# If..., then I'm God.



## raymondaliasapollyon

Hi,

In "If that’s Princess Anne, I’m a Dutchman," the verb forms are not in the subjunctive as in "If I were not Princess Anne, I would be a Dutchman." 
I am wondering whether there's any difference between the two versions.

Is it correct to copy this pattern and say "If I can pass the exam, I'm God"?


----------



## Loob

I'm sorry, I don't understand your question, raymondaliasapollyon.

"If [ABC], I’m a Dutchman" is a set phrase: it means "[ABC] is impossible".


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Consider this instead:

If Grannie *is *here, she *is *invisible.


----------



## Loob

Yes, that works as a similarly ironic way of saying "Grannie isn't here".


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Can the pattern be applied to  "If I can pass the exam, I'm God"?


----------



## Loob

That doesn't work for me.  I'd be wondering what the speaker meant:
_- maybe he really thinks he'll be God if he passes the exam?
- maybe I've misheard, and he said "good" not "God?_
etcetera etcetera etcetera.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Could you provide some examples following the pattern of the Granny example?
I'm curious what it is that allows the pattern in that example but not in the exam example.


----------



## entangledbank

The two valid examples are proof by contradiction, or something close to it. Obviously I'm not a Dutchman, and people can't be invisible, so we can conclude that the if-statement must be false. I don't know what the exam example is actually saying: can you definitely not pass the exam?


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

In  "If that’s Princess Anne, I’m a Dutchman,"  the obvious falsehood is "I'm a Dutchman."

Similarly, in "If I can pass the exam, I'm God,"  the obvious falsehood is "I'm God." The speaker is definitely not God, so why can't we conclude the if-statement must be false?


----------



## Loob

The problem, for me, is that "I'm God" isn't an obvious falsehood: see post 6.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Oh, so you believe people can become God?


----------



## entangledbank

So you do mean that. Well, let's use the conventional phrase instead, so everyone immediately knows what you mean:

If I can pass the exam, I'm a Dutchman. 

This is still rather an odd thing to say. Why, I wonder? It has nothing to do with exams. Coming out of a particularly difficult exam, I might say in disgust:

If I passed that exam, I'm a Dutchman.

Anyone hearing this knows I'm sure I didn't pass. So do we use this for dismissing facts, but not potentials? Not that simple:

If Kim can read Sanskrit, I'm a Dutchman.

_cross-posted_ And as Loob says, it's not always obvious how the speaker intends 'I'm God'.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

This is indeed a very interesting yet puzzling question. Let's hear what others have to say.


----------



## Loob

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Oh, so you believe people can become God?


As I said, see post 6.


entangledbank said:


> So do we use this for dismissing facts, but not potentials?


I think you're onto something there, etb.
I suspect that
_*If Kim can read Sanskrit, I'm a Dutchman. *_
would only work if someone had presented
_*Kim can read Sanskrit. *_
as a fact.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Loob said:


> As I said, see post 6.





Loob said:


> That doesn't work for me. I'd be wondering what the speaker meant:
> _- maybe he really thinks he'll be God if he passes the exam?_




But it is an obvious falsehood if someone suggests that he will become God. I don't know why you advised me to refer to post #6.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Loob said:


> I think you're onto something there, etb.
> I suspect that
> _*If Kim can read Sanskrit, I'm a Dutchman. *_
> would only work if someone had presented
> _*Kim can read Sanskrit. *_
> as a fact.



If that's the case, one might come up with the following dialogue:

A: You can definitely pass the exam. [A is presenting this as a *fact*]
B: If I can pass, I'm God Almighty!


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Someone being God is as much a falsehood as someone being invisible. But then some people do really believe a person can be God.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

entangledbank said:


> _cross-posted_ And as Loob says, it's not always obvious how the speaker intends 'I'm God'.



How about "If I can pass, I'm the source of infinite wisdom"?


----------



## kentix

You are misunderstanding the structure of that phrase.

_A: I think that's Princess Anne paddling a kayak in the Thames.
B: If that *is* Princess Anne, I *am* a Dutchman._ (I removed the contractions to make the explanation clearer.)

It is using present tense to talk about things two that are true (or not) in the present about me and someone else. (If *she* is..., then* I* am...)

_If that woman in the kayak is, right this minute, Princess Anne, then right this minute I am a Dutchman. _

But you can see by looking at me that I am not a Dutchman and therefore you know I think the idea that that woman is Princess Anne is absurd. The odds of her being Princess Anne are the same as the odds of me being a Dutchman - and I would know those odds are zero.

The same is true in this example.

_A: Kim says she can read Sanskrit.

B: If Kim *can read* Sanskrit, I *am* a Dutchman. _

In other words, if Kim has the ability to read Sanskrit this very minute, I am a Dutchman this very minute. And since I am not a Dutchman this very minute, it shows I think the idea that Kim can read Sanskrit this very minute is absurd. The question can be resolved by asking Kim to read some Sanskrit.

Your example is not in that form.

_A: You can definitely pass the exam._

That's not a claim of a current fact that can be proven or disproven right now. It's simply stating an opinion about an unknown outcome in the future.

And this isn't a comparison of a fact about you and a fact about someone else.

_B: If *I can *pass (in the future),* I am* God Almighty!_

This is two things about you, one of which is not a fact but an unresolved question. You don't know whether you can pass and no one does at this moment. You can check whether the woman is Princess Anne and you can ask Kim to read some Sanskrit but you can't know if you will pass or not before the test comes.

