# Was würdet ihr tun, wenn ihr mitbekommt, dass euer Freund mit anderen Frauen simst? (Konjunktiv / Indikativ)



## Mozzerfan99

Hallo,

I am a little bit stuck with this sentence:




> Was würdet ihr tun, wenn ihr mitbekommt, dass euer Freund mit anderen Frauen simst?


My grammar book gives this sentence as an example and says that the first clause is in the indicative with the second in the indicative because one clause has an unreal possibility but the other doesn't.
But I just can't quite understand how _in this case _one clause can be an unreal possibility and the other a real possibility when they are so intrinsically linked.
The fact the addressee might find out their boyfriend is texting with other women is a real possibility because it might happen. But surely if that happens, then the addressee _will_ respond in some way (and the addresser is asking how they will respond), so why is that considered irrealis?

Would changing the first clause into the indicative be possible? And if so would that change the meaning at all? Or changing the second clause into subjunctive?

Danke im Voraus 🙂


----------



## elroy

What grammar book is this?

In my opinion the sentence is straight-up wrong and would not occur even colloquially.

_Was würdet ihr tun, wenn ihr *mitbekommen würdet*, dass euer Freund mit anderen Frauen simst?_

Notice that "simst" is indicative because in the hypothetical scenario established by the first two clauses, that situation (your boyfriend texting with other women) would *not* be hypothetical.  Maybe _that's_ what the book was getting at?


----------



## Alemanita

elroy said:


> Was würdet ihr tun, wenn ihr *mitbekommen würdet*, dass euer Freund mit anderen Frauen simst?


This is too clumsy.


Mozzerfan99 said:


> Was würdet ihr tun, wenn ihr mitbekommt, dass euer Freund mit anderen Frauen simst?


This is absolutely colloquial.


----------



## Hutschi

Mozzerfan99 said:


> My grammar book gives this sentence as an example and says that one clause is in the indicative with the other in the indicative because one clause has an unreal possibility but the other doesn't.


I count three clauses. So I do not understand what is one and what is the other. There are two times indicative and one time conjunctiv.
One time it is conjunctiv and two times indicative.


----------



## Frieder

_Was würdet ihr tun, wenn ihr mitbekämt, dass ...simst._
Correct and less clumsy.
You could even say
_Was tut ihr, wenn ihr mitbekommt, dass ... simst. _(Though there _could _be a small change in meaning)

I agree that the original sentence is "absolutely colloquial", but that doesn't make it correct.


----------



## elroy

Frieder said:


> I agree that the original sentence is "absolutely colloquial"


 Wow, I’m surprised to hear that!  To me it sounds totally wrong.  I don’t think I’ve ever encountered that construction even in the most colloquial speech.  And to me the sentence with “mitbekommen würdet” doesn’t sound clumsy at all.  That’s the only thing that comes naturally to me.  I would never say “mitbekämt.”


----------



## Frieder

I think that is a regional thing. In the northern parts they really _say _things like "bekämt", while in the South you are more likely hear "bekommen tätet" .


----------



## elroy

Frieder said:


> I think that is a regional thing. In the northern parts they really _say _things like "bekämt", while in the South you are more likely hear "bekommen tätet" .


That's very interesting.  Where do they say "mitbekommen würdet"?

Regardless of "mitbekommen würdet" vs. "mitbekämt" vs. "mitbekommen tätet," what really surprises me is the use of "mitbekommt."

I've said a few examples to myself and they all sound wrong!

_Was würdest du tun, wenn dich jemand anlügt?_  

Would I sound stilted or strange or foreign if I said _Was würdest du tun, wenn dich jemand anlügen würde? _ I hope not, because that's the only thing that comes naturally to me.


----------



## bearded

My feeling:
the sentence with a double 'würdet' is clumsy because of the repetition, but grammatically correct,
the sentence with 'bekämt' is also correct in standard German, but I wouldn't use it in colloquial,
the OP sentence is absolutely colloquial - and grammatically wrong.
And I find 'mitbekommen tätet' very dialectal.


----------



## Frieder

elroy said:


> Would I sound stilted or strange or foreign


Of course not! I just wanted to point out that it is not unusual to say _bekämt_ in certain regions. And I would doubt that anybody would say _anlöge _– that's quite unlikely.


----------



## elroy

I've heard and read sentences with double "würde" (or "würdest/würden/würdet") tons of times in all registers of German.  I can't imagine that the opinion that they're clumsy is shared by everyone.  To me, they sound perfectly natural.

