in case you're interested, the audience did stand for the Hallelujah chorus.
However, in case you are wondering, Newcastle is still my favourite city in England!
Just in case anyone missed it the first time, this is for kids that can't afford mobile phones._

All these sentences are about action taken to cater for the possibility that something _is true now or has already happened_.

As regards life jackets, we do not wear them in case we drown: we wear them in case we fall overboard.
This comes under OED meaning (1): _as a provision against something happening or being true_.

As a parallel to the life jacket scenario, compare the actions of soldiers preparing for combat.
They do not put on body armour in case they are killed. They put on body armour in case they are hit.
On the other hand, they do not write their will in case they are hit. They write their will in case they are killed.
These examples again come under OED meaning (1).


----------