Your sentence just sounds like an unresolved hypothetical. "If I can pass..." is not a fact, it's simply a question with no answer yet.

This makes more sense:

_A: I heard you got a perfect score on the test.

B: You heard that? Well, let's put it this way. If I got a perfect score on the test*, then I'm also tall and very handsome._

* the test scores are out so the truth of this is known

If the person is clearly not tall and handsome then you can be pretty certain he didn't get a perfect score, because he knows, as a fact, what his score was.


----------



## Myridon

Someone who accomplished something difficult might really brag that they are God / a god.  It's not an uncommon exaggeration.


----------



## dojibear

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Can the pattern be applied to "If I can pass the exam, I'm God"?


No, because that can also mean "God can pass the exam".

This makes the mistake of using "I" as the subject of both halves. That connect the 2 parts.



raymondaliasapollyon said:


> If that’s Princess Anne, I’m a Dutchman


Here the 2 parts are not related. They have different subjects. So this is different from the "God" example.


----------



## LVRBC

Look at it this way:  "If that's an X, I'm a Dutchman" is a fixed idiomatic phrase.  It may have variations like "If that's a Y, I'm the queen of the fairies," but the basic idea remains.  Because it's an idiom, you cannot just try to construct parallel phrases and have them be idiomatic English.  Language doesn't work that way.


----------



## Myridon

LVRBC said:


> It may have variations like "If that's a Y, I'm the queen of the fairies," but the basic idea remains.


Yes, the second thing is generally unusual, humorous, or outlandish rather than something one might actually brag about being. 
Can Trump survive AFTER his November defeat? Updated with an apology.


> If Trump is actually worth $9B, then I’m the Queen of the May,


----------



## MattiasNYC

Ok, so if two atheists are talking about an exam at a university that's virtually impossible to score 100% correctly, and the conversation goes:

"I scored 100 points on that test"
"If you scored 100, I'm god"

Does _that_ work?


----------



## Myridon

MattiasNYC said:


> Ok, so if two atheists are talking about an exam at a university that's virtually impossible to score 100% correctly, and the conversation goes:
> 
> "I scored 100 points on that test"
> "If you scored 100, I'm god"
> 
> Does _that_ work?


Not believing in God doesn't mean that you can't claim to be God, a god, or that you have god-like abilities. 
Regardless, it's not funny.  Why "God" when you could say "a unicorn riding a bicycle"?


----------



## MattiasNYC

Myridon said:


> Not believing in God doesn't mean that you can't claim to be God, a god, or that you have god-like abilities.



That's not the point though. The point is that an atheist doesn't believe in god(s) so "I am god" is entirely impossible as a proposition, and since both are atheists it's understood by both. In other words that part of the equation is obvious to both. It's not true, it cannot be true. Thus then the proposition that the other person scored 100 is equally untrue (or unlikely).



Myridon said:


> Regardless, it's not funny.  Why "God" when you could say "a unicorn riding a bicycle"?



It might be funny to an atheist. I don't think whether or not Myridon, Roxxannne or any other person thinks it's funny has any bearing on whether or not it works as the same type of construction as the OP example.

So again, does it work?


----------



## LVRBC

The point is still the one I'm making - you cannot make an idiomatic phrase by copying the construction of a fixed idiomatic phrase.  It doesn't sound like something a native speaker would say.  If you want to be original, great, but, if you are trying to learn a language, originality is not usually your primary goal.


----------



## MattiasNYC

But I've heard the construction using other versions, but never ever the "Dutchman" version, and I've always understood the meaning.


----------



## kentix

I don't think Dutchman is particularly common in my area of English (it sounds like something from 120 years ago and there is only one example in the millions of words of the COCA database of American English) but anything funny and absurd and matching the context will do.

_If you're a good dancer then I'm a ballerina in a tutu._


----------



## lingobingo

Most of the examples above seem pretty far-fetched to me. In particular, I can’t imagine anyone ever bringing God into this sort of sarcasm. That seems to be a misunderstanding of what the idiom’s about. And it’s mainly only used in certain contexts anyway – usually to do with something or someone not being what it or they appear to be. 

Also, although “if such-and-such, I’m a Dutchman” (cited by Loob way back in #2) is arguably the most typical expression of this kind, it’s very old-fashioned now. So too is another common one, which goes something like: “His new girlfriend’s only 36, apparently.” – “Yes, and I’m the Queen of Sheba!”


----------



## dojibear

MattiasNYC said:


> The point is that an atheist doesn't believe in god(s) so "I am god" is entirely impossible as a proposition, and since both are atheists it's understood by both.


"I am God" is _"entirely impossible" _to most religious people too. So it is not relevant that these 2 people are atheists.

But that isn't the point. The point is that the 2d half is not just something false. That doesn't work. That is not the expression. The second half is something silly, outlandish, funny, crazy. 

And the whole expression is sarcasm, and must be spoken using sarcasm. If it is spoken any other way, it's incorrect.


