# I might go to the beach if the sun shines



## Rizan

1) _ I *might* go to the beach if the sun *shines*. _

2) _I *might* go to the beach if the sun *shined*._ 

Are 1) and 2) the same?


----------



## bennymix

The second item,  2), is not grammatical.

1) more often would be said as "I might go to the beach if the sun is shining."


----------



## Rizan

bennymix said:


> The second is not grammatical.


Isn't the second sentence a "second conditional"?


----------



## bennymix

No, because 'second conditionals' are posed as grammatical.

Here is a second conditional:    If I won the lottery, I would buy a 20-room mansion.


----------



## Rizan

bennymix said:


> No, because 'second conditionals' are posed as grammatical.
> 
> Here is a second conditional:    If I won the lottery, I would buy a big house.


Do you mean "might" is not used in "second conditionals"?

What about this:

I might buy a new flat if I won the lottery.


----------



## Edinburgher

Sentence 1 is a first conditional, because "shines" is present tense.  It nevertheless uses "might", and this indicates that there is a hidden additional condition.  The sun shining is necessary but not sufficient.  Even if the sun shines, you might not go to the beach. It will depend on whether you feel like it.

Sentence 2 is incorrect.  If you want it to be a second conditional, you would need "shone", not "shined".  "Might" would be fine in a second conditional; it's quite similar to the more typical "would".

Edit: No, that was wrong. See #9 below.


----------



## Rizan

Edinburgher said:


> Sentence 1 is a first conditional, because "shines" is present tense.  It nevertheless uses "might", and this indicates that there is a hidden additional condition.  The sun shining is necessary but not sufficient.  Even if the sun shines, you might not go to the beach. It will depend on whether you feel like it.
> 
> Sentence 2 is incorrect.  If you want it to be a second conditional, you would need "shone", not "shined".  "Might" would be fine in a second conditional; it's quite similar to the more typical "would".


Is this correct:

_I *might* go to the beach if the sun *shone*._


----------



## bennymix

Here's a line on second conditionals:   *Second Conditional* This conditional is used to talk about the *unreal possibility* or impossible events. 

So,   "If the sun didn't shine during the Pope's illness, I'd become a Catholic!"


----------



## Edinburgher

Rizan said:


> Is this correct:
> 
> _I *might* go to the beach if the sun *shone*._


Actually, come to think of it, no, it doesn't work.  This is because the 2nd conditional generally expressed something highly improbable.
When you say "if the sun shone", you are already implying that the sun is not shining.  But "might" still implies a possibility.  These two are incompatible.


----------



## Rizan

Edinburgher said:


> Actually, come to think of it, no, it doesn't work.  This is because the 2nd conditional generally expressed something highly improbable.
> When you say "if the sun shone", you are already implying that the sun is not shining.  But "might" still implies a possibility.  These two are incompatible.


Doesn't "if the sun shone" mean the sun might shine in the near future and therefore an "*open*" possibility, although it is an unlikely event?


----------



## Edinburgher

Not really.  The second conditional is the present/future equivalent of what the third conditional is for the past.
"If I were a rich man" implies that I am not rich.  I suppose there is a remote possibility that I might become rich, but it would be unexpected.
The speaker would not expect the sun to start shining any time soon.


----------



## Rizan

Edinburgher said:


> Not really.  The second conditional is the present/future equivalent of what the third conditional is for the past.
> "If I were a rich man" implies that I am not rich.  I suppose there is a remote possibility that I might become rich, but it would be unexpected.
> The speaker would not expect the sun to start shining any time soon.


What about these:

3) _I *could* go to the beach if the sun *shines*._ 

4) _I *could* go to the beach if the sun *shone*._ 

Can I say that 3) is an offer and 4) is incorrect?


----------



## Edinburgher

I wouldn't say 3 is an offer, though I suppose it could be.  It sounds a little unusual.
I wouldn't quite go so far as to say that 4 is incorrect.  It's hypothetical.  The sun is not shining, but if it were, then I could go to the beach (there would be no reason that I could not go).  It sounds very unusual.


