# FR: si + futur ou conditionnel ?



## agueda

"Si l'operation reussit/reussira, le malade vivra; si non, il mourra."

I don't know which of 'reussit' or 'reussira' I should use, when I use the future tense in the second clause... could I use both?
Thanks!

*Moderator note:* Multiple threads have been merged to create this one.


----------



## Blootone

"*réussit*" is the only correct option here.

Don't forget the accent!


----------



## lrosa

Est-ce vrai que l'on ne doit (presque) jamais employer le conditionnel après le mot "si" (if), comme en anglais? Ou pourrait-ce être correct, dans un certain contexte, de dire "Si je serais plus riche...", etc... Je sais qu'en anglais, on dit plutôt "If I were" que "If I would be..."

Merci d'avance!


----------



## FRENFR

Si j'etais riche.. not si je serais riche..

After si, if it's not the imperfect, it's the present (!).  Si tu as faim, tu devrais manger (you should eat).  In the past, to say "If you were hungry, why didn't you eat", you would use the imperfect:  si tu avais faim, ...?

If I were is a rare example of the subjunctive in English; Si je sois riche, in French.  I think you would be shot if they heard this!  Subjunctive is French is after 'que', if ever it is to be used.  Si je fusse?  Ok, ok, not the imperfect subjunctive. 

You know, on some TV Game Shows in France, they have questions about conjugating a verb into a complicated subjunctive mood, and normally they get it wrong!


----------



## Rallino

Si on n'avait fait aucune guerre, on aurait vécu dans une prospérité.

Est-ce que ça choque les francophones si je dis cette phrase comme:

On eusse vécu dans une prospérité, ne fît-on aucune guerre. ? 

Car je me souviens d'un emploie: Si + subj. imparfait, mais je ne suis pas sûr


----------



## tilt

Present is possible after _si_, indeed, but imperfect is much more common, and not only in past sentences!
In fact, I'd say imperfect can be considered as the general case after si:
_Si j'étais plus riche, je voyagerais.
Si j'avais moins faim, je ne mangerais pas autant.
Si j'avais d'autres idées, je donnerais plus d'exemples. 
_
Yet, it's possible to come across conditional after _si_, but in very specific cases only.
When two _si_ works together in the sentence, for example: _Si j'étais riche, je me demande si je serais heureux.
_


----------



## lrosa

tilt said:


> Yet, it's possible to come across conditional after _si_, but in very specific cases only.
> When two _si_ works together in the sentence, for example: _Si j'étais riche, je me demande si je serais heureux.
> _



Same in English... "If I were rich, I wonder if I *would be *happy". Thanks for that example.

So I'm wondering now... Is French like in English in that it's perhaps more technically correct to use Si + imperfect subjunctive, when you want to express something conditional - "If I *were* rich... I *would*..."? But that in French, like in English, this rule is (perhaps more) often ignored, leading people to say "Si j'étais" - "If I *was* (Many English speakers _do _say this, ignoring the subjunctive)" - instead of "Si je fusse", which would sound ridiculous?

In this thread I'm only concerned about the use of tense/mood after the word "si" when it carries a strictly conditional meaning.

Oh, and it appears that I was wrong to say that the conditional was my only interest, because I'm wondering if French is the same as English in that "Si tu avais faim..." can mean "If you were hungry" both in the sense of "If you were hungry, why didn't you eat?" (not really conditional) and "If you were hungry, would you eat?" (conditional). In English this subtlety can be expressed with the pronouns _I_ and _he/she/it_, because of the fact that they would change from "If I/he/she/it was (hungry, why didn't he eat?)" to "If I/he/she/it were (hungry, I'd eat)", depending on the context:

If you were hungry, why didn't you eat? - "Si tu avais faim, pourquoi n'as tu pas mangé?" 
If you were hungry, would you eat? - "Mangerais-tu si tu avais faim?"

Are these 2 translations correct? Many thanks!


----------



## tilt

lrosa said:


> Same in English... "If I were rich, I wonder if I *would be *happy". Thanks for that example.
> 
> So I'm wondering now... Is French like in English in that it's perhaps more technically correct to use Si + imperfect subjunctive, when you want to express something conditional - "If I *were* rich... I *would*..."? But that in French, like in English, this rule is (perhaps more) often ignored, leading people to say "Si j'étais" - "If I *was* (Many English speakers _do _say this, ignoring the subjunctive)" - instead of "Si je fusse", which would sound ridiculous?