----------



## kentix

And Dutchman doesn't rate high for humor or absurdity these days.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

kentix said:


> You are misunderstanding the structure of that phrase.
> 
> _A: I think that's Princess Anne paddling a kayak in the Thames.
> B: If that *is* Princess Anne, I *am* a Dutchman._ (I removed the contractions to make the explanation clearer.)
> 
> It is using present tense to talk about things two that are true (or not) in the present about me and someone else. (If *she* is..., then* I* am...)
> 
> _If that woman in the kayak is, right this minute, Princess Anne, then right this minute I am a Dutchman. _
> 
> But you can see by looking at me that I am not a Dutchman and therefore you know I think the idea that that woman is Princess Anne is absurd. The odds of her being Princess Anne are the same as the odds of me being a Dutchman - and I would know those odds are zero.
> 
> The same is true in this example.
> 
> _A: Kim says she can read Sanskrit.
> 
> B: If Kim *can read* Sanskrit, I *am* a Dutchman. _
> 
> In other words, if Kim has the ability to read Sanskrit this very minute, I am a Dutchman this very minute. And since I am not a Dutchman this very minute, it shows I think the idea that Kim can read Sanskrit this very minute is absurd. The question can be resolved by asking Kim to read some Sanskrit.
> 
> Your example is not in that form.



What is the structure and form you are talking about?  Are you saying the tenses in the clauses must be present, and the subject of the if-clause must be non-first person and the subject of the main clause must be first person?

How about entangledbank's example in post #12, quoted as follows?  The if-clause is cast in the past tense, and the subject of both clauses is the first person pronoun. It doesn't conform to the form you proposed.




entangledbank said:


> Coming out of a particularly difficult exam, I might say in disgust:
> 
> If *I passed *that exam, *I'*m a Dutchman.






kentix said:


> _A: You can definitely pass the exam._
> 
> That's not a claim of a current fact that can be proven or disproven right now. It's simply stating an opinion about an unknown outcome in the future.



But the claim that Kim can read Sanskrit is not necessarily immediately provable or refutable, either; she can be in a location far from the speaker and the interlocutor.





kentix said:


> And this isn't a comparison of a fact about you and a fact about someone else.
> 
> _B: If *I can *pass (in the future),* I am* God Almighty!_
> 
> This is two things about you, one of which is not a fact but an unresolved question. You don't know whether you can pass and no one does at this moment. You can check whether the woman is Princess Anne and you can ask Kim to read some Sanskrit but you can't know if you will pass or not before the test comes.



Very often a student does know whether he himself can pass or not, judging from his performance in class and all the quiz scores. He may have a thorough understanding of the level of his ability.





kentix said:


> Your sentence just sounds like an unresolved hypothetical. "If I can pass..." is not a fact, it's simply a question with no answer yet.
> 
> This makes more sense:
> 
> _A: I heard you got a perfect score on the test.
> 
> B: You heard that? Well, let's put it this way. If I got a perfect score on the test*, then I'm also tall and very handsome._
> 
> * the test scores are out so the truth of this is known
> 
> If the person is clearly not tall and handsome then you can be pretty certain he didn't get a perfect score, because he knows, as a fact, what his score was.



Now your example involves the past tense in the if-clause and first-person pronoun subjects in both clauses.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Myridon said:


> Someone who accomplished something difficult might really brag that they are God / a god.  It's not an uncommon exaggeration.



They are using "God" in a figurative way, aren't they? But "God" as used in my original example is used literally.
To increase absurdity and reduce figurativity, how about replacing "God" with "the omniscient God"?


----------



## MattiasNYC

lingobingo said:


> Most of the examples above seem pretty far-fetched to me. In particular, I can’t imagine anyone ever bringing God into this sort of sarcasm. That seems to be a misunderstanding of what the idiom’s about.




I'm not sure what you mean when you say "bringing god into" it. It's also not about the Dutch or the queen of Sheba. It doesn't seem to matter exactly what it is that is clearly not the case (in the second part) as long as it's clearly not the case (and presumably funny, or clever or whatever).


----------



## MattiasNYC

dojibear said:


> "I am God" is _"entirely impossible" _to most religious people too. So it is not relevant that these 2 people are atheists.



Actually it _is_ relevant:



dojibear said:


> But that isn't the point. The point is that the 2d half is not just something false. That doesn't work. That is not the expression. The second half is something silly, outlandish, funny, crazy.



And _to an atheist_ claiming to be god is silly, outlandish, crazy and possibly funny!



dojibear said:


> And the whole expression is sarcasm, and must be spoken using sarcasm. If it is spoken any other way, it's incorrect.



I don't see how it isn't sarcasm in my example, assuming it is sarcasm when saying "..then I'm a Dutchman".


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

dojibear said:


> No, because that can also mean "God can pass the exam".
> 
> This makes the mistake of using "I" as the subject of both halves. That connect the 2 parts.




Consider entangledbank's example in post #12, quoted as follows.  The subject of both clauses is the first person pronoun. Would you say it's incorrect?



entangledbank said:


> Coming out of a particularly difficult exam, I might say in disgust:
> 
> If *I *passed that exam, *I'*m a Dutchman.


----------



## owlman5

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> To increase absurdity and reduce figurativity, how about replacing "God" with "the omniscient God"?


You can certainly do that if you want, raymond, but I already understood your sentence to mean that you don't believe you can possibly pass the exam. Was that the idea that you wanted to express?

If so, then I understood what you were trying to say. In my view, modifying the noun _God _with the adjective _omniscient _doesn't really add anything. Though I'm not at all religious, I am very familiar with the common belief that God is an omnipotent, omniscient being.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

On reflection, maybe some contributors to this thread think that the word "God" has been established as a figurative way to stress a person's ability or other merits. It has lost that feel of absurdity through repeated use, so it does not fit the requirement on making an absurd statement in the main clause.