----------



## Rizan

Edinburgher said:


> Actually, come to think of it, no, it doesn't work.  This is because the 2nd conditional generally expressed something highly improbable.
> When you say "if the sun shone", you are already implying that the sun is not shining.  *But "might" still implies a possibility.  These two are incompatible.*


Is the following possible?

_I *might* buy a new flat if I *won* the lottery._

Or is it not possible for the same reason stated above?

What about this:

_He *might* buy a new flat if He *won* the lottery._


----------



## Edinburgher

Rizan said:


> Or is it not possible for the same reason stated above?


Yes.  It should be "if I *win* the lottery" or "if he *wins* the lottery".


> What about this:


What makes you think there might be a difference between the "I" and "he" cases?


----------



## Rizan

Edinburgher said:


> Yes.  It should be "if I *win* the lottery" or "if he *wins* the lottery".
> 
> What makes you think there might be a difference between the "I" and "he" cases?


Do we use "might" in second conditionals at all?


----------



## Edinburgher

Rizan said:


> Do we use "might" in second conditionals at all?


I don't think it's likely.

Edit:  But see #22 below.


----------



## Rizan

Edinburgher said:


> I don't think it's likely.


Consider this sentence, please:

_Your child *might* do better if she *had* a different teacher._

Is this sentence correct?


----------



## sound shift

(Reply to #18)

Yes.


----------



## Vronsky

I wonder if I can use the sentence

"I might go to the beach if the sun shone." (or better "was shining")​
to express a past action. I don't want to use "would", because it expresses a habit or repeated action, but I want to say that I occasionally went to the beach. Does "might" work for you in this case?


----------



## Rizan

Vronsky said:


> I wonder if I can use the sentence
> 
> "I might go to the beach if the sun shone." (or better "was shining")​
> to express a past action. I don't want to use "would", because it expresses a habit or repeated action, but I want to say that I occasionally went to the beach. Does "might" work for you in this case?


I think "could" would sound much better in your sentence. I don't think your sentence is wrong, just that this particular use of "might" is rather old-fashioned and is not used much nowadays.

I could go to the beach if/when the sun was shining ⇒ I was allowed to go the beach/ It was possible for me to go to the beach If/when...


----------



## Edinburgher

Rizan said:


> Consider this sentence, please:
> _Your child *might* do better if she *had* a different teacher._
> Is this sentence correct?


I agree that this would work.  It might count as a mixed 1st/2nd conditional, though, instead of a 2nd. 


Vronsky said:


> I wonder if I can use the sentence
> 
> "I might go to the beach if the sun shone." (or better "was shining")
> to express a past action.


No.  "I might go" expresses a future possible action.
For a past putative action, you want "I might *have gone* to the beach if the sun *had been shining*."


----------



## Rizan

Edinburgher said:


> I agree that this would work.  It might count as a mixed 1st/2nd conditional, though, instead of a 2nd.


Could you please explain how this is a mixed 1st/2nd conditional?


----------



## Edinburgher

Rizan said:


> Could you please explain how this is a mixed 1st/2nd conditional?


It has the condition (if-part) of the 2nd conditional ("if the sun shone"), with the verb in simple past or subjunctive,
but the main clause (or then-part) uses "might" in a 1st conditional kind of way, like in the example earlier in this thread (see #6).


----------



## Florentia52

“I might go to the beach if the sun was shining“ would work as a description of habitual behavior in the past.

When I was younger, I usually went down to the coast for a week in March. I would bake cookies and write in my journal if it was raining. I might go to the beach if the sun was shining.


----------



## Edinburgher

Florentia52 said:


> “I might go to the beach if the sun was shining“ would work as a description of habitual behavior in the past.


Ah yes, I agree it would work if we already knew that the context involved past habit. Without that prior knowledge, we'd be likely to interpret "if the sun *was* shining" as a subjunctive-unfriendly version of "if the sun *were* shining", and thus as applying to a hypothetical situation in the present.

I hope all these enemies of the subjunctive know what problems they're causing!


----------



## Rizan

Edinburgher said:


> It has the condition (if-part) of the 2nd conditional ("if the sun shone"), with the verb in simple past or subjunctive,
> but the main clause (or then-part) uses "might" in a 1st conditional kind of way, like in the example earlier in this thread (see #6).


