# Verbs in counterfactual condition clauses indicative



## sunyaer

Recently, when discussing with people the use of if clause, I found there are a few terms that I feel confused about. One is subjunctive and indicative, another is counterfactual condition clause. I usually think that if a if clause is counterfactual condition, the verb is subjunctive. When the verb in the clause is indicative, this clause is not called counterfactual condition. Here are examples for me to ask questions.

1. "If he were your friend, he would help you."

2. "If he was there, he would help you."

3. "If he was there, he would have helped you."

Are these if clauses indicative or subjunctive? How can verbs in counterfactual condition clauses be usually considered indicative?


----------



## JamesM

1 is definitely subjunctive.  It is counterfactual.  He is not your friend.  If he were your friend he would help you.

2 is a form that is taking the place of the subjunctive for some people.  "If he was your friend, he would help you" means the same thing to many people as "If he were your friend, he would help you."  I like the subjunctive because it gives a clear signal that you are not posing a hypothetical, you are implying that he is not the person's friend.  Think of this in contrast to the sentence "If he was there, I didn't see him."  You are not stating that he wasn't there.  You don't know whether he was there or not.  All you know is that you didn't see him.

3 doesn't make sense to me.  I would write it as "If he had been there, he would have helped you."   I don't see how the two tenses you have in your example can go together in that context.


----------



## Parla

In my opinion, the first sentence is the only correct one.


----------



## Wordsmyth

I think I may be able to cast some light on sunyaer's confusion (by taking examples of verbs other than the verb _to be_) but first I'd like your help in doing some groundwork, James:

In the sentence "If you asked your friend, he would help you", what mood do you consider "asked" to be?  

It's not a catch question, honestly, but either way your answer will help me clarify a point I was trying to make to sunyaer earlier. (Your view is welcome too, Parla).

Thanks

Ws
.

PS. Sunyaer, James's comments in point 2, above, coincide with part of what I was saying in our other discussion. I'm sure his answer to my latest question (whatever it is) will help you understand the other part of the story.


----------



## sunyaer

Wordsmyth said:


> ...
> In the sentence "If you asked your friend, he would help you", what mood do you consider "asked" to be?
> ...



It's subjunctive, to my knowledge. But what I don't quite understand is: can we consider that verbs in counterfactual condition clauses are usually indicative? As I understand, verbs in counterfactual condition clauses are subjunctive. I link counterfactual with subjunctive.


----------



## JamesM

Wordsmyth said:


> I think I may be able to cast some light on sunyaer's confusion (by taking examples of verbs other than the verb _to be_) but first I'd like your help in doing some groundwork, James:
> 
> In the sentence "If you asked your friend, he would help you", what mood do you consider "asked" to be?


 
To me it's simply a conditional sentence based on a hypothetical, but I wouldn't call it the subjunctive.  It's the Second Conditional form, isn't it?  You are talking about something that might happen and your prediction of the result.

.


----------



## Wordsmyth

OK, that's a perfect demonstration of what I was saying in our other discussion, sunyaer. You consider "asked", in my example, to be subjunctive. James doesn't. It could be said that you're both right.

Historically, the verb in a counterfactual condition clause was in the past subjunctive. However, in modern English the past subjunctive is identical to the past indicative, except for the 1st- and 3rd-person singular of the verb _to be_. Because of this, it has long been considered that the verb in a counterfactual condition clause is the past indicative (simple past or past perfect) — and I think you'll find that most teaching sources describe it as indicative. 

Compare these examples of 2nd conditional constructions:

(a) If you asked your friend, he would help you.  
(b) If he were your friend, he would help you.
(c) If he was your friend, he would help you.

- If you prefer the 'traditional' (historical) idea that the verb in the condition clause is always subjunctive, then you'll use (a) and (b), but not (c). For you, "asked" and "were" are then both subjunctive. 

- If you prefer the idea that the verb in the condition clause is indicative, and you want to be entirely consistent, then you'll use (a) and (c). "Asked" and "was" are then both indicative. 

- If you accept that the verb in the condition clause is indicative except when it's the 1st- or 3rd-person singular of the verb_ to be_, then you'll use (a) and (b). Now "asked" is indicative and "were" is subjunctive. Many teaching sources take this approach, and explain the apparent anomaly by considering that the use of "were" is a remnant of a historical construction.

As James mentioned in #2, some people prefer to use "were" when there's an obviously unreal condition ("If I were a millionaire, I'd buy a Ferrari") and "was" in _if_-clauses that express a 'maybe / maybe not' idea ("If he was there, I didn't see him"). Actually the latter isn't a conditional construction, because my not seeing him didn't depend on his being there; "if" is just being used in place of "whether or not".

Does that help?

Ws


----------



## Belliv

Sorry but  the 3rd sentence wouldn't be:

if he had been there, he would have helped you ?

Thanks.


----------



## sunyaer

Wordsmyth said:


> Compare these examples of 2nd conditional constructions:
> 
> (a) If you asked your friend, he would help you.
> (b) If he were your friend, he would help you.
> (c) If he was your friend, he would help you.
> 
> - If you prefer the 'traditional' (historical) idea that the verb in the condition clause is always subjunctive, then you'll use (a) and (b), but not (c). For you, "asked" and "were" are then both subjunctive.
> 
> - If you prefer the idea that the verb in the condition clause is indicative, and you want to be entirely consistent, then you'll use (a) and (c). "Asked" and "was" are then both indicative.



According to the above analysis, (a) could be interpreted as subjunctive and indicative. Now the question is: does the if clause in (a) mean differently based on subjunctive or indicative interpretation? Also, do (b) and (c) have different meanings?


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Hullo.

Confusion arises when, in analyzing the grammar of a certain language, the logic and labeling of a different language are employed. In the following three sentences

(a) If you *asked* your friend, he *would help* you. 
(b) If he *were* your friend, he *would help* you.
(c) If he *was* your friend, he *would help* you. 

the parts in bold on the left are the ways English has developed to represent what _would be called_ "Imperfect Subjunctive" _in the translated versions in one of the Romance languages._

The parts in bold on the right side, on the other hand, are the ways English has developed to represent what _would be called_ "Present Conditional" _in the translated versions in one of the Romance languages.
_
English does not have a Subjunctive* mode or a Conditional mode.

Obviously, the traditional Continental-European labeling system has its flaws:
1. the portion of the sentence naming the _condition_ to be fulfilled is expressed by a _subjunctive_; 
2. the portion of the sentence naming the event depending on the realization of the condition expressed by the _subjunctive_ is expressed by a _conditional.
_
And then some.

GS 

*Except for the verb _BE_.


----------



## Wordsmyth

Belliv said:


> Sorry but  the 3rd sentence wouldn't be:
> 
> if he had been there, he would have helped you ?


 Please read JamesM's post #2, point 3.


sunyaer said:


> _[...]_ Now the question is: does the if clause in (a) mean differently based on subjunctive or indicative interpretation? _[...]_


 No. It's just a question of labelling. Most people neither know nor care how it's labelled; they just know what it means. Since the subjunctive and indicative forms are written identically, the question is academic.


sunyaer said:


> _[...]_ Also, do (b) and (c) have different meanings?


 I don't see how they could have. It's clearly a 2nd conditional construction (as is shown by "would help"). Someone hearing (c) has no more need to wonder what it means than does someone hearing (a).