Presumably, "the Queen of Sheba" and "a Dutchman" have also been used a lot (in certain varieties of English at least), but they are conventionalized for the role of making absurd statements in this context.

Now consider the following dialogue:

A: Did you know John owns a Cadillac?
B: If that's true, I have an invisibility cloak.

Does this use make sense?


----------



## lingobingo

MattiasNYC said:


> I'm not sure what you mean when you say "bringing god into" it. It's also not about the Dutch or the queen of Sheba. It doesn't seem to matter exactly what it is that is clearly not the case (in the second part) as long as it's clearly not the case (and presumably funny, or clever or whatever).


The construction has a long history. You can’t just sweep that history aside as though it’s irrelevant to the sort of expressions that people make up now. Whether they know it or not, their versions are based on a long-established tradition that exists in a number of languages. 

The “…or I’m a Dutchman” one features in George Eliot’s _Mill on the Floss_ of 1860 but can even be traced back to 1790, in a book called _The Old Sailor’s Jolly Boat_ (I’m A Dutchman). And according to another article (I’m The Queen Of England), the “I’m the Queen of Sheba” one that I mentioned has a direct equivalent in Spanish and Hebrew but becomes the Queen of England in French, while other alleged variations are “I’m the Chinese pope” (Czech) and “I’m Ali Baba” (Greek).

And of course we mustn’t forget that other old chestnut – I’m a monkey’s uncle!


----------



## MattiasNYC

lingobingo said:


> The construction has a long history. You can’t just sweep that history aside as though it’s irrelevant to the sort of expressions that people make up now. Whether they know it or not, their versions are based on a long-established tradition that exists in a number of languages.



But I didn't sweep the 'history' of _"The construction"_ under the rug. I was merely pointing out that the construction has remained the same but the actual 'examples' have changed. If it once was a "Dutchman" or a queen it now no longer is. So it's not really a convincing argument to say that we can't use "god" instead because the standard is "Dutchman" - if the latter is actually no longer frequently used.

"A monkey's uncle" presents exactly the same problem as "god" if used in the same construction: 'Why bring the uncles of monkey's into this sort of sarcasm?'

The question doesn't even really make much sense I think, because it's at the most basic level just a matter of stating something that is impossible or extremely unlikely to illustrate how the first part is equally impossible or unlikely. I really don't see how it matters if that second part is "I'm a Dutchman", "queen of Sheba" or "monkey's uncle". All (supposedly and understood to be) impossible or extremely unlikely.


----------



## lingobingo

Yes. Of course things have moved on and people often make up their own versions of this type of idiom. We all get that. But the principle is an old one, and the original versions still exist and are probably still in use (I'm a Dutchman | Oxford Dictionary / I'm a Dutchman | Cambridge English Dictionary). But I think, personally, that someone saying “if such-and-such then I’m God” is not only unlikely but potentially offensive.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

We have a familiar problem here: a non-native taking an idiom and twisting it, trying from its sense to get us to accept it in a new unfamiliar form.

The problem is exacerbated here by what Lingobingo calls the 'potentially offensive' introduction of the Holy Father into the mix.  For many that would be blasphemous as well as distracting.

Our advice usually in such cases is to tell non-native NOT to fool about with idioms, expecting to be understood and immediately to cause delight.  So, in this case, stick to A Dutchman, or, possibly, The Man in the Moon, who I've known to stand in for A Dutchman, in such cases.

There's a similar reaction to an unlikely circumstance where the speaker says that if the improbable happens, he will eat his hat.  No doubt some fluent foreigner will suggest we say that we should rather be offering to eat our left shoe, and should shift one or both the clauses into the present subjunctive.  My reaction would be the same.

There's the secondary question concerning tenses.  Again the best advice is to stick to the standard tenses of the original: you need the force and brevity of the present in_* Then I'm a Dutchman*_. That means keeping subjunctives or any other mood out of the if-clause, and sticking to the present indicative. If that's wrong, then I'm a Dutchman.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

But the pattern seems quite productive, not limited to Dutchman, the Queen of Sheeba, etc.  As learners, we would like to know what is permitted in the costruction.  Consider the following example:

A: Did you know John owns a Cadillac?
B: If that's true, I have an invisibility cloak.

Would you say it's incorrect?


----------



## MattiasNYC

lingobingo said:


> Yes. Of course things have moved on and people often make up their own versions of this type of idiom. We all get that. But the principle is an old one, and the original versions still exist and are probably still in use (I'm a Dutchman | Oxford Dictionary / I'm a Dutchman | Cambridge English Dictionary).




Ok, so we agree then, right?




lingobingo said:


> But I think, personally, that someone saying “if such-and-such then I’m God” is not only unlikely but potentially offensive.



Well for an atheist being offended at that is a bit silly. I understand that it might be appropriate to throw out a warning that sensitive people are offended when god is introduced into "inappropriate" 'contexts' btw.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> [...]
> Would you say it's incorrect?


You asked originally if this sort of thing was incorrect.

I said it was inappropriate, irritating, and sometimes potentially misleading.

I'd hoped that was an answer.


----------



## lingobingo

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> A: Did you know John owns a Cadillac?
> B: If that's true, I have an invisibility cloak.
> 
> Would you say it's incorrect?


Correct or incorrect by whose standards? I can’t see how that label makes any sense. It just strikes me as weird in the extreme. In the highly unlikely event that I heard anyone say that, I’d wonder why they couldn’t have come up with something better, more natural or at least logical. And if I saw it written, I would immediately assume it was not written by a native English-speaker.