Do you mean in this sentence:

_Your child *might* do better if she *had* a different teacher._ 

the main clause resembles the main clause of a first conditional, while the conditional clause resembles that of a second conditional?

Is the following possible and is there any difference in meaning?

_Your child *might* do better if she *has* a different teacher._


----------



## Edinburgher

Rizan said:


> the main clause resembles the main clause of a first conditional, while the conditional clause resembles that of a second conditional?


Yes, that's what I mean.


> _Your child *might* do better if she *has* a different teacher._


This doesn't sound good to me.  She doesn't have a different teacher, and therefore the condition is always false.
But it would work with a different verb.  You could change "has" to "gets" or "goes to" or "changes to".


----------



## Rizan

The thread is getting unnecessarily long. But this discussion is very important for me. I hope you don't mind.


Edinburgher said:


> Yes, that's what I mean.
> 
> This doesn't sound good to me.  She doesn't have a different teacher, and therefore the condition is always false.
> But it would work with a different verb.  You could change "has" to "gets" or "goes to" or "changes to".


So, do these mean the same?

1)  _Your child *might* do better if she *gets* a different teacher._ 
2)  _Your child *might* do better if she *got *a different teacher._


----------



## bennymix

I seems we're back at post #1.   There were 16 replies to that and to your 12 follow-up questions.   Please say what is not clear.


----------



## Rizan

bennymix said:


> I seems we're back at post #1.   There were 16 replies to that and to your 12 follow-up questions.   Please say what is not clear.


OK.
In conclusion, It seems to me that we can use "might" in "second conditionals" or "first conditionals", depending on context. But we *cannot* use "might" in two different conditionals in the same context *simultaneously*, as in post #29. Is this conclusion correct?


----------



## Edinburgher

The context is almost built into the statements.  In your #29, the difference between (1) and (2) is in the outlook.
"If she gets" is more optimistic.  The speaker may even have a particular teacher in mind, for the child to move to, and the prospects of the child "doing better" are good.
"If she got" sounds much more hypothetical.  There probably is no suitable teacher available (yet?), and the child is doomed to being stuck (for now?) with the existing crappy teacher.

In short, a fair amount of nuance can go into the conditions and into the main clauses, in a way that can't really be classified easily.


----------



## Rizan

Edinburgher said:


> The context is almost built into the statements.  In your #29, the difference between (1) and (2) is in the outlook.
> "If she gets" is more optimistic.  The speaker may even have a particular teacher in mind, for the child to move to, and the prospects of the child "doing better" are good.
> "If she got" sounds much more hypothetical.  There probably is no suitable teacher available (yet?), and the child is doomed to being stuck (for now?) with the existing crappy teacher.
> 
> In short, a fair amount of nuance can go into the conditions and into the main clauses, in a way that can't really be classified easily.


OK. Now I understand the difference between the two conditional clauses. But do they in any way affect "might" in the result clause?

1) _Your child *might* do better if she *gets* a different teacher._
2) _Your child *might* do better if she *got *a different teacher._

As a non-native speaker, I see no difference in the *result clauses*, because both look exactly the same. But are they really the same? If you were to paraphrase the two "might"s, how would you paraphrase them?


----------



## Edinburgher

There is no real difference in the result clauses.  "Might" is a form of the verb "may", and expresses something that is perhaps possible.  There is doubt, but with a strong hint of optimism.  It is less confident than "can" or "will" and even than "could" or "would".  As I keep saying, it involves additional conditions that are not being mentioned.  The new teacher will perhaps help the child do better, or perhaps not.


----------



## Rizan

Edinburgher said:


> There is no real difference in the result clauses.  "Might" is a form of the verb "may", and expresses something that is perhaps possible.  There is doubt, but with a strong hint of optimism.  It is less confident than "can" or "will" and even than "could" or "would".  As I keep saying, it involves additional conditions that are not being mentioned.  The new teacher will perhaps help the child do better, or perhaps not.