I can't really how it was in the old days, but nowadays, no one would use a imperfect subjunctive, which does sound ridiculous, as you say.


lrosa said:


> If you were hungry, why didn't you eat? - "Si tu avais faim, pourquoi n'as tu pas mangé?"
> If you were hungry, would you eat? - "Mangerais-tu si tu avais faim?"
> 
> Are these 2 translations correct? Many thanks!


Nonetheless they are correct, but they also are brilliant. They do perfectly render the meaning of both English sentences in French.
Note that the latter could also be said _Si tu avais faim, mangerais-tu ? _to make it clear that it's the tense of the second phrase which decides of the exact meaning of _si_, by setting the whole sentence in present or in past.


----------



## laphroaig

Hi!
I was always taught never to use the conditional tense after 'si' when it means if. Is there however any time when you could say 'si vous pourriez.....'?


----------



## Donaldos

Yes, you can use the conditional in indirect questions for instance :

_Il se demandait si vous pourriez vivre sur une île déserte._


----------



## jann

laphroaig said:


> I was always taught never to use the conditional tense after 'si' when it means if. Is there however any time when you could say 'si vous pourriez.....'?





Donaldos said:


> Yes, you can use the conditional in indirect questions for instance :
> _Il se demandait si vous pourriez vivre sur une île déserte._


Translation: He was wondering if/whether you could live on a deserted island.

Donaldos, the _si_ in your example does not mean "if"!  The _si_ in indirect questions is a synonym for "whether."  Indeed, we may certainly use the conditional in such sentences... so the rule that Laphroaig learned (which only applies to hypothetical or cause/effect if-then sentences) is not contradicted.

I suspect Laphroaig's question was more about cases where we say "if you could" to be polite in English, e.g., "If you could pick him up at the airport, that would be great!"  We so habitually think of "could" as being a conditional that we might be tempted to say _Si vous pourriez _in French.  But actually, this English "could" isn't a conditional.  It's the past tense conjugation of "can" (today I can, yesterday I could)... and so this English sentence is just using the standard if-then tense pattern the same as French does. 

If you could (past) pick him up at the airport, that would be (conditional) great!
_Si vous pouviez (imparfait) le chercher à l'aéroport, ce serait (conditionnel) vraiment bien._

Obviously the if/_si_ in this sentence is not a synonym for "whether"... and so the standard tense sequencing rules apply.


----------



## Donaldos

jann said:


> Donaldos, the _si_ in your example does not mean "if"!  The _si_ in indirect questions is a synonym for "whether."



That was actually my point...


----------



## laphroaig

Thank you both very much. I was thinking of examples like the following:
1. I would be grateful if you could send me......
2. I was wondering if you could send me.....
Am I therefore right in thinking that ' si vous pouvez/pouviez m'envoyer' would be used in 1 where as ' si vous pourriez m'envoyer' would be used in 2?


----------



## jann

laphroaig said:


> Am I therefore right in thinking that ' si vous pouvez/pouviez m'envoyer' would be used in 1 where as ' si vous pourriez m'envoyer' would be used in 2?


Yes. 

You can't use present tense _pouvez_ for #1... unless you want to say "I will be grateful if you can send me..."  For the version of the sentence that you wrote with "would" and "could," you need to pair the conditional with the imperfect.


----------



## wster

From Racine's Phaedre:

Ou si tu le crois indigne de tes coups,
Si ta haine m'envie un supplice si doux, 
Ou *si d'un sang trop vil ta main serait trempée*, 
Au défaut de ton bras prête moi ton épée. 

Here we have a condtionnel verb in a _si_ clause and even  Grevisse (8th edition) seems to have a bit of difficulty bringing cases  like these under clear rules.  He says: 

...on a parfois après _si_ un futur ou un conditionnel, mais qui ne sont pas dans sa dépendence directe: la supposition porte sur un verbe sous-jacent (_s'il est vrais que, si on admet que_...

This seems like a stretch to me.  In English, we might use a conditional  "would" in a sentence like this simply to mark eventuality.  I'm having  trouble understanding why French wouldn't work the same way.  So my  question is this: do native French speakers really feel the pull of an  implicit "s'il est vrais que" in sentences like this?

Thanks in advance


----------



## VanOo

There is a double condition here.

Si tu venais à te battre avec moi (A) et si tu considère ce sang comme vil (B) = si d'un sang trop vil ta main serait trempée

Note que la condition (A) est mise en doute:
Si tu te bats avec moi, ta main sera trempée
Si tu te battais avec moi (mais j'en doute), ta main serait trempée.