Giorgio Spizzi said:


> Confusion arises when, in analyzing the grammar of a certain language, the logic and labeling of a different language are employed.
> _[...]_
> English does not have a Subjunctive* mode or a Conditional mode.
> _[...]_
> *Except for the verb _BE_.


Sorry, Giorgio, but English _does_ have subjunctive and conditional moods. It's just that the verb forms that express them aren't inflective. 

The present subjunctive has the same form as the bare infinitive (though of course it's a finite verb form), and is immediately recognisable in the 3rd person singular. Whatever the form, if a clause conveys one of the several subjunctive senses (and these are similar to some of those in the Romance languages), then the mood is subjunctive. 

The conditional mood is expressed by a distinct verb form. Again it's not inflective: it's periphrastic (modal + bare infinitive), the modal usually being _would_. And once again, if a clause expresses the consequence of meeting a condition, the mood is conditional.

It's not about the shape of the box; it's about what's inside it.


Giorgio Spizzi said:


> _[...] _Obviously, the traditional Continental-European labeling system has its flaws:
> 1. the portion of the sentence naming the _condition_ to be fulfilled is expressed by a _subjunctive_;
> 2. the portion of the sentence naming the event depending on the realization of the condition expressed by the _subjunctive_ is expressed by a _conditional. __[...] _


  In the Romance languages I'm familiar with (which sadly don't include Italian), the verb in a hypothetical condition clause is in an _indicative_ past tense (exactly as it's generally considered to be in English*) — and not in the subjunctive. Those indicative past tenses are the imperfect and the pluperfect in Romance languages I know, whereas they're the simple past and the pluperfect (past perfect) in English. In fact, in those Romance languages (because of the distinct inflected form), there isn't any possibility of wondering whether it's the indicative or a historical subjunctive, as there is in English.

* (with the exception of the 1st- and 3rd-person singular "were")

... Or have I misunderstood what you were saying?

Ws


----------



## Forero

sunyaer said:


> Recently, when discussing with people the use of if clause, I found there are a few terms that I feel confused about. One is subjunctive and indicative, another is counterfactual condition clause. I usually think that if a if clause is counterfactual condition, the verb is subjunctive. When the verb in the clause is indicative, this clause is not called counterfactual condition.


I agree, generally speaking.

Past subjunctive is the correct verb form for expressing a counterfactual condition, but most verbs have the same form in past indicative and in past subjunctive, so this tends to be a moot point. Only subjunctive "were" where the indicative would be "was" and an inverted condition with "had" (e.g. "Had I not seen him first, ...") are unequivocably past subjunctive forms.

And, in spite of the name, a counterfactual does not have to be something impossible or out of accord with reality. We use counterfactuals any time we want to avoid suggesting that something might be the case:

"If I were to die tonight," he thought, "my parents would be sad."

This does not say the speaker thought he was not to die that night. He simply did not want to consider whether imminent death was possible. (It might have been unthinkable without being impossible.)

We also use counterfactuals to make a logical point without having to reveal what we believe, for example for something we believe is possible, even true, but that we suspect our audience does not believe.





> 1. "If he were your friend, he would help you."


= "Were he your friend, he would help you." Counterfactual. "He were" and "were he" are subjunctive.





> 2. "If he was there, he would help you."


Not counterfactual. Past tense version of "If he is there, he will help you." "He was" and "he is" are indicative.





> 3. "If he was there, he would have helped you."


There seems to be something missing here. What do you want it to mean?





> Are these if clauses indicative or subjunctive? How can verbs in counterfactual condition clauses be usually considered indicative?


Verbs in subordinate clauses within counterfactual clauses can be in past indicative despite being part of the counterfactual idea:

"If he were doing that every time I was talking to him, I would begin to think that was all he ever does."
"If he were doing that every time I were talking to him, I would begin to think that was all he ever does."


----------



## boozer

I agree with Wordsmyth on all counts. The question of whether those verbs are in the subjunctive or the indicative is purely academic (except for the verb 'were', which is definitely in the subjunctive). I personally would never agree that English unreal/counterfactual conditionals are in the subjunctive. In addition, I have argued before, that according to some grammarians there is a conditional mood in the English language and I tend to agree, on no authority whatsoever, of course.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I avoid using the word_ counterfactual _altogether because I know that some people don't distinguish between conditions which are impossible, and those which just don't happen to be the case at the moment.

The language often distinguishes sharply between the two, so I'm surprised that they are sometimes placed under the same umbrella.


----------



## boozer

Well, I do not place them under the same umbrella, TT. 'If she was in London' is counterfactual; 'If I were an ant' is both counterfactual and impossible.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

boozer said:


> Well, I do not place them under the same umbrella, TT. 'If she was in London' is counterfactual; 'If I were an ant' is both counterfactual and impossible.


I know you don't, Boozer, but then you're a class apart.


----------



## sunyaer

Parla said:


> sunyaer said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 1. "If he were your friend, he would help you."
> 
> 2. "If he was there, he would help you."
> 
> 3. "If he was there, he would have helped you."
> 
> 
> 
> In my opinion, the first sentence is the only correct one.
Click to expand...


If "you" changes to "her" in sentence 2 and 3, are they correct in some context? (I think they are correct in a context like this: I don't know if he was there, but if it's a fact that he was, he would help her or he would have helped her.)


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I suspect that Parla's objection to 2. and 3. is that it uses _if he was_ rather than_ if he were_.  Some Americans won't countenance that.

Altering pronouns is neither here nor there in this sort of construction. It's usually the relationship between the tenses of the verbs which needs attention; it's that which is crucial to the correctness or otherwise of the sentence.


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Hullo, Wordsmyth. 

1_. "... if a clause expresses the consequence of meeting a condition, the mood is conditional."

_I beg to differ. 
If this were true, by the same token we could say that if a clause expresses the notion of _futurity_, then its _tense_ is future. Maybe you think that "I'll tell you" contains a _future tense,_ but I abandoned that view a very long time ago. 

2._ In the Romance languages I'm familiar with (which sadly don't include Italian), the verb in a hypothetical condition clause is in an __indicative past tense (exactly as it's generally considered to be in English*) — and not in the subjunctive. 

_This is not true.
There's not _one_ language among the Romance languages where the subjunctive—either present or imperfect—_is not different_ from any of the tenses of the indicative. I'm referring to Portuguese, Spanish, Catalan, French, Italian, Rumanian—plus Rhaetian, Ladin and Sardinian.

Back to English. This extraordinarily language has succeeded in reaching levels of modernity unknown to all other tongues in the world—maybe with the exception of the Swedish tense and mood system.
The way I see it, English has two finite tenses, which could be variously labelled—past, preterite, etc. and non-past, present, etc.
What we usually call preterite/past has progressively specialized in the expression of a *distance*: 

1. a chronological *distance* between the moment of the utterance and the moment of the action/process/event/state of things to which the utterance refers in the _real_ world ("I met her in the park yesterday"), and
2.a psychological *distance* between the moment of the utterance and _the same moment_ in a _virtual_ world ("I'm not sure I'd recognize her if I met her in the park").

This is the way I see it, and I thank you for giving me the opportunity of this exchange. 

GS


----------



## Wordsmyth

Forero, I agree with everything in your #12 except for one detail:


Forero said:


> 2. "If he was there, he would help you."
> 
> 
> 
> Not counterfactual. Past tense version of "If he is there, he will help you." _[...] _
Click to expand...