----------



## MattiasNYC

Thomas Tompion said:


> The problem is exacerbated here by what Lingobingo calls the 'potentially offensive' introduction of the Holy Father into the mix.  For many that would be blasphemous as well as distracting.



That's a problem with the religious views of the listener, not with language.



Thomas Tompion said:


> Our advice usually in such cases is to tell non-native NOT to fool about with idioms, expecting to be understood and immediately to cause delight.  So, in this case, stick to A Dutchman, or, possibly, The Man in the Moon, who I've known to stand in for A Dutchman, in such cases.
> 
> There's a similar reaction to an unlikely circumstance where the speaker says that if the improbable happens, he will eat his hat.  No doubt some fluent foreigner will suggest we say that we should rather be offering to eat our left shoe, and should shift one or both the clauses into the present subjunctive.  My reaction would be the same.



Ok, but please explain to me then how I have been able to live in the US for a quarter of a century by now and have heard versions of this idiom being used, yet _literally _never - as far as I recall - those specific and approved versions. Is this a New York City / Boston thing? I've heard "If this/that - then this/that" a million times, and it's never been Dutchman, Queen of Sheba, Man in the Moon. 

How is it possible that not only were the adaptations of the idiom understandable to me but also acceptable to the native speakers who uttered them?

Further more, it seems to me that this is _exactly _the _type _of idiom that virtually begs to be changed by people. The structure is pretty simple from a logical point of view, and I'm sure there are idioms that aren't. The IF/THEN connection makes it "easy" to decipher the meaning. "It's raining cats and dogs" for example would to a foreigner likely seem more.. "odd", and less intuitively understandable.. or obviously understandable using logic and reasoning. Only if you already know and understand the idiom ("raining cats and dogs") does exchanging those words make sense.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

At least one American, and an educated one who works with language at that, says " If that's true, I have an invisibility cloak" is okay.

Google Groups


----------



## MattiasNYC

lingobingo said:


> Correct or incorrect by whose standards? I can’t see how that label makes any sense. It just strikes me as weird in the extreme. In the highly unlikely event that I heard anyone say that, I’d wonder why they couldn’t have come up with something better, more natural or at least logical.



Ok, but for those of us who aren't native English speakers from birth - in what way was that example illogical?


----------



## lingobingo

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> At least one American, and an educated one who works with language at that, says " If that's true, I have an invisibility cloak" is okay.


Fine. We’re all entitled to our opinions. There is no right or wrong about it, as I just said.

What “goes” in American English often doesn’t in UK English, and vice versa.


----------



## kentix

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Would you say it's incorrect?


You have the form wrong.

A: Did you know John owns a Cadillac?
B: *If that's true*, I have an invisibility cloak.

By writing it that way you are basically turning it into a simple, standard if/then statement. 

If this is true that is true. If this is not true that is not true. 

But the whole point of saying it is that it is not true in the speaker's view. He's not conceding it's true.

A: Did you know John owns a Cadillac?
B: If John owns a Cadillac, I have an invisibility cloak.

Which really means:
B: There's no way John owns a Cadillac, just like I don't own an invisibility cloak.


----------



## lingobingo

MattiasNYC said:


> Ok, but for those of us who aren't native English speakers from birth - in what way was that example illogical?


In my opinion (with which you can disagree without picking a fight about it), it simply doesn’t work. I find it a baffling non-sequitur.


----------



## MattiasNYC

lingobingo said:


> In my opinion (with which you can disagree without picking a fight about it), it simply doesn’t work. I find it a baffling non-sequitur.



I'm not picking a fight, I'm trying to understand _why _and _how_ it isn't "logical". If you feel it's sufficient to say it's just your opinion then fine. I was just hoping you could explain what was illogical about it.


----------



## MattiasNYC

kentix said:


> You have the form wrong.
> 
> A: Did you know John owns a Cadillac?
> B: *If that's true*, I have an invisibility cloak.
> 
> By writing it that way you are basically turning it into a simple, standard if/then statement.
> 
> If this is true that is true. If this is not true that is not true.
> 
> But the whole point of saying it is that it is not true in the speaker's view. He's not conceding it's true.
> 
> A: Did you know John owns a Cadillac?
> B: If John owns a Cadillac, I have an invisibility cloak.
> 
> Which really means:
> B: There's no way John owns a Cadillac, just like I don't own an invisibility cloak.



Forgive me if this seems repetitive... But isn't it still an "if/then" statement?

A: Proposition
B: IF [something], I [something]

In your example it seems you're simply writing out what "that" stands for in the first example: "John owns a Cadillac" So it still looks like an if/then statement to me.

It seems to me that the bigger issue is that it no longer looks like the idiom when we've used the words "that's true" instead of repeating the proposition. 

What am I missing?


----------



## kentix

And then aside from that major problem of breaking the recognizable form, your choice of invisibility cloak isn't suitable for the expression. Talking about owning something doesn't work.

Notice the original examples:
...then I'm a Dutchman.
...then I'm the Queen of Sheba.
...then I'm the Queen of the Fairies.

_If he's X, I'm Y._

You are or you aren't Y. It's immediately obvious to the listener you are saying this to. All they have to do is look at you to see you are not the Queen of Sheba.

When you say something like "then I own..." the person can't look at you and immediately see that's not true. You are supposed to say something that is immediately, obviously untrue in a way the listener can't ignore. Logically, you might not not be able to own an invisibility cloak, but no one can _see_ that you don't. So the immediate payoff is not there.