_Wenn du Spanisch sprechen würdest, würdest du nach Mexiko ziehen?
Wenn ihr die Lösung wissen würdet, würdet ihr euch melden?
Wenn er ihr helfen würde, würde sie schneller fertig werden?_

To me, these sentences sound perfectly natural and not clumsy in the least.  (I used questions as examples to mirror the original example.)

And again, indicative in the second clause sounds totally wrong to me:

_Wenn du Spanisch sprechen würdest, ziehst du nach Mexiko? _

Would people really say this colloquially?


----------



## Hutschi

Was würdet ihr tun, wenn ihr mitbekommt, dass euer Freund mit anderen Frauen simst?



Mozzerfan99 said:


> Would changing the first clause into the indicative be possible? And if so would that change the meaning at all? Or changing the second clause into


It is possible.


Was tut ihr, wenn ihr mitbekommt, dass euer Freund mit anderen Frauen simst?
It does not change the meaning but it changes the style. The Konjunktiv is more indirect, I would say a kinde of more polite. The indicative is more direct.
Both refer to a hypothetical future time.

I do not see failures in the sentence

Was würdet ihr tun, wenn ihr mitbekommt, dass euer Freund mit anderen Frauen simst?


Was würdet ihr tun, - main part of the question, polite style, Konjunktiv, very common and idiomatic
wenn ihr mitbekommt, - indicative , coll. style, now common and idiomatic in coll. style. In formal style you must use Konjunktiv. But this changes due to language change.
dass euer Freund mit anderen Frauen simst? - coll. and normal style, idiomatic,  "simsen" is an Anglicism and very idiomatic.
I used the German word Konjunktiv because there might be differences to English subjunctiv/conjunctiv.


----------



## Hutschi

elroy said:


> And again, indicative in the second clause sounds totally wrong to me:
> 
> _Wenn du Spanisch sprechen würdest, ziehst du nach Mexiko? _



This is very different to the original sentence.

Compare:

Wenn du den Englischkurs geschafft hast, würdest du dann nach Mexiko ziehen?/ ..., ziehst du dann nach Mexiko?

Note the different reference times between this and your sentence.


----------



## elroy

Hutschi said:


> This is very different to the original sentence.


How so?


----------



## Hutschi

Was würdet ihr tun, wenn ihr mitbekommt, dass euer Freund mit anderen Frauen simst?
This is a question about a "wenn" sentence and about past time.
*Edit: add on*
Wenn du Spanisch sprechen würdest, ziehst du nach Mexiko?
Here we have other time relations.
Possible is:
Wenn du Spanisch sprechen gelernt haben wirst, ziehst du dann nach Mexiko?
But much simpler:
Wenn du Spanisch gelernt hast, ziehst du dann nach Mexiko? This is about future time.


----------



## elroy

Hutschi said:


> This is a question about a "wenn" sentence.


So is my example: _*Wenn* du Spanisch sprechen würdest, würdest du nach Mexiko ziehen?_


----------



## Hutschi

elroy said:


> So is my example: _*Wenn* du Spanisch sprechen würdest, würdest du nach Mexiko ziehen?_


This sentence is correct.


----------



## elroy

I think we're talking past each other (wir reden aneinander vorbei).  Let me try again: 

(1a) _Wenn du Spanisch sprechen *würdest*, *würdest* du nach Mexiko ziehen?_
(1b) _Wenn du Spanisch sprechen *würdest*, *ziehst* du nach Mexiko?_

(2a) _Was *würdet* ihr tun, wenn ihr mitbekommen *würdet*, dass euer Freund mit anderen Frauen simst?_
(2b)_ Was *würdet* ihr tun, wenn ihr *mitbekommt*, dass euer Freund mit anderen Frauen simst?_

Before this thread, I would have said that only the (a) sentences (with the double "würde" construction) were possible, even in the most colloquial of registers.

I understood you to be saying that (2b) was possible but (1b) wasn't.  Did I understand you correctly?  If so, what's the difference between the two that makes (2b) possible but (1b) impossible?


----------



## Mozzerfan99

Hutschi said:


> I count three clauses. So I do not understand what is one and what is the other. There are two times indicative and one time conjunctiv.
> One time it is conjunctiv and two times indicative.


Apologies, I was talking just about the first two clauses and ignoring the third


----------



## Mozzerfan99

elroy said:


> What grammar book is this?


Hammer's German Grammar and Usage (sixth edition, section 14.3.2)


----------



## elroy

Mozzerfan99 said:


> Hammer's German Grammar and Usage (sixth edition, section 14.3.2)


  I've always sung that book's praises as one of the best, if not the best, German grammar reference ever!