Ais-je répondu à la question ?


----------



## Maître Capello

Il y a en fait une ellipse et il faut comprendre : _si *[en me frappant tu penses que]* ta main serait trempée d'un sang trop vil_.


----------



## wster

Here's another example he gives with the futur instead of the conditionnel:

Fais ce que tu veux si tu pourras le supporter indéfiniment.-P.Valery

Again, for Grevisse, there is an implicit _s'il est vrais que_.

There is a whole school of thought in modern semantics according to which "it is true that P" adds nothing to "P".  So it is a bit strange that Grevisse would spend a whole page giving examples turning on this in order to deal with unruly _si_ clauses.


----------



## Maître Capello

In Racine's example it makes a lot of sense to use the conditional because there is a kind of double condition as suggested by VanOo. Besides, the present would be inappropriate because it wouldn't convey the right meaning.

Valéry's sentence is less convincing, but the future definitely “colors” the sentence in a way the present never could.

I'm afraid there is no clear-cut answer to your question. I would say that the future or conditional *is* sometimes possible in _si_ clauses without the need to resort to convoluted explanations. Those tenses should however be used sparingly and appropriately. This is not really different from the English where _would_ is also usually incorrect in _if_ clauses…


----------



## wster

I'll give one more example to give an idea of how he sees things:

Elle attendait encore un peu pour s'assurer si vraiment ces intentions seraient solides.-E. Fromentin

Grevisse says that in all of these, the Racine, the Valery, and the Fromentin, the _si_ has "aucune valor conditionnel".  But in the Racine and the Valery, there is "un verbe sous-jacent" like "il est vrais que".


----------



## Marie3933

wster said:


> Elle attendait encore un peu pour s'assurer si vraiment ces intentions seraient solides.-E. Fromentin.


 Dans cette phrase, il ne s’agit pas d’une hypothèse avec _si_ mais d’une interrogation indirecte (_s’assurer si_ n’est pas une construction fréquente).
Cf. « Je me demande s’il fera beau demain ». _S’il fera beau demain_ n’est pas une condition mais une interrogation indirecte.


----------



## Nem'o

Je suis tout à fait d'accord avec tout ce qui a été dit plus haut, mais j'ai tout de même une question: ne pensez-vous pas, tout de même, que ce genre de tournure de phrase reste rare et très littéraire? 
Il me semble que ces tournures là sont surtout utilisées pour se donner un style, plus que pour des raisons purement grammaticales. 
Peut-être pas pour Racine, cela dit, qui est un auteur du 17ème (la langue utilisée, qu'elle soit parlée ou écrite, était donc totalement différente à tous les niveaux), mais pour les deux autres...?

Autre question: ne s'agit-il pas de tournures "vieillies"? 
Il faut tout de même noter que les deux autres auteurs sont nés au 19ème, et encore une fois, la langue a beaucoup évoluée depuis.

Si je dis cela, c'est surtout pour tenter d'apporter un élément de réponse en plus à la question de base qui était: do native French speakers really feel the pull of an implicit "s'il est vrais que" in sentences like this?

Car tout le monde a apporté des explications grammaticales intéressantes et claires (il me semble), mais je pense qu'il faut noter que je n'emploierais personnellement jamais ces tournures grammaticales (à l'écrit comme à l'oral)... Et il me semble que c'est la même chose pour tout le monde.


----------



## Marie3933

Je suis tout à fait d'accord avec toi, Nem'o.


----------



## Revron

Hello,

I am trying to translate the sentence "It will be necessary to leave the hotel early if we are going to catch the train."

I originally thought that this would translate as <<Il sera nécessaire de quitter l'hôtel de bonne heure si nous allons attraper le train.>> However, I am having second thoughts because this involves a future tense in the subordinate clause of a 'si' clause. 

Any help would be greatly appreciated,

Thanks,

Revron


----------



## moustic

Hello and welcome to the forum revron,

Do you mean "if we take the train" or "if we want to catch the train"?

Il sera nécessaire ... si nous prenons le train / si nous voulons prendre le train.


----------



## geostan

Welcome to the forum Revron!

You do not as a rule use a future tense in an if clause in French, but I would still phrase your if clause differently. *Il sera nécessaire de quitter l'hôtel de bonne heure si nous ne voulons pas manquer le train*. I wouldn't use attraper in reference to a train.