A more suitable expression for that kind of situation is something like:

_If John owns a Cadillac then I'll eat my shorts._

It doesn't depend on someone seeing a quality you have that is unseeable.


----------



## MattiasNYC

kentix said:


> And then aside from that major problem of breaking the recognizable form, your choice of invisibility cloak isn't suitable for the expression. Talking about owning something doesn't work.



"If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you."?



kentix said:


> Notice the original examples:
> ...then I'm a Dutchman.
> ...then I'm the Queen of Sheba.
> ...then I'm the Queen of the Fairies.
> 
> _If he's X, I'm Y._
> 
> You are or you aren't Y. It's immediately obvious to the listener you are saying this to. All they have to do is look at you to see you are not the Queen of Sheba.



I would think the same would apply to being "god", would you agree?


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

kentix said:


> When you say something like "then I own..." the person can't look at you and immediately see that's not true. You are supposed to say something that is immediately, obviously untrue in a way the listener can't ignore. Logically, you might not not be able to own an invisibility cloak, but no one can _see_ that you don't. So the immediate payoff is not there.
> 
> A more suitable expression for that kind of situation is something like:
> 
> _If John owns a Cadillac then I'll eat my shorts._
> 
> It doesn't depend on someone seeing a quality you have that is unseeable.



In the case of "I own an invisibility cloak," we don't need someone to see whether we own an invisibility cloak to know the proposition is absurd; such a cloak does not exist in the first place. No one can own one. The phrasing conjures images of impossibility, just as "I'll eat my shorts" does.


----------



## kentix

As I said, you know that logically, but you can't see that. You can't see what someone owns by looking at them.

You can tell by looking that I'm not the queen of anything. That's the immediate payoff that makes the whole thing work. It's not about logic it's about absurdity. It's not illogical that I'm the Queen of Sheba, it's simply patently absurd on the face of it.

_If that's Princess Anne and then I'm able to fly from Zurich to San Francisco in just under two hours and twenty minutes._

That's the same form you're using. There is no plane that will accomplish that feat. It's illogical to think someone could do that. Does that make it a suitable, natural use of that expression? Not at all.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

kentix said:


> As I said, you know that logically, but you can't see that. You can't see what someone owns by looking at them.
> 
> You can tell by looking that I'm not the queen of anything. That's the immediate payoff that makes the whole thing work. It's not about logic it's about absurdity. It's not illogical that I'm the Queen of Sheba, it's simply patently absurd on the face of it.



Maybe you think it is not absurd enough to own something that does not exist.



kentix said:


> _If that's Princess Anne and then I'm able to fly from Zurich to San Francisco in just under two hours and twenty minutes._
> 
> That's the same form you're using. There is no plane that will accomplish that feat. It's illogical to think someone could do that. Does that make it a suitable, natural use of that expression? Not at all.



That sentence can be ruled out because, unlike typical cases, it lacks the punchy tone associated with the pattern.


----------



## kentix

There is no punchy tone to "I own an invisibility cloak".


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

It's obviously much shorter than your example.

Btw, here's someone by the user name of Romany from Brighton, England, who thinks the cloak example is fine, except that he'd change "have" to "own":

If I can. . . , I'm God! - English Grammar - English - The Free Dictionary Language Forums


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Suppose a phone sales rep called a woman and told her something impossible, and she said, "if . . ., I'm the Queen of Sheeba (or any other expression that fits here)." The sales rep obviously could not look at her or listen to her voice to determine whether she was the real Queen of Sheeba. Would that make the woman's use of the expression incorrect?


----------



## heypresto

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Would that make the woman's use of the expression incorrect?


No, of course not.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

heypresto said:


> No, of course not.



You are right. I only meant to show that a verification-based approach to this issue can hardly work.


----------



## heypresto

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> You are right.


Thank you. Do I win a prize?


----------



## kentix

The fact that she picked up the phone verifies that she's not the Queen of Sheba.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

If so, then one does not have to look at the person to determine whether she is the Queen of Sheba.

What's the point of the verification-based approach then?

One might also claim that the fact that the speaker is talking to the interlocutor in the real world verifies that invisibility cloaks do not exist, and no one can own one.


----------



## MattiasNYC

kentix said:


> The fact that she picked up the phone verifies that she's not the Queen of Sheba.


And if the person had been male and said "Dutchman"?


----------



## kentix

They wouldn't have. No one says that anymore.

Look, if you want to use lame, humorless, pointless, broken versions of that common saying, that's your right. But as you can see here, all your versions have gotten a negative response, and not just from me. They don't work because they don't abide by the spirit or the recognizable form that that saying is used with. My wordy example was to give you a sense of how your versions come off. They are labored and the opposite of punchy.

You should stick with "I am..." What you are is immutable and is part of your delivery. When someone looks at you as the words "I'm the Queen of Sheba" come out of your mouth there is immediate humor there. Telling someone what you have stashed away in a drawer - especially a non-existent something - somewhere in your house is the opposite of punchy. It might work on the Big Bang Theory as a nerdy equivalent but not many other places.


----------



## Uncle Jack

The expression, whatever form of words is used, relies on absurdity and/or well-known accepted terms. I don't know that I look or sound obviously non-Dutch, but "I'm a Dutchman" is a stock expression, and it works simply because it is a stock expression. Other stock versions I know of include "I'm the Queen of Sheba" and "I'm the Pope".