 It's true that if you take_ "If he is there, he will help you"_ (1st conditional) and shift both verbs into the past, you get sentence 2. But that's a 2nd conditional construction (_If_ + past tense ... _would_ ...). The only meaning I can imagine for _"If he was there, he would help you"_ is the same as _"If he were there, he would help you"_, which you're saying *is* counterfactual. In that case, if the one is, surely the other must be. 

Can you think of any other meaning for sentence 2? 

Bear in mind that in conditional sentences (apart from the zero conditional) the tense of the verb in the condition clause is one step further "back" than the one in the consequence clause. This is only a grammatical device; it doesn't actually shift the time of the condition backwards. So ...
- _"If he is there, he will help you" —_ "is" is the present tense, but it refers to a future condition (his being there at the time that he _will_ help you).
- _"If he was there, he would help you" —_ "was" is the past tense, but it refers to a present condition – just the same as _"If he were there"_ does. It's counterfactual, because it implies that he's not there.
- _"If he had been there, he would have helped you" —_ "had been" is the pluperfect tense (further past than the past), but it refers to a 'one-step-back' past condition, again counterfactual.

It's perhaps more obvious with verbs other than _to be_.
- _"If you ask, he will help you" // __"If you asked, he would help you" //_ _"If you had asked, he would have helped you"._

There it's easy to see that "asked" doesn't have a past meaning. Similarly "was" doesn't have a past meaning in sentence 2 _ —_ unless you can convince me that the sentence could have some meaning I've overlooked.

Ws


----------



## Forero

Wordsmyth said:


> Can you think of any other meaning for sentence 2?


We AmE speakers are less likely to use "if he was" to mean "if he were"/"were he". The meaning of "if he was" that it does not share with "if he were"/"were he" is plain ordinary past tense:

A: "[I am not sure I see him, but] if he is there, he will help you."
B: "What did you say?"
A: "I said [I was not sure I saw him, but] if he was there, he would help you."

If he were there, he would indeed be there; but if he was there, he may have subsequently left. (Think of Lewis Carroll's "[...] if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't.")


----------



## JamesM

boozer said:


> Well, I do not place them under the same umbrella, TT. 'If she was in London' is counterfactual; 'If I were an ant' is both counterfactual and impossible.



"If she was in London" by itself is not necessarily counterfactual.  "Where was she when she called you?  If she was in London she must have called you on  Tuesday."  She was in London on Tuesday.  The person speaking is forming a premise that leads to more information. There is no denial that she was in London.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

JamesM said:


> "If she was in London" by itself is not necessarily counterfactual.  "Where was she when she called you?  If she was in London she must have called you on  Tuesday."  She was in London on Tuesday.  The person speaking is forming a premise that leads to more information. There is no denial that she was in London.


I imagined that Boozer was thinking of someone saying this when she was not, in fact, in London.

This is the one which I've noticed AE members disliking in the past.

An example which has been used in the past:

A boss talking to an employee about poor work -

1. _ If I were to sack you_ (the employee has no worries; he's not going to be sacked).
2.  _If I was to sack you_ (the employee should listen hard; sacking is on the cards).

Unless I've misunderstood, this refinement is only possible in BE, where the boss has the choice; in AE it would have to be 1., I think.


----------



## JamesM

Thomas Tompion said:


> I imagined that Boozer was thinking of someone saying this when she was not, in fact, in London.



Yes, but that was the point.  It is a hypothetical that does not automatically carry a counterfactual meaning in the way that "If I were rich" does.



> Unless I've misunderstood, this refinement is only possible in BE, where the boss has the choice; in AE it would have to be 1., I think.



It depends on the AE speaker.   For me, though, only 1) would apply.  For the effect of 2) I would use "If I sack you".  Is there some distinction for you between:

A. If I was to sack you.
B. If I sack you.


----------



## boozer

Exеllent, James and TT!  We are right on it - BE vs AE. A. is just a tad more polite and tentative for me, but definitely an option. Of course, TT is right about the meaning I intended.  She is definitely not in London when she says If I was in London...


----------



## JamesM

Then what is the difference for you between "If I was in London..." and "If I were in London..."?  And what does "If I was rich" mean, then... that it's more likely you will be rich?

What I understand you to be saying is that there are varying degrees of likelihood:

1. If I were to sack you
2. If I was to sack you
3. If I sack you

How does that apply to:

1. If I were in London
2. If I was in London
3. If I am in London

As I use them, 1 means you are definitely not in London, 2 means that you are considering the condition where you actually were in London (like my example above), and 3 is considering the possibility that you are in London right now.


----------



## boozer

JamesM said:


> 1. If I were to sack you you are safe
> 2. If I was to sack you I just might
> 3. If I sack you 50:50 I am hesitating
> 
> How does that apply to:
> 
> 1. If I were in London I cannot possibly be there
> 2. If I was in London I could easily be there but I am not
> 3. If I am in Lonon I am keeping you in suspense - I may well be in London
> 
> As I use them, 1 means you are definitely not in London, 2 means that you are considering the condition where you actually were in London (like my example above), and 3 is considering the possibility that you are in London right now.


----------



## JamesM

Interesting.  I'm pondering this. So, is this the same use of "If I was in London..." for you, or is it different but uses the same words?

"Where was I when I called you? If I was in London I must have called you on Tuesday."

The person was in London on Tuesday.  She is pinning down the date of the call and speaking about something in the past.  It's not counterfactual.  Is this a different mood/form than "If I was in London I'd be in a pub right now"?  I'm wondering if there is an overlap that is accepted in British English and not accepted for some American English speakers.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Hi James,

For me_ If I was in London, I must have called you on Tuesday_ is not the same at all.  It's surely not a true conditional sentence.  It means _Given that I was in London, I must have called you on Tuesday_.

I know people do say it, but I'm reluctant to, because I don't like false conditionals.


----------



## Wordsmyth

Forero said:


> We AmE speakers are less likely to use "if he was" to mean "if he were"/"were he". The meaning of "if he was" that it does not share with "if he were"/"were he" is plain ordinary past tense:
> 
> A: "[I am not sure I see him, but] if he is there, he will help you."
> B: "What did you say?"
> A: "I said [I was not sure I saw him, but] if he was there, he would help you."
> 
> If he were there, he would indeed be there; but if he was there, he may have subsequently left. (Think of Lewis Carroll's "[...] if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't.")


That almost sounds convincing ... but not quite. I see it like this:

Good examples of _if_-clauses where "was" is not counterfactual, and is not a 2nd conditional, are:
- Your own: _"__if he was there, he *may have* subsequently left"_
- Lewis Carroll's: _"If it was so, it *might* be"_
- James's: _"If she was in London she *must have* called you on Tuesday"

_Compare those with these counterfactual 2nd conditionals:
- Your own: _"If he were there, he *would* indeed be there"_
- Lewis Carroll's: _"if it were so, it *would* be"_ 

Notice anything? Now reconsider the famous sentence 2: _ "If he was there, he *would* help you".
_ 
It's the "would" that inescapably makes it a 2nd conditional. After that, "was", in the _if_-clause, must have the same sense as "were". Or if you don't accept that construction, and you want "was" to be as in the first set of examples above, then the verb in the main clause shouldn't be "would". With "was" preceding "would", I honestly can't see what that sentence could actually mean.

I think your A/B/A conversation, with the introduction of reported speech, is a bit of a red herring. This is actually a different use of "would", to express the future-in-the-past in a subordinate clause:
- I *say* (that) he *will* help you.
- I *said* (that) he *would* help you. (That's not a conditional "would".)
Adding the _if_-clause makes it really complicated to analyse, but it doesn't alter the function of the "would". 