----------



## Mozzerfan99

elroy said:


> I've always sung that book's praises as one of the best, if not the best, German grammar reference ever!


Yes I am also surprised, I have rarely found any other mistakes/omissions. That sentence is also in the fourth edition and presumably the fifth, not sure about the seventh. I am almost tempted to email Martin Durrell about it - I did before about a mistake and he seemed grateful.


----------



## elroy

Mozzerfan99 said:


> I have rarely found any other mistakes/omissions.


Well, based on the answers in this thread it seems to be possible colloquially.  It still hurts my ears.


----------



## Mozzerfan99

elroy said:


> Well, based on the answers in this thread it seems to be possible colloquially.  It still hurts my ears.


Yes, I think at the very least it should be mentioned that it is colloquial in the description. The way it is worded implies that it is just standard usage.


----------



## bearded

I hope that Hutschi will pardon me if I'm replying to elroy's #18 _an seiner Stelle _(he may of course correct me if I'm wrong).
In colloquial style, rules are not as strict as in standard or written style. The reason I find, why 2b is acceptable in colloquial whereas 1b is not, is that in 1b the two verbs are immediately close to each other, so the mood discrepancy is clearly perceivable/audible. In 2b, on the contrary, there is a sufficient distance between the two verbs to make the discrepancy _unbemerkt - _I repeat: in colloquial style.

Concerning the 'clumsy' sentence, I can remember that, when I was studying German at the University, teachers said that it was_ advisable _to avoid repetition of 'würde' (though grammatically correct) - for style reasons only.
For example, in a sentence like 1a it was recommended to find a different auxiliary/modal verb, like
''Wenn du Spanisch sprechen _könntest_ (instead of würdest), würdest du nach Mexiko ziehen?''. I'm sure that you, too, find this solution/formulation a bit less 'clumsy' than the phrase with a double 'würdest'.


----------



## Hutschi

The difference is the logic in time relations.


elroy said:


> 1a) _Wenn du Spanisch sprechen *würdest*, *würdest* du nach Mexiko ziehen?_
> (1b) _Wenn du Spanisch sprechen *würdest*, *ziehst* du nach Mexiko?_





elroy said:


> (2a) _Was *würdet* ihr tun, wenn ihr mitbekommen *würdet*, dass euer Freund mit anderen Frauen simst?_
> (2b)_ Was *würdet* ihr tun, wenn ihr *mitbekommt*, dass euer Freund mit anderen Frauen simst?_


The sentences are conditional sentences.

I found a simple description here: Konditionalsätze/Bedingungssätze in der deutschen Grammatik
In German.

2a: 
Reale Bedingung​


> Wenn wir ausdrücken wollen, dass die Bedingung möglicherweise erfüllbar ist, sprechen wir von einer realen Bedingung. _(Vielleicht habe ich später Zeit.)_ In diesem Fall verwenden wir in beiden Satzteilen Präsens.



Beispiel: Wenn ich Zeit habe, helfe ich dir.
Wenn ich mitbekomme, dass er simst, tue ich das und das.
This is about the future time and can happen. So i can use indicative. Future time can be expressed by future tense and present tense.


> *Irreale Bedingung in der Gegenwart*
> Wenn wir schon wissen, dass die Bedingung jetzt/später nicht erfüllbar ist, sprechen wir von einer irrealen Bedingung. (Ich habe jetzt/später keine Zeit.) In beiden Satzteilen verwenden wir Konjunktiv II für Situationen in der Gegenwart (oder die würde-Form).
> 
> Beispiel:
> Wenn ich (jetzt/später) Zeit hätte, würde ich dir helfen.


Wenn ich Spanisch könnte, würde ich umziehen.
This is irreal so I have to use Konjunktiv. It is about present time and I know it is irreal.

This is the best explanation I can give right now.


----------



## elroy

Okay, I think I get what you're saying.  Let me know if what I say below reflects your analysis:

In the (1) sentences, we know that you don't speak Spanish, and that's not going to change anytime in the near future, so both parts are purely hypothetical.
In (2), finding out that your boyfriend is texting with other women is something that may or may not happen right now or in the very near future, so it's not hypothetical in the same way as (1). 

(1) is asking about something that can't possibly happen right now.  You can't all of a sudden start to speak Spanish now, so the question of whether you would go to Mexico if you were able to speak Spanish is purely hypothetical.  It's almost like saying, "If you were a dinosaur, would you destroy the village?", the only difference being that it's possible for you to one day learn to speak Spanish, whereas it's not possible for you to become a dinosaur.