----------



## Adrien92

You can't use "attraper" for a train but "rater" or "manquer" are better. What geostan said is correct.


----------



## Lacuzon

Si nous voulons attraper le train ne me dérange pas du tout.


----------



## Adrien92

C'est compréhensible mais ce n'est pas l'expression la plus courante.


----------



## Revron

Dear all,

Thank you very much for your help so far! 

It seems like people are giving different/conflicting answers (maybe it is a hard question) so I should try to clarify:

My question is really about whether it is possible to use two futures (<<Il sera nécessaire... si nous allons attraper>>) in a 'si' construction. This seems to be the only option for literally translating from the English text which is indeed  "It will be necessary to leave the hotel early if we are going to catch the train." However, I have been taught that the 'si' clause in a 'si' construction can never contain a future or conditional and can only consist of (*Present*+Future; *Imperfect*+Conditional;* Pluperfect*+Conditional Perfect).

Thanks,

Revron


----------



## geostan

It's true that aller + infinbitive is a kind of future, but the rule really applies to the true future tense. Nevertheless, I think I would use devoir or vouloir rather than aller in your sentence.


----------



## janpol

Nous devrons quitter l'hôtel de bonne heure si nous avons un train à prendre.

J'ai entendu le futur dans une hypothétique (concessive ?) employé par un journaliste de télévision : "Si, durant le prochain week-end, le Président sera à Berlin, le Premier Ministre, quant à lui, sera à Toulouse".


----------



## geostan

Reste à savoir si c'est correct.


----------



## moustic

janpol said:


> J'ai entendu le futur dans une hypothétique (concessive ?) employé par un journaliste de télévision : "Si, durant le prochain week-end, le Président sera à Berlin, le Premier Ministre, quant à lui, sera à Toulouse".



I don't understand this as a hypothetical sentence, but a straight statement of fact:
The President will be in Berlin whereas the Prime Minister will be in Toulouse.


----------



## Gooische Vrouwen

Hi,

I just read "Si nous n'habitons pas dans une ville, nous nous disperserons dans le pays."

Shouldn't it have been "Si nous n'habiterons pas dans une ville, nous nous disperserons dans le pays." since the people are talking about where to live? They are talking about what might happen in the future if they choose not to live in the same city. Therefore, both verbs should be in the future, not just "nous disperserons".

Thanks


----------



## rolmich

Hi GV,
The future tense is never used after 'si'. The sentence is correct.
But : Nous n'habiterons pas dans une ville, car nous aurons été dispersés dans le pays. (futur antérieur)


----------



## olivier68

Hi GV,

Rolmich is rather right: the future tense is NEVER used after "si" in direct style.

In your case, this is because the condition introduced by "si" is considered as realized.


----------



## Maître Capello

As a matter of fact, Rolmich is not entirely correct: it *is* possible to use the future after _si_ in *indirect questions*, e.g., _Je me demande *si* vous ne *serez* pas déçus_.  That being said, the future is indeed usually inappropriate in *conditional* _si_ clauses.


----------



## marget

My question concerns the sequence of tenses.  Is it possible to use an imperative in the main clause and the future in the subordinate clause as in "N'achète pas ces chaussures (baskets)  blanches si tu les saliras/ si tu finiras par les salir"?

Merci d'avance


----------



## olivier68

No, the "_si_ clause" can not be used here.
"N'achète pas ces chaussures (baskets) blanches : tu les saliras / tu finiras par les salir"


----------



## marget

Thank you so much.  That's what I thought.


----------



## ForeverHis

marget said:


> "N'achète pas ces chaussures (baskets) blanches si tu les saliras/ si tu finiras par les salir"?


Are you trying to say "Don't buy those white shoes if you're going to get them dirty"?  If that's what you mean then I don't think Olivier's suggestion is quite the same.


olivier68 said:


> "N'achète pas ces chaussures (baskets) blanches : tu les saliras / tu finiras par les salir"


----------



## Maître Capello

In principle, the verb in _si_ clauses cannot be in the future. You may, however, say something like:

_N'achète pas ces chaussures blanches *si* tu *vas* les salir.
N'achète pas ces chaussures blanches *si* tu *finis* par les salir.
N'achète pas ces chaussures blanches *si* tu *dois* les salir._


----------



## Kitano

Cela dépend du contexte également. On dirait plutôt "ne mets pas tes chaussures neuves si tu vas dans la boue"
En langage parlé / populaire, on trouvera aussi "... si c'est pour les salir"


----------