In fact I'm not sure that "if he was there" is even correct. The reported speech requires a backshift, to be consistent with "said", so "will" becomes "would"; but at that past point where we're looking forward to his helping, we're also looking forward to his possibly being there. So I think I would say that sentence as:
- _"I said that he would help you,__ if he was going to be there__";_ ("was going to" then echoes the future-in-the-past of "would"). 
There's still a temptation to hear the "would" as a conditional "would" because of the presence of "if", but in the reordered sentence it's easier to see that it's actually not.

And now my brain hurts ...!

Ws


----------



## JamesM

Thomas Tompion said:


> Hi James,
> 
> For me_ If I was in London, I must have called you on Tuesday_ is not the same at all.  It's surely not a true conditional sentence.  It means _Given that I was in London, I must have called you on Tuesday_.
> 
> I know people do say it, but I'm reluctant to, because I don't like false conditionals.




But it doesn't mean "Given that I was in London..."  In this situation she was in several places.  She was in London on only one day.  She cannot recall what city she was in when she called her friend. _If _she told her friend she was in London when she called (let's say she always says "Just calling from X to say hello" when she's traveling) then it must have been Tuesday because that was the only day she was there.  She doesn't yet have the "given" until the friend tells her what city she said she was calling from.  It's a genuine conditional, much like an IF/THEN statement in programming.


----------



## Wordsmyth

.
Giorgio, re your #19, we appear to be using different terminology (which isn't surprising, given the variation that exists among linguists of different persuasions!).


Giorgio Spizzi said:


> _[...]_
> 1_. "... if a clause expresses the consequence of meeting a condition, the mood is conditional."_
> 
> I beg to differ.
> If this were true, by the same token we could say that if a clause expresses the notion of _futurity_, then its _tense_ is future. _[...]_


 Not the same token, I'd say. For me, _tense_ normally refers to a verb form that expresses a time reference; whereas I subscribe to the idea that _mood_ is a quality of a sentence or clause that is variously described as reflecting the intention, attitude, sentiment or motive of the speaker — which may be indicative, imperative, subjunctive, conditional, etc (although only some sources consider the conditional as a mood; others don't, though I've never understood why). The structure of the verb forms used to convey those moods varies between languages. I recognise that some people (including you, I guess) use the term _mood_ with a narrower definition, referring only to the verb form itself. 


Giorgio Spizzi said:


> _[...]_ Maybe you think that "I'll tell you" contains a _future tense,_ but I abandoned that view a very long time ago. _[...]_


 Yes, for me (as for the vast majority of normal mortals) English does have future tenses. It's just that they're not formed by inflection, but by adding auxiliaries; (even the Romance languages do that for some tenses). Tense is simply a way of grammatically referencing time. I don't see why changing or adding bits at the end should be any more legitimate than adding bits at the beginning.


Giorgio Spizzi said:


> _[...]_
> 2._ In the Romance languages I'm familiar with (which sadly don't include Italian), the verb in a hypothetical condition clause is in an __indicative past tense (exactly as it's generally considered to be in English*) — and not in the subjunctive. _
> 
> This is not true.
> There's not _one_ language among the Romance languages where the subjunctive—either present or imperfect—_is not different_ from any of the tenses of the indicative. _[...]_


 I don't deny that, but that's not at all what I said. I said that the verb that's used in a hypothetical condition clause is an indicative (not a subjunctive, as you suggested). I can't give examples here in EO, but just try it for yourself. Take _"If you asked your friend, he would help you"_ (1st verb: a past indicative; 2nd verb: conditional). Now translate it into French, and you get the same construction (1st verb: a past indicative; 2nd verb: conditional). The only difference is that in English the indicative verb is the simple past, whereas in French it's the imperfect, but it's still the indicative (not, as I understood you to say, the imperfect subjunctive). 

My reason for raising that was to point out to sunyaer that the concept of a hypothetical condition being expressed by an indicative in English (rather than the subjunctive, which he/she seemed to want) is not so unusual, because that also occurs in other languages.


Giorgio Spizzi said:


> _[...] _The way I see it, English has two finite tenses, which could be variously labelled—past, preterite, etc. and non-past, present, etc. _[...] _


 OK, feel free. But don't be surprised if very few people agree with you. I don't think that theory is ever taught to learners (native or otherwise), and if it were I believe it would only cause confusion, as it runs counter to all established principles. I can't imagine an exercise in which people are asked to put a past sentence into the 'non-past'! And if you don't want to call the non-inflected tenses 'tenses', what will you call them: something along the lines of "those bits of the non-past tense that express the future"? That'd really confuse everyone, and to no good purpose that I can see. I think I'll stick to "the future tense".

Ws


----------



## boozer

JamesM said:


> Interesting.  I'm pondering this. So, is this the same use of "If I was in London..." for you, or is it different but uses the same words?
> 
> "Where was I when I called you? If I was in London I must have called you on Tuesday."
> 
> The person was in London on Tuesday.  She is pinning down the date of the call and speaking about something in the past.  It's not counterfactual.  Is this a different mood/form than "If I was in London I'd be in a pub right now"?  I'm wondering if there is an overlap that is accepted in British English and not accepted for some American English speakers.


Some people believe in the existence of past open conditions. I am one of them, although my faith in Santa Claus is badly shaken of late.  Anyway, I think your intention is to use this as a past open condition and it does work if you genuinely have no idea where you were on Tuesday. Yes, I think this is different from a standard second conditional. Insofar as it is an open condition, I peronally consider it a form of type 1 conditional. Indeed, the apodosis may use any tense - If I was in London on Tuesday and John finds out, he will be angry I did not call him.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

JamesM said:


> But it doesn't mean "Given that I was in London..."  In this situation she was in several places.  She was in London on only one day.  She cannot recall what city she was in when she called her friend. _If _she told her friend she was in London when she called (let's say she always says "Just calling from X to say hello" when she's traveling) then it must have been Tuesday because that was the only day she was there.  She doesn't yet have the "given" until the friend tells her what city she said she was calling from.  It's a genuine conditional, much like an IF/THEN statement in programming.





JamesM said:


> [...]
> 
> "Where was I when I called you? If I was in London I must have called you on Tuesday."
> 
> The person was in London on Tuesday.  She is pinning down the date of  the call and speaking about something in the past.  It's not  counterfactual.  Is this a different mood/form than "If I was in London  I'd be in a pub right now"?  I'm wondering if there is an overlap that  is accepted in British English and not accepted for some American  English speakers.


I'm wondering if you ought not then to have said - _"Where was I when I called you? If it was Tuesday, then I must have been in London"._

To set up your sentence, shouldn't the opening question be different? - _"When did I call you? If I was in London, I must have called you on Tuesday."_

In neither case, in BE, would we use _were_ instead of _was_ in the if-clause.


----------



## intolerandus

sunyaer said:


> 1. "If he were your friend, he would help you."
> 
> 2. "If he was there, he would help you."


  The mixture of moods ("was" in the protasis of the second clause is in the indicative) is actually a well-known linguistic phenomenon called neutralization. The more interesting case, for instance, is when the verbs in both protasis and apodosis are also subject to the rule of the sequence of tenses:
_
 I told her I would give her a divorce in New York if she wanted it.
_
  (there's no understanding whether "would give" and "wanted" are past indicative or past subjunctive here, i.e. whether it's real future or low-probable future; *or*, to use those ugly modern terms coined for some inexplicable reasons, whether it's the 1st or the 2nd conditional meaning.)