Thank you for all your replies. They were really helpful. I'll just ask two more questions and then I'll end this thread.

*Q1)* As you said in post #22, you consider the following sentence a *mixed 1st/2nd conditional*:

a)_ Your child *might* do better if she *had* a different teacher._ 

Would you replace the "might" in a) with "may"?

*Q2)* Would you agree on the following?

b) _Your child *could* do better if she *gets* a different teacher._ 

c) _Your child *could* do better if she *got* a different teacher._

Sentence b) is a *mixed 1st/2nd conditional* and sentence c) is a* pure second conditional*.


----------



## Edinburgher

Q1: Yes, I might.
Q2: I think I agree that (c) is 2nd.
Remember that one key difference between 1st and 2nd is the verb tense in the if-part.  That's the part in which (a) and (b) are different ("had"/"gets").
I suppose you could call one of them mixed 1st/2nd and the other mixed 2nd/1st.


----------



## Rizan

Edinburgher said:


> I suppose you could call *one of them* mixed 1st/2nd and the other mixed 2nd/1st.


You mean one of these:

_Your child *might* do better if she *had* a different teacher.
Your child *could* do better if she *gets* a different teacher._

Right?


----------



## Edinburgher

Rizan said:


> Right?


Yes.  "One of them" = one of (a) and (b).


----------



## Packard

In the American English I grew up with, neither sounds idiomatic.

_I might go to the beach if it is sunny out._

Sunny definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary


*sunny*
_
 (sʌni  )

*Word forms: *comparative sunnier  ,  superlative sunniest 
1. adjective
When it is sunny, the sun is shining brightly.
 The weather was surprisingly warm and sunny. 
 There is a chance of sunny spells in the West.
_


----------



## sound shift

Packard said:


> In the American English I grew up with, neither sounds idiomatic.


Neither really works for me in my BrE, either. 





Packard said:


> _I might go to the beach if it is sunny out._


I would omit the "out", because it's never sunny "in".


----------



## Packard

sound shift said:


> Neither really works for me in my BrE, either. I would omit the "out", because it's never sunny "in".


The "out" does seem unnecessary, but I think it is a fairly common way of phrasing this.  I just googled "sunny out" in quotations and only 558,000 hits and many of those hits were actually misses.

_<Non-contributory image removed by moderator (Florentia52)>_


----------



## Rizan

Packard said:


> The "out" does seem unnecessary, but I think it is a fairly common way of phrasing this.  I just googled "sunny out" in quotations and only 558,000 hits and many of those hits were actually misses.
> 
> _<Non-contributory image removed by moderator (Florentia52)>_


"Sunny out" is actually common, I think: sunny out | English examples in context | Ludwig


----------



## Rizan

bennymix said:


> The second item,  2), is not grammatical.


As I was revisiting this thread, this question came to my mind: would you consider the following ungrammatical too?

_ If the sun *was/were* shining*,* I *might* go to the beach.

I *might* go to the beach*,* if the sun *was/were* shining._


----------



## Edinburgher

Rizan said:


> would you consider the following ungrammatical too?
> _If the sun *was/were* shining*,*_ I *might* go to the beach.
> _I *might* go to the beach*,* _if the sun *was/were* shining.


There are two separate issues here.  One is whether "shined" is a legitimate alternative to "shone" as the simple past (or subjunctive) form of the verb.  On that point, I would say "shined" is very close to incorrect.  This form is used only rarely.

The other issue is the problem that "if the sun was/were shining" can only be used for a present counterfactual situation.  The sun is in fact not shining.  We can't use "I might go" with this, because it means "it is possible that I will go (but it depends on some additional condition)".  But of course it is not possible, because the sun is not shining..  What might work instead is "I would go" or "I would be going" or "I might have gone" or "I might have been going".


----------



## Rizan

Edinburgher said:


> There are two separate issues here.  One is whether "shined" is a legitimate alternative to "shone" as the simple past (or subjunctive) form of the verb.  On that point, I would say "shined" is very close to incorrect.  This form is used only rarely.
> 
> The other issue is the problem that "if the sun was/were shining" can only be used for a present counterfactual situation.  The sun is in fact not shining.  We can't use "I might go" with this, because it means "it is possible that I will go (but it depends on some additional condition)".  But of course it is not possible, because the sun is not shining..  What might work instead is "I would go" or "I would be going" or "I might have gone" or "I might have been going".