Whereas in (2), you could find out right now that your boyfriend has been texting with other women.  So yes, it's a hypothetical question but it's also not asking about something that can't possibly happen right now.


----------



## Hutschi

bearded said:


> ''Wenn du Spanisch sprechen _könntest_ (instead of würdest), würdest du nach Mexiko ziehen?''.


If it is about future it might be real:
_Wenn du in zwei Jahren Spanisch sprechen kannst, kommst du dann mit?/würdest du dann mitkommen?
edit: shortened.

corrected quotation_


----------



## manfy

Mozzerfan99 said:


> Yes, I think at the very least it should be mentioned that it is colloquial in the description. The way it is worded implies that it is just standard usage.


I think there's no need for that. That sample sentence _*is *_standard usage -- at least in spoken language.
I'm actually surprised that so many people in this thread are surprised! I started streaming German TV shows and films a few years ago (less than five years), and at the beginning I was actually surprised how little proper Konjunktiv is used these days - even in formal settings. Sentences that I, a person with tendencies towards casual and colloquial speech, would definitely keep in past subjunctive were used in exactly the form that Durrell used as an example.

I just downloaded the book and there he says:


> If one half of a conditional sentence is seen as hypothetical, but the other as
> factual, the first can be in the subjunctive and the second in the indicative:


This seems reasonably accurate - and contrary to the OP, he talks about one part being *hypothetical *and not unreal. That distinction can make a difference in some cases!
The only useful criticism I can think of is that he should have said "...but the other as factual *or hypothetically possible*, ...". (And that's because I see a big difference between _factual _and _potentially possible_.)


----------



## elroy

I think “factual” is a plain misuse.  “potentially possible” (or, if you want to be more concise, “conceivable”) is significantly different.


----------



## Hutschi

Here is a very simple detailed overview in English about the German conditional clauses and usage of time and modes.
Conditional Clauses in German (Konditionalsätze)


----------



## bearded

manfy said:


> That sample sentence _*is *_standard usage -- at least in spoken language.


----------



## Mozzerfan99

manfy said:


> I think there's no need for that. That sample sentence _*is *_standard usage -- at least in spoken language.
> I'm actually surprised that so many people in this thread are surprised! I started streaming German TV shows and films a few years ago (less than five years), and at the beginning I was actually surprised how little proper Konjunktiv is used these days - even in formal settings. Sentences that I, a person with tendencies towards casual and colloquial speech, would definitely keep in past subjunctive were used in exactly the form that Durrell used as an example.
> 
> I just downloaded the book and there he says:
> 
> This seems reasonably accurate - and contrary to the OP, he talks about one part being *hypothetical *and not unreal. That distinction can make a difference in some cases!
> The only useful criticism I can think of is that he should have said "...but the other as factual *or hypothetically possible*, ...". (And that's because I see a big difference between _factual _and _potentially possible_.)


Can you please elaborate on the difference between unreal and hypothetical? What specifically is meant by hypothetical, and why is it that the first clause is hypothetical but the second one isn't?


----------



## Mozzerfan99

Hutschi said:


> If it is about future it might be real:
> _Wenn du in zwei Jahren Spanisch sprechen kannst, kommst du dann mit?/würdest du dann mitkommen?
> edit: shortened.
> 
> corrected quotation_


I still don't really understand the actual difference between the two clauses (in the speaking Spanish example). 
I can understand:


> _Wenn du in zwei Jahren Spanisch sprechen kannst, kommst du dann mit?_


Both are real possibilities that have a reasonable chance of happening.
But then in:


> _Wenn du in zwei Jahren Spanisch sprechen kannst, würdest du dann mitkommen?_


Both of them are in the future, and since the second clause hinges entirely on the first (if he can speak Spanish in two years, he _will_ definitely do _something_, he is just asking _what_ it is), I don't understand how the second clause can be any less of a real possibility than the first.


----------



## Hutschi

Both are correct. You can use "kommst du dann mit?" and " würdest du dann mitkommen? But there are conditions. 

You just cannot say "Wenn du (jetzt) Spanisch sprechen könntest, kommst du dann mit? ", because it refers to the present time. In two years you cann possibly learn the language.

 This is because the sentence about present time (jetzt) is purely hypothetical. The first part says that the other cannot speak this language. So the second part is a question about a parallel word where the other one speaks it.
It means: "I know you cannot speak this language, but *if* you would know it, would you come with me?"