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Hullo, Words.

_"If you asked your friend, he would help you" (1st verb: a past indicative; 2nd verb: conditional)__.__Now translate it into French, and you get the same construction (1st verb: a past indicative; 2nd verb: conditional).

_Again, no. 1st verb: Imperfect Subjunctive (_different_ from Imperfect or Past Indicative); 2nd verb: Present Conditional.

It's very unfortunate we're not allowed to write in languages other than English. 

GS


----------



## sunyaer

intolerandus said:


> ...
> _
> I told her I would give her a divorce in New York if she wanted it.
> _
> (there's no understanding whether "would give" and "wanted" are past indicative or past subjunctive here, i.e. whether it's real future or low-probable future; *or*, to use those ugly modern terms coined for some inexplicable reasons, whether it's the 1st or the 2nd conditional meaning.)



How can we tell what this sentence means?


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Hullo, sun.

How can we tell what this sentence means?

1. I said to her "I will give you a divorce in N.Y if you want it" ("Original" direct speech)
2. I told her I (will+ED) give _her_ a divorce in N.Y. if _she_ (want+ED) it. (Indirect speech showing changes in tense and pronoun forms)
3. I told her I would give her a divorce in New York if she wanted it. (The final product).

GS


----------



## intolerandus

sunyaer said:


> How can we tell what this sentence means?


We don't know how probable her wish to get a divorce is, that's the point.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

We can't know how likely she is to want a divorce.  The sentence leaves the question open, as with many conditional sentences.


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

So sorry, sun, I thought you were interested in the morpho-syntactic "genesis" of the sentence.

GS


----------



## sunyaer

Wordsmyth said:


> It's perhaps more obvious with verbs other than _to be_.
> - _"If you ask, he will help you" // __"If you asked, he would help you" //_ _"If you had asked, he would have helped you"._
> 
> There it's easy to see that "asked" doesn't have a past meaning.



See if "asked" works in referring to the past in this context:

Speaker A: I know they used to be good friends.

Speaker B: Definitely. If she asked for help, he would help her.

I have used "used to" in speaker A to force anything they talk about into the domain of the past, does this work?


----------



## velisarius

You are moving from the topic of counterfactual conditionals sunyaer. "If" meaning "whenever" and the habitual past are another topic altogether.

Please open a new thread if that is what you want to discuss now.


----------



## Wordsmyth

Giorgio Spizzi said:


> Hullo, Words.
> 
> _"If you asked your friend, he would help you" (1st verb: a past indicative; 2nd verb: conditional)__.__Now translate it into French, and you get the same construction (1st verb: a past indicative; 2nd verb: conditional).
> 
> _Again, no. 1st verb: Imperfect Subjunctive (_different_ from Imperfect or Past Indicative); 2nd verb: Present Conditional.
> 
> It's very unfortunate we're not allowed to write in languages other than English.
> 
> GS


 Just in case I'd entered some sort of space-time warp where reality is distorted , I put the question to a French friend who is a teacher (of French). 

Answer: definitely _1st verb: imperfect *indicative*; 2nd verb: present conditional.

_But we seem to have reached a sort of _"'tis–'tisn't__–__'tis__–__'tisn't"_ impasse here, so I'll PM you with some examples that might make it clearer. 

Sunyaer can always look it up somewhere if he/she wants to check on the precedent of indicatives in _if_-clauses in other European languages, and how that compares with English.

Ws


----------



## sunyaer

velisarius said:


> You are moving from the topic of counterfactual conditionals sunyaer. "If" meaning "whenever" and the habitual past are another topic altogether.
> 
> ...


I was trying to come up with a counterfactual condition in the past. Let's see if the following context works.

 Plaintiff's attorney is questioning a witness as to establish a fact in the past, assuming that "if she asked him for money" is unknown. 


 Plaintiff's attorney: Did you know that she asked him for money?

 Witness: I did not know.

 Plaintiff's attorney: If she asked him for money, how would he react?

 Witness: Based on the way I knew them, if she asked him for money, he would feel bad.


----------



## Wordsmyth

Sorry, sunyaer, but that example doesn't work for what I think you're trying to achieve.

First you say (I think) that we don't know whether she asked him for money. But the question _"__Did you know that she asked him for money?"_ tells us that she _did_ ask him for money. The attorney is simply asking whether she knew that.

The question _"__If she asked him for money, how would he react?", _and the reply _"__if she asked him for money, he would feel bad",_ are present conditional constructions, not past.   

_"If she asked him for money_ [now or at some future time]_, ..."_ has the same meaning as _"If she were to ask him for money, ..."._

_"Asked"_, in those sentences, is either past indicative or past subjunctive (depending on your preferred school of thought), but does not have a past meaning. (See posts #7 and #20).   

Ws


----------



## Forero

Wordsmyth said:


> Notice anything? Now reconsider the famous sentence 2: _ "If he was there, he *would* help you".
> _
> It's the "would" that inescapably makes it a 2nd conditional. After that, "was", in the _if_-clause, must have the same sense as "were". Or if you don't accept that construction, and you want "was" to be as in the first set of examples above, then the verb in the main clause shouldn't be "would".


If it is "will" in present tense, why shouldn't it be "would" in past tense?

By the way, I am not trying to be convincing, I am trying to explain what "if he was" means to me. I believe it means the same to many Americans, but I don't mean to suggest it must mean the same to a BrE speaker.

_Would_ is ambiguous, but for me it is the accompanying "was" that makes "would" most likely to be meant as the past tense of "will". I use "If he were there" for a counterfactual, not "If he was there".

If "will" in "If he is there, he will help you" is future in the present, then "would" in "If he was there, he would help you" is future in the past.

I was thinking of "will" in "If he is there, he will help you" as expressing his agreeability, like "If he is there, he is willing to help you." In the past, then, "If he was there, he would help you" means very nearly "If he was there, he was willing to help you."

"If" with an indicative (such as "was") follows the same pattern as "when", but the meaning is broader. "When" usually means "at a time or times in which"; "if" means "under circumstances in which", circumstances include but are not limited to time. "Whenever" means "at any time or times in which"; "if ever" means "under any circumstances in which".

I hope this is enough to convey my understanding of "If he was there, he would help you."

I am fascinated by the use of "if ... was ..." as a counterfactual of a different type than "if ... were ...".


----------



## Wordsmyth

Taken point by point, Forero, I can't really fault your arguments (that's "arguments" in the non-conflictual sense, of course ). 

"Would" is indeed the past tense of "will", grammatically speaking — and sometimes (when not a conditional) it's the past of "will" in its meaning.

I can also accept that most BrE speakers, hearing "would" after an _if_-clause, assume that it's a present conditional, and so they hear "was" accordingly — but that many AmE speakers (for whom the 2nd conditional construction requires "were") hear "was" as non-counterfactual, and so they expect "would" not to be conditional.

So far, so good. 

Where I get stuck, leaving aside the grammatical analysis, is in trying to understand in what situation you might actually use _"If he was there, he would help you"_ ...

- Imagine that you're going to paint a fence this afternoon. I know that a friend, Jack, is willing to help you if he can be there (because he told me so yesterday). So I say to you, _"If he is there, he will help you"_. That works: we don't yet know if he'll help you, because we don't yet know if he'll be there.