Does "I might have gone" or "I might have been going" refer to the future?

Would you say the same thing about:

_I *could* go with you to the market if I *wasn't* ill._

that is, "could" is not possible rather "could have gone" is possible?


----------



## Edinburgher

Rizan said:


> Does "I might have gone" or "I might have been going" refer to the future?


In the context of a conditional that refers to the present (the sun is not shining now), it also refers to the present.


> Would you say the same thing about:
> _I *could* go with you to the market if I *wasn't* ill._


Yes.  "If I wasn't ill" (or preferably "If I weren't ill") means I am in fact ill now, and cannot go to the market with you.
"I could go" is too positive to be used in an impossible, so you need "I could have gone".
But you could use "I would go" because "would" does not have the same positivity as "could".


----------



## Rizan

Edinburgher said:


> But you could use "I would go" because "would" does not have the same *positivity* as "could".


In terms of *decreasing *"positivity", can I say the following order holds true?

Should *>=* might *>* could *> *would


----------



## Edinburgher

No, I don't think so.  In this sense an auxiliary verb either has positivity or lacks it.  Of those four, only "would" lacks it.


----------



## Rizan

Last question:



Edinburgher said:


> The other issue is the problem that "if the sun was/were shining" can only be used for a present counterfactual situation.  The sun is in fact not shining.  We can't use "I might go" with this, because it means "it is possible that I will go (but it depends on some additional condition)".  But of course it is not possible, because the sun is not shining..  What might work instead is "I would go" or "I would be going" or "I might have gone" or "I might have been going".


You seem to have provided *above* a logical explanation for why the following sentence doesn't make sense:

_I *might* go to the beach if the sun *was/were* shining._ 

Doesn't the same logic apply to the following sentence, _which you accepted as correct at *post #22*_?

_Your child *might* do better if she *had* a different teacher._

Explanation similar to the one given above: _We can't use "Your child might do better" with this, because it means "it is possible that she will do better (but it depends on some additional condition)".  But of course it is not possible, because she *does not have* a different teacher.._


----------



## Edinburgher

Rizan said:


> Doesn't the same logic apply to the following sentence, _which you accepted as correct at *post #22*_?


No.  This is because going to the beach is about now, and the sun is not shining now.  "If the sun were shining" represents a condition that cannot be true.  Going to the beach is therefore out of the question.

The situation with the teacher is different.  "Doing better" is about the future, not the present.  Having a different teacher (than now) is also not about the present.  It is possible for the child to change to a different teacher, and this may well result in the child doing better.  "If she had a different teacher" is a condition that can be true.


----------



## Rizan

Edinburgher said:


> * Having a different teacher (than now) is also not about the present.*  It is possible for the child to change to a different teacher, and this may well result in the child doing better.  "If she had a different teacher" is a condition that can be true.



Do you mean "had" in "_if she *had* a different teacher_" means to receive, accept, or allow something to happen.


----------



## Edinburgher

Rizan said:


> Do you mean "had" in "_if she *had* a different teacher_" means to receive, accept, or allow something to happen.


It's the ordinary "possess" meaning of "have", or perhaps "to be in a certain relation to".  If someone teaches you regularly, we say that you "have a teacher".  The relevant relation would be a pupil/teacher relation.
"If she had a different teacher" means "if someone else were teaching her instead".  By logical extension it means "if she were to change to a different teacher".


----------



## Rizan

Edinburgher said:


> It's the ordinary "possess" meaning of "have", or perhaps "to be in a certain relation to".  If someone teaches you regularly, we say that you "have a teacher".  The relevant relation would be a pupil/teacher relation.
> "If she had a different teacher" means "if someone else were teaching her instead".  By logical extension it means "if she were to change to a different teacher".


Everything is clear now. Thank you for you time, effort and patience. Your replies were very helpful. I really appreciate them all. Thank you very much!


----------