----------



## Mozzerfan99

Hutschi said:


> Both are correct. You can use "kommst du dann mit?" and " würdest du dann mitkommen? But there are conditions.


But in the 'würdest du dann mitkommen' version, why is the first clause in the indicative? What is the actual reason for the second clause being in the Konjunktiv and why does that not apply to the first clause?

It is the difference between the two clauses and the fact that one uses the Indikativ and the other the Konjunktiv that is the reason I am confused. I can understand why either clause _on their own_ could use either the Indikativ or the Konjunktiv, but I cannot understand why they could each use a different mood when they are so intrinsically linked.


----------



## Hutschi

These are examples.
If it is about future time, you can use both versions.
If it is about presents time, only the Konjunktiv works.

_Wenn du in zwei Jahren Spanisch sprechen kannst, würdest du dann mitkommen?
is basically the same as
Wenn du in zwei Jahren Spanisch sprechen kannst, kommst du dann mit?_
This is the base form.

Wenn du in zwei Jahren Spanisch sprechen könntest, würdest du dann mitkommen?
is basically the same as
Wenn du in zwei Jahren Spanisch sprechen könntest, kommst du dann mit?
A little bit more polite form.

_Wenn du (jetzt) Spanisch sprechen kannst, würdest du dann mitkommen?
Wenn du (jetzt) Spanisch sprechen kannst, kommst du dann mit?_
This sounds strange. If the other cannot speak the language, he cannot learn it at this moment.

See here: 

Conditional Clauses in German (Konditionalsätze) Examples 2., 3 and 4.

It is too long to copy it.


----------



## Mozzerfan99

Hutschi said:


> These are examples.
> If it is about future time, you can use both versions.
> If it is about presents time, only the Konjunktiv works.
> 
> _Wenn du in zwei Jahren Spanisch sprechen kannst, würdest du dann mitkommen?
> is basically the same as
> Wenn du in zwei Jahren Spanisch sprechen kannst, kommst du dann mit?_
> This is the base form.
> 
> Wenn du in zwei Jahren Spanisch sprechen könntest, würdest du dann mitkommen?
> is basically the same as
> Wenn du in zwei Jahren Spanisch sprechen könntest, kommst du dann mit?
> A little bit more polite form.
> 
> _Wenn du (jetzt) Spanisch sprechen kannst, würdest du dann mitkommen?
> Wenn du (jetzt) Spanisch sprechen kannst, kommst du dann mit?_
> This sounds strange. If the other cannot speak the language, he cannot learn it at this moment.
> 
> See here:
> 
> Conditional Clauses in German (Konditionalsätze) Examples 2., 3 and 4.
> 
> It is too long to copy it.


But not none of the examples you cited involve mixing the Indikativ/Konjunktiv within one conditional sentence. All 5 of their 'clause type' categories stick to either the Indikativ or Konjunktiv throughout the entire sentence.

In your sentence


> _Wenn du in zwei Jahren Spanisch sprechen kannst, würdest du dann mitkommen?_


You use Konjunktiv II (Präterium) [Is it technically Konjunktiv II Präterium? Either way, that is how it is referred to in the link you shared, see example 4, so I will stick with it]. The clause type that has the Konjunktiv II Präterium in your link is example 4 (aka Clause Type 2), where the Konjunktiv II Präterium is used in both clauses. It states:


> Type 2 [using Konjunktiv II in _both_ clauses] is used for narrating situations that have little possibility of taking place


My point is that if the addressee coming with the addresser (second clause) has 'little possibility of taking place', then surely them learning Spanish (first clause) must also have 'little possibility of taking place', because the second clause directly hinges on the first.

So it seems to me that the use of Konjunktiv II in the second clause is different to the one mentioned in the link and in my grammar book.

Is it simply different because it is a question? Does putting it into Konjunktiv II imply that the addresser doesn't actually think that they will say yes/wants to phrase it in such a way that suggests they don't think it is likely?

Because it would seem to make less sense if it was not a question.



> Wenn er in zwei Jahren Spanisch sprechen kann, würde er mitkommen


----------



## elroy

The following English example might help you.

I think a game show host could say to a contestant: "If you *win* today, what *would* you *do* with the money?"*

The first part establishes a real possibility.  The second clause asks hypothetically about that possibility.  It's like saying "If this real possibility *were* *to* happen, what *would* you *do*?"