However, it is also possible to create your own version, perhaps to better match the situation ("If that's Princess Anne, then I'm a horse"*), and here the aim is usually to find an expression that is absurd. I think that being absurd is far more important than being obviously wrong or impossible.

"...then I'm God" doesn't work because saying that someone is God already has a use in English, to say that someone has either has exceptional powers or else has almost absolute control or authority in a particular situation.

Although "If John owns a Cadillac then I own an invisibility cloak" does well to repeat the verb and structure of the first clause (the "have" version has nothing at all to recommend it), owning an invisibility cloak has no connection with John's owning a Cadillac and does not in itself have the required level of absurdity. "If John owns a Cadillac then my car's a Rolls", while far from being impossible, strikes a far better note at (a) being appropriate for the situation and (b) being absurd given the sort of person that I am, and which you know me to be. Besides which, you probably know that my car's a Subaru.

* Princess Anne used to be a champion horse rider
​


----------



## kentix

MattiasNYC said:


> I would think the same would apply to being "god", would you agree?


Yes, that would apply but it's not very humorous (see Jack's answer, for instance). But it does fit the pattern.


----------



## Roxxxannne

MattiasNYC said:


> And if the person had been male and said "Dutchman"?


I think kentix was making a joke, although I also think that the Queen of Sheba these days probably does pick up her own phone.

A) All the sarcastic statements depend on both people knowing that the If/then statement is sarcastic.  "If that's Ivanka Trump, I'm Angela Merkel/a Dutchman" is sarcastic, because it is well known that I am not even close to being Angela Merkel or a Dutchman.

The preceding is different from
B) "If I can pass that [ridiculously difficult] test, I'm God."
Only an omniscient being can pass the test. Therefore, if I can pass the test, I am an omniscient being, and God is, to many people, the equivalent of "omniscient being."  EDITED: This statement is non-sarcastic standard if/then statement (type I conditional, I believe).

C) The case of the two atheists:
X: "I scored 100 points on that test"
Y: "If you scored 100, I'm god"
This is perfectly legit sarcasm, but instead of just having one layer of absurdity (I am clearly not God, so you did not pass that test), it has two:
1) I'm obviously not god.
2) I believe there is no God.

We have accepted above in this thread that
D) "If that's Ivanka Trump, I'm the Queen of the Fairies" is an established variation of the standard A type.  Presuming -- and this is a big presumption -- that people who believe there are no fairies use D [I'm obviously not the Q of the F, I believe there are no fairies , then C and D are both legit versions.

As a side point, there are many beings who could be named in the 'then' clause who could be offensive or disturbing to people: if someone feels that 'Dutchman' is pejorative, or that fairies exist, or that God exists, etc.


----------



## kentix

MattiasNYC said:


> It seems to me that the bigger issue is that it no longer looks like the idiom when we've used the words "that's true" instead of repeating the proposition.
> 
> What am I missing?


It doesn't work like it either.

A: Did you know John owns a Cadillac?
B: If John owns a Cadillac, I have an invisibility cloak.

Which really means:
B: There's no way John owns a Cadillac, just like I don't own an invisibility cloak.

On the other hand:

A: Did you know John owns a Cadillac?
B: If that's true, I have an invisibility cloak.

And if it's not true, what happens?

This form ("if that's true") is commentary on the truth of a another person's statement. "If John owns a Cadillac" is different. It doesn't even accept that there is an actual question. As I said, it really means "There is no way John owns a Cadillac." The absurdity of the idea is built into the statement. As Roxxxannne says, the whole thing is delivered with sarcasm. The sarcasm changes the surface meaning. It's hard to build absurdity into "If that's true". Try the same thing with that wording. It doesn't work and doesn't make sense said sarcastically.

If John owns a Cadillac + sarcasm = There is no chance John owns a Cadillac

If that's true + sarcasm = ? (the sarcasm doesn't negate it the same way)


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

kentix said:


> They wouldn't have. No one says that anymore.



Who does "they" refer to?



kentix said:


> Look, if you want to use lame, humorless, pointless, broken versions of that common saying, that's your right. But as you can see here, all your versions have gotten a negative response, and not just from me.



I don't deny those expressions sound bad to you.  But have you taken a look at those threads I linked to? Are you saying Peter T. Daniels, an American scholar who works on writing systems, is a less competent English user than you? Your response only indicates your dialect is different from Daniels' and others'.



kentix said:


> They don't work because they don't abide by the spirit or the recognizable form that that saying is used with. My wordy example was to give you a sense of how your versions come off. They are labored and the opposite of punchy..



Now you have abandoned your verification-based account, have you? Instead you have switched to an account based on "the spirit." What is the spirit legitimate expressions are used with? 

If by  "the recognizable form that that saying is used with," you mean to say the pattern can only be used with certain fixed expressions, are you saying the pattern cannot be used with novel expressions?

And how do you define "punchy"?




kentix said:


> You should stick with "I am..." What you are is immutable and is part of your delivery. When someone looks at you as the words "I'm the Queen of Sheba" come out of your mouth there is immediate humor there. Telling someone what you have stashed away in a drawer - especially a non-existent something - somewhere in your house is the opposite of punchy. It might work on the Big Bang Theory as a nerdy equivalent but not many other places.



Stick with "I am . . ."? How do you explain those leigitmate examples *not *beginning with "I am . . . "?
I see now you are adopting an approach based on "immediate humor." Can you define it?