- Now imagine that it's the next day. Either Jack was there yesterday, and he helped you (or for some reason didn't), or he wasn't there and didn't help you. Either way, we'd know, so _"If he was there"_ doesn't apply. Of course, it's possible that he was there, but you didn't know it (let's say he was asleep behind your garden shed), and we still don't know he was there; but I still wouldn't say _"If he was there, he would help you"_, because "would" (as future-in-the-past) is predictive, and I know he didn't help you. Actually, since we probably assume that he wasn't there (because you didn't see him), I'm more likely to say _"If he had been there, he would have helped you" _– and there we're back to an assumed counterfactual condition.  

So I'm very willing to believe that _"If he was there, he would help you"_ means the same to many Americans as it does to you. I just don't know what that meaning is, or in what situation you'd use it  — but I'm prepared to be enlightened. 

I'm also curious to know how your reasoning applies to verbs other than the verb _to be_: If you hear _"If you asked him, he would help you"_, do you (as I do) instinctively understand it as a 2nd conditional? Or do you take it as (or at least weigh up the possibility of it being) a real past situation, with "would" meaning "was willing to"?

Ws


----------



## Forero

It seems we have different interpretations of the word _if_ too. To me, _if he was there_ or _if you asked him_ does not require anyone not to know whether he was there or whether you asked him. "If he was there, he would help you" just means that his being there implied his being willing to help you (or his having the custom of helping you, or his destiny being to help you, etc., depending on which meaning of _will_/_would_ is intended). It means, in effect, the same as "If he would not help you, he was not there."

Similarly, "If you asked him, he would help you" might mean that your asking him to help you was sufficient reason for him to do just that.


----------



## sunyaer

Forero said:


> ...To me, _if he was there_ or _if you asked him_ does not require anyone not to know whether he was there or whether you asked him.
> ...



It seems this use applies to habitual act only. When it refers to a single event related to a specific time in the past, if clause does require the speaker not to know whether he was there or whether you asked him. Is this understanding correct?

If the speaker knows that he was not there or you didn't ask him, the context has become being counterfactual, forcing the "if he had been /you had asked" construction to be more logical.


----------



## Wordsmyth

OK, Forero, I see it now, and I'd say sunyaer (in #50) is right. If you're using "if" in the sense of "whenever", and "would" to express the habitual past (with the sense of "used to"), then _"If he was there, he would help you"_ makes sense (= 'Whenever he was there, he helped you' _or_ 'When he was there he used to help you').

That interpretation didn't dawn on me before, because the discussion has been essentially about the conditional use of "if", referring to a single occasion.

Also, I'd say that the use of "would" for "used to" has become less common these days, at least in BrE, except in literary (and perhaps some regional) usage; so the tendency, when seeing "if" followed by "would", is to look for a counterfactual condition.

Ws


----------



## Forero

sunyaer said:


> It seems this use applies to habitual act only. When it refers to a single event related to a specific time in the past, if clause does require the speaker not to know whether he was there or whether you asked him. Is this understanding correct?
> 
> If the speaker knows that he was not there or you didn't ask him, the context has become being counterfactual, forcing the "if he had been /you had asked" construction to be more logical.


I don't see "If he was there, he would help you" as having to refer to a habitual act. It means the same as "Either he would help you or he was not there." It may refer to one time in the past or many, and it is true if he would help you and false if he was there but would not help you. _Will_ has several possible meanings here, but I am mainly thinking of "If he was there, he would help you" with the meaning "If he refused to help you, (it was because) he was not there."

"He was there" is a simple statement about the past. So is its opposite "He was not there". Neither is counterfactual.

"He would not help you" = "He refused to help you" is a simple statement about the past, and so is its opposite "He would help you" = "He did not refuse to help you". To me neither necessarily suggests a counterfactual.

And as I see it, "If _x_ then _y_", where _x_ and _y_ are simple statements about the past, is also a statement about the past and does not in my mind become counterfactual just because it happens to involve a past tense in the "if" clause and "would" in the main clause.


----------



## JamesM

Forero said:


> I don't see "If he was there, he would help you" as having to refer to a habitual act. It means the same as "Either he would help you or he was not there." It may refer to one time in the past or many, and it is true if he would help you and false if he was there but would not help you. _Will_ has several possible meanings here, but I am mainly thinking of "If he was there, he would help you" with the meaning "If he refused to help you, (it was because) he was not there."



That's interesting.  To me that meaning is represented by "If he had been there, he would have helped you."   My brain goes tilt on "If he was there, he would help you".



> "Either he would help you or he was not there."




Can you give a little context where this meaning appears for you?  I'd like to see it in context.  That might help me connect with it.


----------



## Forero

JamesM said:


> That's interesting.  To me that meaning is represented by "If he had been there, he would have helped you."   My brain goes tilt on "If he was there, he would help you".


That sounds counterfactual to me. It is not what I mean. I mean that either he was not there or he was willing to help you, one or the other is fact (or both).


----------



## JamesM

I understand each of your words, Forero, but I don't see how I could say that.  

A: "Was Tom there or not?"
B: "I'm not sure."
A: "Well, if he was there, he would help.you."  ???

Is that the kind of context you're picturing?   That's why I asked for context.

 I can see it in a habitual action.

"Tom was the kind of guy that always pitched in.  If he was around, he would help you with whatever you were working on."

I can see that, but how would I say it with "If he was there" and how would I say it for a single event?


----------



## Forero

JamesM said:


> I understand each of your words, Forero, but I don't see how I could say that.
> 
> A: "Was Tom there or not?"
> B: "I'm not sure."
> A: "Well, if he was there, he would help.you."  ???
> 
> Is that the kind of context you're picturing?   That's why I asked for context.
> 
> I can see it in a habitual action.
> 
> "Tom was the kind of guy that always pitched in.  If he was around, he would help you with whatever you were working on."
> 
> I can see that, but how would I say it with "If he was there" and how would I say it for a single event?


Are you saying that for you "he was around" works, but "he was there" does not, even in the context of habitual helping?

For me "he was there" and "he would help you" can each mean lots of things, but none of the possible meanings disappear when I put them together with "if". Here is some context that, I hope, will illustrate one of the meanings I have in mind:

Right now: _You can't tell me he is here right now but he won't help. I know him well enough to say that if he is here now, he will help you. Perhaps he does not hear you._

On a single occasion in the past: _You can't tell me he was there right then but he wouldn't help. I know him well enough to say that if he was there at that time, he would help you. Perhaps he did not hear you._

I put all these time adverbials in to force the "single event" (single occasion) meaning I have in mind. Without them, "if he is here, he will help you" might mean "if he is here, he will always help you" and "if he was there, he would help you" might mean "if he was there, he would always help you", but the absence of "at that time", etc., does not force the meaning "always". At least not for me.

And in the same way, "if he was there" does not come to mean "if he were there" merely by being in a context where "if he were there" is possible.

So for me "If he was there, he would help you" in the absence of context to the contrary can as easily mean something very close to "If he was there at that particular time, then he was at that particular time willing to help you" as anything else.


----------



## Wordsmyth

Forero said:


> _[...] _So for me "If he was there, he would help you" in the absence of context to the contrary can as easily mean something very close to "If he was there at that particular time, then he was at that particular time willing to help you" as anything else.


I think I see why I'm having trouble with that (and perhaps why James is, too).