*I found this example in the _Boston Herald_: *If you win, what would you do? Take our poll here…*


----------



## Mozzerfan99

elroy said:


> The following English example might help you.
> 
> I think a game show host could say to a contestant: "If you *win* today, what *would* you *do* with the money?"*
> 
> The first part establishes a real possibility.  The second clause asks hypothetically about that possibility.  It's like saying "If this real possibility *were* *to* happen, what *would* you *do*?"
> 
> *I found this example in the _Boston Herald_: *If you win, what would you do? Take our poll here…*


That is a good example. But all the same I can't quite explain why that works in English, and really I am just trying to distil it down into an actual rule.

Is it the case that when asking questions, you can have one clause (the _wenn-_clause) in the indicative because that is a real possibility, but the other clause using Konjunktiv because you are not asking the person to commit to it - that is, you are leaving open the possibility that they might change their mind?

But then that doesn't seem to translate too well to the Spanish speaking example that has been discussed in the previous few messages, and that also wouldn't translate to English in the same way as the if-you-win-today example. 'If you can speak Spanish in two years, would you come with me?' doesn't make sense to me. You would have to have either both clauses in the indicative or both clauses in the subjunctive.


----------



## Sowka

This is how I see it:

The sentence from the OP would be absolutely correct if it read:
_1) Was würdet ihr tun, wenn ihr mitbekommen würdet, .._.

The sentence as it is stated in the OP:
_2) Was würdet ihr tun, wenn ihr mitbekommt, .._..

only has a different nuance. The use of Konjunktiv in the first part of the sentence makes it clear that it is about a hypothetical situation, and the use of Indikativ in the second part gives an impression of urgency. In the second part of the sentence, the Konjunktiv would feel more "theoretical". The person who asks the question wants the people who are replying to actually "feel" the situation (and the threat of being cheated on).

In this case, the hypothetical event depends completely on the third person (the one who simst ). That's why a sense of threat and urgency may arise.

In the Spanish-learning sentence, the hypothetical result depends almost entirely on the person who learns Spanish. So there is no possibility of threat, urgency, and such a nuance wouldn't make sense.

Since this is -- in my opinion -- only about nuances, there is no hard-and-fast rule.  I think if you are uncertain, you should always choose the safe option 1).


----------



## elroy

Your post made me realize something, @Sowka!

In English, we have _two_ subjunctive possibilities, and one of them conveys more distance than the other!  (I've said this a few times in the forum.) 

1. _What would you do if you *were to find *out that...? _
2. _What would you do if you *found* out...?_

I would say the difference between these two is the same as the difference in nuance you've described.  In (1), the possibility is portrayed as *more distant*.  Unlike German, though, English does not use the indicative in either case.  For me,

3. _What would you do if you *find* out...?_

is not possible.


----------



## Mozzerfan99

elroy said:


> 3. _What would you do if you *find* out...?_


Although oddly if you switch the clauses around that would seem to make more sense _ in some situations _(although I was always taught a conditional sentence needs to have the subjunctive in both clauses, so who knows how technically correct any of this is). 
One situation being the competition one - _if you win, what would you do_ seems fine, _would would you do if you win?_ really does not. 

But anyway, I digress


----------



## Mozzerfan99

Sowka said:


> This is how I see it:
> 
> The sentence from the OP would be absolutely correct if it read:
> _1) Was würdet ihr tun, wenn ihr mitbekommen würdet, .._.
> 
> The sentence as it is stated in the OP:
> _2) Was würdet ihr tun, wenn ihr mitbekommt, .._..
> 
> only has a different nuance. The use of Konjunktiv in the first part of the sentence makes it clear that it is about a hypothetical situation, and the use of Indikativ in the second part gives an impression of urgency. In the second part of the sentence, the Konjunktiv would feel more "theoretical". The person who asks the question wants the people who are replying to actually "feel" the situation (and the threat of being cheated on).
> 
> In this case, the hypothetical event depends completely on the third person (the one who simst ). That's why a sense of threat and urgency may arise.
> 
> In the Spanish-learning sentence, the hypothetical result depends almost entirely on the person who learns Spanish. So there is no possibility of threat, urgency, and such a nuance wouldn't make sense.
> 
> Since this is -- in my opinion -- only about nuances, there is no hard-and-fast rule.  I think if you are uncertain, you should always choose the safe option 1).


Do you think sentences with the structure of your second example (the one with an _Indikativ-_clause and a _Konjunktiv_-clause) would be used in more formal registers? 

And can you think of any examples when you would have a similar structure in a statement (is a statement even the grammatically correct term for the opposite of question? 😬I just mean a sentence that is not a question anyway.)