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Uncle Jack said:


> The expression, whatever form of words is used, relies on absurdity and/or well-known accepted terms. I don't know that I look or sound obviously non-Dutch, but "I'm a Dutchman" is a stock expression, and it works simply because it is a stock expression. Other stock versions I know of include "I'm the Queen of Sheba" and "I'm the Pope".
> 
> However, it is also possible to create your own version, perhaps to better match the situation ("If that's Princess Anne, then I'm a horse"*), and here the aim is usually to find an expression that is absurd. I think that being absurd is far more important than being obviously wrong or impossible.



Is it not absurd enough to own something that does not exist? In what sense do you think "I own an invisibility cloak" is not absurd enough?



Uncle Jack said:


> Although "If John owns a Cadillac then I own an invisibility cloak" does well to repeat the verb and structure of the first clause (the "have" version has nothing at all to recommend it), owning an invisibility cloak has no connection with John's owning a Cadillac and does not in itself have the required level of absurdity. "If John owns a Cadillac then my car's a Rolls", while far from being impossible, strikes a far better note at (a) being appropriate for the situation and (b) being absurd given the sort of person that I am, and which you know me to be. Besides which, you probably know that my car's a Subaru.
> 
> * Princess Anne used to be a champion horse rider
> ​



What is the connection that is required to link the two clauses in the pattern?  Being appropriate for the situation is not easy to define.


----------



## Uncle Jack

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Is it not absurd to own something that does not exist?


It is not absurd in the sense the expression requires, unless there is a particular association between the speaker and invisibility cloaks, There is nothing inherently absurd in the idea of an invisibility cloak and, as far as I am aware, there is no fundamental reason why one should not exist, just that we do not yet have the technology. If the person had said that they owned a perpetual motion machine instead, it might have been better, but relatively few people have any notion of what a perpetual motion machine is or its significance, whereas invisibility cloaks are commonplace (as it were). Even saying that you own a perpetual motion machine lacks the punchiness that was mentioned earlier in the thread.

It is entirely possible, and sometimes it is beneficial, to make the second clause something that is in itself plausible, but which is absurd in relation to the speaker, and the speaker knows that the other person knows is absurd. This might be something visual (...then I'm wearing a hat!") or relating to some other sense ("...then I'm a countertenor", spoken by someone with a deep voice), or it might involve knowledge of the person's politics or other views ("...then I'm a union leader", spoken by a conservative), or their possessions ("...then I own a Rolls") or some other aspect of their life ("...then I'm a virgin").


raymondaliasapollyon said:


> What is the connection that is required to link the two clauses in the pattern?


Almost anything you like. There might be a grammatical link or a logical one, but I think what we appreciate the most is allusion: some form of indirect association, of which my Princess Anne/horse sentence is a poor example.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Uncle Jack said:


> It is not absurd in the sense the expression requires, unless there is a particular association between the speaker and invisibility cloaks, There is nothing inherently absurd in the idea of an invisibility cloak and, as far as I am aware, there is no fundamental reason why one should not exist, just that we do not yet have the technology.



Would you define absurdity as required for that pattern? What kind of association between the speaker and invisibility cloaks is required to make the sentence absurd? True, science and technology evolve, and what is impossible now may become possible in the future.  What do you think is "inherently absurd"?



Uncle Jack said:


> If the person had said that they owned a perpetual motion machine instead, it might have been better, but relatively few people have any notion of what a perpetual motion machine is or its significance, whereas invisibility cloaks are commonplace (as it were). Even saying that you own a perpetual motion machine lacks the punchiness that was mentioned earlier in the thread.



Are you suggesting absurdity requires a violation of eternal truth? But being a Dutchman is not an eternal truth; after all, it's possible to apply for Dutch citizenship. Still we use "I'm a Ductchman" in the pattern. Besides, since you take the potential to develop an invisibility cloak as an argument against the absurdity of "I own an invisibility cloak" in the pattern, would you also argue against the commonly accepted "If grannie is here, she is invisible"?



Uncle Jack said:


> It is entirely possible, and sometimes it is beneficial, to make the second clause something that is in itself plausible, but which is absurd in relation to the speaker, and the speaker knows that the other person knows is absurd. This might be something visual (...then I'm wearing a hat!") or relating to some other sense ("...then I'm a countertenor", spoken by someone with a deep voice), or it might involve knowledge of the person's politics or other views ("...then I'm a union leader", spoken by a conservative), or their possessions ("...then I own a Rolls") or some other aspect of their life ("...then I'm a virgin").



It really baffles me (and probably other learners) why you think "then I own a Rolls" is more absurd than "I own an invisibility cloak."




Uncle Jack said:


> Almost anything you like. There might be a grammatical link or a logical one, but I think what we appreciate the most is allusion: some form of indirect association, of which my Princess Anne/horse sentence is a poor example.



The invisibility cloak is an allusion to some European folklore, isn't it?


----------



## heypresto

If this thread isn't getting excessively long and rather silly then I'm the lovechild of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton!


----------



## DonnyB

And if this thread hasn't progressed beyond the point at which it ceased to become of any practical use to anyone, then I'm [insert random simile here].   

Seriously, we could carry on for ever and a day conjuring up examples of the impossible and/or the absurd, but that's not what our forum really aims to do and consequently it's now time to give it an invisibility cloak and call a halt.  Thanks to everyone who's taken part for their creativity!  DonnyB - moderator.


----------