It's true that going back in (the mists of?) time, "will" had the sense "is/am/are willing to", or "want(s) to"; and that "would" meant "was/were willing to", or "wanted to".

But in present-day English, the use of "will" as a future modal has virtually erased that earlier meaning. In _"If he is there, he will help you"_, "will" would generally be understood as predictive, not as a statement of his present willingness. If I said _"Johnny will tidy his room"_, I don't think you'd take it as as a statement that he's willing to do it.

In the same way, the uses of "would" in conditionals, or for the future-in-the-past (usually in subordinate clauses), or for past habitual actions, have largely displaced the earlier meaning of "was willing to". If you were asked _"How did Johnny behave this morning?"_, I think you'd be unlikely to say _"He would tidy his room"_.

Interestingly, that original sense has been retained in negative statements. _"He won't listen to a word I say"_ (he refuses to, or is unwilling to, at the present time); and _"He wouldn't listen to a word I said"_ (he refused to, or was unwilling to, at some past time). That has a bearing on your ...


Forero said:


> _[...] You can't tell me he was there right then but he wouldn't help. I know him well enough to say that if he was there at that time, he would help you. __[...] _


_ "He was there right then but wouldn't help" _clearly means that he refused (or was unwilling) to help. 

But now let's imagine that he _was_ willing. Would you naturally say _"He was there right then and would help"_?  (I wouldn't. I'd say _"He was there right then and was willing to help"_).  

I'm wondering if the addition of the _if_-clause in _"If he was there, he would help you"_ somehow makes it sound more normal to you, because of familiarity with "if ... would" conditional constructions — but then of course we're back to counterfactual conditions! 

Ws


----------



## JamesM

Forero said:
			
		

> So for me "If he was there, he would help you" in the absence of context to the contrary can as easily mean something very close to "If he was there at that particular time, then he was at that particular time willing to help you" as anything else.




This is definitely where we got off track (or split ways).  "He would help you" doesn't mean to me "he was (at that particular time) _willing_ to help you".  I think Wordsmyth put his finger on the point of confusion.


----------



## Forero

Wordsmyth said:


> I think I see why I'm having trouble with that (and perhaps why James is, too).
> 
> It's true that going back in (the mists of?) time, "will" had the sense "is/am/are willing to", or "want(s) to"; and that "would" meant "was/were willing to", or "wanted to".
> 
> But in present-day English, the use of "will" as a future modal has virtually erased that earlier meaning. In _"If he is there, he will help you"_, "will" would generally be understood as predictive, not as a statement of his present willingness. If I said _"Johnny will tidy his room"_, I don't think you'd take it as as a statement that he's willing to do it.
> 
> In the same way, the uses of "would" in conditionals, or for the future-in-the-past (usually in subordinate clauses), or for past habitual actions, have largely displaced the earlier meaning of "was willing to". If you were asked _"How did Johnny behave this morning?"_, I think you'd be unlikely to say _"He would tidy his room"_.


Willingness is not behavior.





> Interestingly, that original sense has been retained in negative statements. _"He won't listen to a word I say"_ (he refuses to, or is unwilling to, at the present time); and _"He wouldn't listen to a word I said"_ (he refused to, or was unwilling to, at some past time). That has a bearing on your ...
> 
> _ "He was there right then but wouldn't help" _clearly means that he refused (or was unwilling) to help.
> 
> But now let's imagine that he _was_ willing. Would you naturally say _"He was there right then and would help"_?  (I wouldn't. I'd say _"He was there right then and was willing to help"_).


Yes, I could say that, but something does seem to be missing. How about "Because he was there right then, he could and would help"?

I understand "Will you help me?" as something besides asking you to predict your own behavior and "Yes, I will help you" as something to do with disposition or willingness. The same goes for "I asked if you would help me" and "You said you would help me."

I see "Won't you help me?" as something close to "Aren't you willing to help me?" and "he will help" in "Yes, if he is there, he will help" as something close to saying he is willing to help.

I say "something close" because, in my mind, "he will" in this sense is about as close to "he is willing" as "he can" is to "he is able". There is a difference, but I find it hard to express.  I suspect it is this subtle difference that sometimes, but not always, gets in the way going from a negative context to a positive one and this difference that makes "will" and "can" defective verbs.





> I'm wondering if the addition of the _if_-clause in _"If he was there, he would help you"_ somehow makes it sound more normal to you, because of familiarity with "if ... would" conditional constructions — but then of course we're back to counterfactual conditions!
> 
> Ws


No, on the contrary, it is probably familiarity with "if ... would" counterfactuals that makes it hard for you to see the other meanings of something like "If he was there, he would help you".

On the other hand, even "if he were there, he would help you" seems to me to be saying something closer to "if he were there, he would be willing to help you" than to "if he were there, he would be going to help you."

It bothers me to hear people say things like "If he would have done that sooner, he wouldn't be in this fix" because I expect "if he would" to mean what it does in "If he would help you, you could finish sooner", again something to do with willingness, and I have trouble with the idea of willingness to "have done" something.


----------



## sunyaer

Forero said:


> I don't see "If he was there, he would help you" as having to refer to a habitual act.



When it's not referring to a habitual act, would you agree that it requires the speaker not to know whether or not he was there at the particular time being concerned?



Forero said:


> ...
> I understand "Will you help me?" as something besides asking you to predict your own behavior...
> 
> ...  I suspect it is this subtle difference that sometimes, but not always, gets in the way going from a negative context to a positive one and this difference that makes "will" and "can" defective verbs.
> ...



Would you elaborate a bit on  "something besides asking you to predict your own behavior" and "gets in the way going from a negative context to a positive one" ?


----------



## Forero

sunyaer said:


> When it's not referring to a habitual act, would you agree that it requires the speaker not to know whether or not he was there at the particular time being concerned?


No. I could for example say "We know he was there, and if he was there, he would help you."





> Would you elaborate a bit on  "something besides asking you to predict your own behavior"


For me, "Will you help?" is about your willingness to help, not about, for example, your destiny or your plans.





> and "gets in the way going from a negative context to a positive one" ?


Consider this part of Wordsmyth's post:





Wordsmyth said:


> _"He was there right then but wouldn't help" _clearly means that he refused (or was unwilling) to help.
> 
> But now let's imagine that he _was_ willing. Would you naturally say _"He was there right then and would help"_?  (I wouldn't. I'd say _"He was there right then and was willing to help"_).


I said that I could say either one but that "He was there right then and would help" by itself seems to be missing something, something that was not needed in the negative. I have to say I don't know off-hand what is behind this quirk of the language. Whatever it is, it gets in the way of simply substituting "be willing to" for _will_, even where I feel that _will_ is being used in a "be willing to" sense.

I also don't know why _will_/_would_ is defective, in other words why "I wonder if he might be willing to help" is fine but "I wonder if he might will help"*** is not, why "Being willing to help is important" works but not "Willing help is important"***, or why "He has always been willing to help" is fine but "He has always would help"*** is not.

All this means that "be willing to" is more versatile, for whatever reason, than _will_, so even though I think _will_ and "be willing to" sometimes have similar meanings, I know they are not true synonyms.

But consider something like the use of _any_ in the following conversation:

A: _He doesn't have any apples, but I do. Do you have any apples too?_
B: _Yes, I have any apples too._

Something is wrong with using _any_ in this sense, outside of a negative context.