----------



## Sowka

Mozzerfan99 said:


> Do you think sentences with the structure of your second example (the one with an _Indikativ-_clause and a _Konjunktiv_-clause) would be used in more formal registers?


I think a formal survey would use a different wording, for example:

_Stellen Sie sich vor, Sie bemerken, dass Ihr Partner Textnachrichten mit einer anderen Frau austauscht. Wie reagieren Sie?_

I perceive the OP sentence as "spoken language", as also used in many forums.

I have to think about the "statement". 🤔


----------



## elroy

Mozzerfan99 said:


> And can you think of any examples when you would have a similar structure in a statement (is a statement even the grammatically correct term for the opposite of question? 😬I just mean a sentence that is not a question anyway.)


I would assume that that would work just as well as the structure with the question:

_Ich würde ausrasten, wenn ich mitkomme, dass.._

Natives?

(I think "statement" works, but the fancy linguistic term is "declarative sentence," or "declarative" for short. )


----------



## Sowka

elroy said:


> Ich würde ausrasten, wenn ich mitbekomme, dass..


Stimmt, das funktioniert für mich.


----------



## Sowka

Sowka said:


> Stimmt, das funktioniert für mich.


Although ... not quite. Because in this case, I'd be inclined to insert the "würde" *to make sure* that I'm talking only about a hypothetical case. I certainly don't want my partner to exchange sms with other women.


----------



## elroy

How about

_Wenn es morgen regnet, würde ich das Picknick absagen._


----------



## Frank78

elroy said:


> How about
> 
> _Wenn es morgen regnet, würde ich das Picknick absagen._



In spoken language you almost hear everything:

"Wenn es morgen regnet, sage ich das Picknick ab" (condition + straight forward fact/consequence)
"Wenn es morgen regnet, würde ich das Picknick absagen." (condition + a more diplomatically expressed consequence, undertone we've been looking forward to the picnic for quite some time, I regret calling it off)
"Wenn es morgen regnen würde/sollte, würde ich das Picknick absagen." (more hypothetical than the first two, undertone: really unlikely but just in case)


----------



## elroy

Here's how I might convey those nuances:



Frank78 said:


> "Wenn es morgen regnet, sage ich das Picknick ab" (condition + straight forward fact/consequence)


If it rains tomorrow I'll cancel the picnic.



Frank78 said:


> "Wenn es morgen regnet, würde ich das Picknick absagen." (condition + a more diplomatically expressed consequence, undertone we've been looking forward to the picnic for quite some time, I regret calling it off)


If it happens to rains tomorrow I'll have to cancel the picnic.



Frank78 said:


> "Wenn es morgen regnen würde/sollte, würde ich das Picknick absagen." (more hypothetical than the first two, undertone: really unlikely but just in case)


If it happened to rain tomorrow I would cancel the picnic.


----------



## manfy

Frank78 said:


> In spoken language you almost hear everything:



But you forgot the most likely version:
_Falls es morgen regnen *sollte*, verschieben wir das Picknick einfach auf den Samstag._​K2 'sollte' in the protasis indicates the real possibility of rain and present tense indicative in the apodosis shows that this plan of postponing is firm and probably preconceived. Indicative removes the feeling of uncertainty or any trace of ambivalence from the apodosis.

I could say a similar thing with indicative in both clauses, but that would suggest a much higher level of probability. 'Falls es morgen (wieder) regnet, machen wir <dies und das>' - this nuance of difference may not matter much in this specific sentence, but if you're talking about really important, life-changing things, this nuance may make a world of a difference!

So, contrary to English, in German we tend to mentally evaluate the protasis and the apodosis on their own merits and choose subjunctive or indicative accordingly.

BTW, I'd probably not say "falls es morgen regnen *würde*, ...". It somehow sounds really off. This sounds way too remote for me. Considering the short timeframe of the prediction, just a single day, and the unpredictability of normal weather phenomena like rain, 'sollte' is the K2 of choice.
K2 'würde' suggests a hint of irrealis in this specific context, ie. it suggests a highly unlikely or near impossible condition like snow in the middle of summer: "Wenn es morgen schneien würde, wäre das kein Problem - ich würde einfach ein Lagerfeuer machen und Glühwein ausschenken."
(PS: Picknick im Schneegestöber kann wirklich toll sein! Hab ich schon mal gemacht.  )


----------



## elroy

manfy said:


> I'd probably not say "falls es morgen regnen *würde*, ...". It somehow sounds really off. This sounds way too remote for me. Considering the short timeframe of the prediction, just a single day, and the unpredictability of normal weather phenomena like rain, 'sollte' is the K2 of choice.


Hmmm... are you sure that's not because of "falls"?  For some reason, falls + würde sounds odd to me, but falls + sollte sounds okay.  With "wenn," both sound okay to me: wenn + würde and wenn + sollte.

How do you feel about the following?

(1) Falls es morgen regnen würde...
(2) Falls es morgen regnen sollte...
(3) Wenn es morgen regnen würde...
(4) Wenn es morgen regnen sollte...

I've always thought "sollte" in this sense was too formal for ordinary everyday speech.


----------



## elroy

Mozzerfan99 said:


> if you *switch* the clauses around that *would seem* to make more sense _in some situations_


Do you see what you did there?


----------



## manfy

Mozzerfan99 said:


> Can you please elaborate on the difference between unreal and hypothetical? What specifically is meant by hypothetical, and why is it that the first clause is hypothetical but the second one isn't?


When I hear 'unreal' in connection with conditionals, I always get a sense of irrealis, ie. something that is practically impossible (which basically turns it into a closed conditional).
The question clause "was würdet ihr tun, wenn..." is clearly not impossible. It marks a hypothetical consequence of a condition that is currently false, but one that may happen at any given time.

In a hypothetical scenario we have two forms:
1) By default I understand _hypothetical _as something that can really happen. In English you usually call that an open conditional.
2) And then there's also a purely hypothetical scenario; that's something that's possible but extremely unlikely or it's something that's technically impossible but you look at it as if were possible nevertheless, e.g. "If I had wings and could fly like a bird, I'd...
I think you call that a remote conditional in English.

Regarding first clause is hypothetical and second is not:
That's the actual crux of the matter! Technically speaking, the introductory question clause "was würdet ihr tun, wenn..." is just used to mark the hypothetical nature of what is to follow. _Normally _- based on standard language logic - the second clause should be in the same mood, "wenn ihr mitkriegen *würdet*, dass..."
However, German gives us the flexibility to break that type of 'normality'. The introductory clause with past subjunctive "was *würdet *ihr tun" is enough to mark the whole sentence as hypothetical and therefore we are at liberty to add different nuances in the clauses that follow.

Imagine this:
Let's say I'm a guy who just found out that his girlfriend cheated on him. Let's also assume I'm for some reason shocked and don't know what to think or do and while out in town I just happen to meet my best friend and we go somewhere to a Cafe or bar and talk about it. Since it factually happened to me, I might be inclined to ask my friend at some point:
"...das Blöde ist, ich weiß gar nicht, wie ich reagieren soll. _Was würdest du machen, *wenn du merkst*, dass deine Freundin mehrgleisig fährt?_ ..."
With indicative 'wenn du merkst' I'm not trying to imply that his girlfriend is actually doing that too, but I use it because that very thing that just happened to me has become such a real, factual possibility that my mind jumps into indicative mood.

Hmm, maybe there's some psychological voodoo going on here  ...I'm projecting something that happened to me onto others, so as to be able to treat it with the emotional distance that this situation requires...

[edit: typos]


----------



## manfy

elroy said:


> (1) Falls es morgen regnen würde...
> (2) Falls es morgen regnen sollte...
> (3) Wenn es morgen regnen würde...
> (4) Wenn es morgen regnen sollte...
> 
> I've always thought "sollte" in this sense was too formal for ordinary everyday speech.


Yes, there are some cases where _wenn _and _falls _makes a difference; but not here. I'd use _sollte _in both cases.

In this usage, sollte is not formal for me. It's a modal verb and therefore it's normal to use it in preterite and proper K2.
I'd even use it in dialektal speech:
Wenns morgn regnet... (Wenn/falls es morgen regnet) -> marking real possibility/probability
Wenns morgn regnan tadad... (Wenn es morgen regnen täte) -> very dialectal; marking low probability (and/or irrealis)
Wenns morgn regnan sullad... (Wenn es morgen regnen sollte) -> marking low probability and yet real potential possibility

The last one conveys the idea of "Should it so happen that it rains..."


elroy said:


> For some reason, falls + würde sounds odd to me, but falls + sollte sounds okay.


Yes, that's true. I guess that comes from the fact that "falls" already conveys the connotation that what follows is an unlikely event and somehow it jars with the meaning/connotations of _würde _(in this sentence, at least). _Falls + sollte_, on the other hand, works well.


----------