Now consider _will_ in the "be willing to" sense in the following:

A: _He won't help, but I will. Will you help too?_
B: _Yes, I will help too._

For me, _will_ works in both the negative and the positive parts of this little dialog and has its "be willing to" sense throughout. In other words, _will_ in the "be willing to" sense does not have the problem that words like _any_ have with going from a negative to a positive context.


----------



## JamesM

I think of "I will" as a prediction of future actions.  "I will help" means that I am not helping at this exact moment but I will be helping in the future, even if it's only a moment away.   I don't think of it as "I am willing to help" at all.  

For example:

"I am willing to help but I don't have a ride." 
"I will help but I don't have a ride." 

The second one sounds very odd to me. To my ear it should be "I would help but I don't have a ride."  If they meant roughly the same thing I would expect both of these sentences to work.

"He will attend Harvard in the fall."
"He is willing to attend Harvard in the fall."

These mean completely different things to me.



			
				Forero said:
			
		

> For me, "Will you help?" is about your willingness to help, not about, for example, your destiny or your plans.


I'm honestly wondering if this quirk of the language is something that is regional or even personal, Forero.  My guess is that it's regional, like "might could".  "Would you help" is about willingness or inclination, to me.  "Will you help" is about committing to the action of helping.


----------



## Forero

JamesM said:


> I think of "I will" as a prediction of future actions.  "I will help" means that I am not helping at this exact moment but I will be helping in the future, even if it's only a moment away.   I don't think of it as "I am willing to help" at all.
> 
> For example:
> 
> "I am willing to help but I don't have a ride."
> "I will help but I don't have a ride."
> 
> The second one sounds very odd to me. To my ear it should be "I would help but I don't have a ride."  If they meant roughly the same thing I would expect both of these sentences to work.
> 
> "He will attend Harvard in the fall."
> "He is willing to attend Harvard in the fall."
> 
> These mean completely different things to me.
> 
> 
> I'm honestly wondering if this quirk of the language is something that is regional or even personal, Forero.  My guess is that it's regional, like "might could".  "Would you help" is about willingness or inclination, to me.  "Will you help" is about committing to the action of helping.


I have heard "might could", but I don't use it.

I agree with what you are saying about your examples in this post. _Will_ in those examples is not about willingness.

But Wordsmyth agrees that at least one of my sentences is about willingness, so I know it is not just me. It is also mentioned in Merriam-Webster's:





> _past_ *would* _present singular & plural_ *will*
> 
> *Definition of WILL*
> 
> _transitive verb_
> 
> :  DESIRE, WISH <call it what you _will_>
> 
> _verbal auxiliary_
> 
> *1* —used to express desire, choice, willingness, consent, or in negative constructions refusal <no one _would_ take the job> <if we _will_ all do our best> <_will_ you please stop that racket>


and in the WR dicitionary: "to express willingness: Nobody will help us."

For me the quintessential example of _will_ for "willingness" is when a child says something like "Daddy, Jack won't give me my book back". The meaning is not that the speaker believes the situation is hopeless, but that Jack needs some persuading from Dad. M-W's "consent" seems to fit.


----------



## JamesM

Earlier you said:



> Now consider _will_ in the "be willing to" sense in the following:
> 
> A: _He won't help, but I will. Will you help too?_
> B: _Yes, I will help too._
> 
> For me, _will_ works in both the negative and the positive parts of this little dialog and has its "be willing to" sense throughout.



How is that "Yes, I will help too" has the "be willing to" sense but "I will help but I don't have a ride" isn't about willingness?

I'm still trying to get a sense of where you see the senses overlapping and where you don't.

My example was:


----------



## Forero

JamesM said:


> Earlier you said:
> 
> How is that "Yes, I will help too" has the "be willing to" sense but "I will help but I don't have a ride" isn't about willingness?


"Yes, I will help too" by itself is ambiguous, but in my context it is opposed to "He won't help" and in my experience "he won't" usually refers to unwillingness, but reading my post again I can see it the other way too.





> I'm still trying to get a sense of where you see the senses overlapping and where you don't.
> 
> My example was:


I suppose "I will help but I don't have a ride" might be about willingness, but it is not a good translation of "I am willing to help but I don't have a ride."

The whole reason I brought up the "be willing to" sense of _would_ is just that "If he was there" in sentence 2 in post #1 is indicative, not subjunctive, and to me this means that sentence 2 is not a counterfactual. I mentioned what I thought was sentence 2's most likely meaning, thinking that would be easiest for people to see. Little did I know others would have such difficulty with my "most likely meaning".


----------



## Wordsmyth

I think I now understand where we all stand on this, and why. As usage and meanings evolve, we reach a point where most people have adopted more recent usage and have dropped older meanings, but where those older meanings haven't completely disappeared and are still used by some (often in literary language or in regional or personal usage). 

Not to go off topic, but to give an example that shows I can sympathise with Forero's position: I am one of a fast disappearing  minority who still use "nice" in its older sense (the one that still occurs in idioms and particular contexts), and therefore I don't use it very often. When I do use it, I know that I may be misunderstood (and maybe I'm shooting myself in the foot!), but I'm still prepared to defend that usage as legitimate. I think we may have a similar situation here with "will/would" expressing willingness. I fully recognise that that was a common meaning in another era, and that it still exists in certain constructions and contexts; it's just that I don't hear it that way (and perhaps most people don't) in some of your examples, Forero ... whereas you obviously do. 

Just a few comments on your earlier post:


Forero said:


> Willingness is not behavior.


 Agreed, so make the question _"What frame of mind was Johnny in this morning?"_ 


Forero said:


> Yes, I could say that, but something does seem to be missing. How about "Because he was there right then, he could and would help"?


 OK, I think I could go with that as having a certain sense of willingness or 'being prepared to'. It's almost a set expression (not one I'd be likely to use myself, but if I heard it I'd recognise it for what it is). Curiously, though, the equivalent in the present doesn't, for me, have that same underlying sense: In _"I can and will help"_, I hear "will" as a pure expression of a future action. In _"He can and will help"_, I hear a sort of predictive insistence (as though I'm in a position to command him to do it, whether he wants to or not).


Forero said:


> _[...]_. The same goes for "I asked if you would help me" and "You said you would help me."


 These strike me as the use of "would" for the future-in-the-past in reported speech. If you express the first one as direct speech, it's a question: _"Will you help me?" _(for me, "will" refers simply to a future action). Alternatively the question could have been _"Would you help me?"_, in which case you could argue that it's asking about my willingness, but I think most people would see it as just a polite form of "will you". In the case of the reported-speech reply, the direct-speech reply is _"I will help you"_ (not _"I would help you")_, which seems to me to point clearly to "would", in the reported speech, being simply the future-in-the-past, not a reference to willingness. 


Forero said:


> It bothers me to hear people say things like "If he would have done that sooner, he wouldn't be in this fix" because I expect "if he would" to mean what it does in "If he would help you, you could finish sooner", again something to do with willingness, and I have trouble with the idea of willingness to "have done" something.


 That's a nice argument ("nice" in its older sense), and it also bothers me to hear people say such things. But in my case it has nothing to do with rejection of 'willingness to have done': it's just rejection of an 'impossible' construction, with the past conditional "would have done" in the condition clause, where it should be the past perfect "had done" (or, as some people might justifiably argue, the pluperfect subjunctive "had done": hello, sunyaer!).

It may seem that we're broadening the subject somewhat, but I think it's all useful in understanding the different ways in which people may interpret "would", and therefore whether certain sentences are seen as counterfactual or not.

Ws


----------

