# If my grandfather was alive today, he might have enjoyed...



## Nawee

Hello,

I have a couple of questions with this sentence, which I came across in Cambridge's "Advance Grammar In Use".

"If my grandfather was alive today, he might have enjoyed looking after our garden."

1. Why is "might have enjoyed" used in this sentence instead of "might enjoy"? I thought "might" was a possible modal verb that could be used instead of "would" in conditional sentences, but why change the tense altogether?

2. Nowadays, is the subjunctive "were" still commonly used?

Thank you.

Nawee


----------



## BLUEGLAZE

Grandfather is no longer alive. The clause should use 'were'. I don't believe 'were' is used as it should be by most people.


----------



## entangledbank

Some people (in fact some dialects) consistently use 'were' here, but 'was' is fine too, and is what I'd normally say. It can be used no matter how hypothetical the situation is. However, 'might have enjoyed' is more hypothetical. If my brother was here he might enjoy this: in fact he's not here, but he could be. If my dead grandfather was here (or had been here), he might have enjoyed this, but he can't be here, of course.


----------



## The Newt

If grandfather were still alive, but simply elsewhere, you could say, "If my grandfather were here this summer, he might enjoy looking after our garden."

I also prefer "were," though "was" is now probably more common in spoken AE.


----------



## Nawee

Just to make sure I understand correctly. "might have enjoyed" is less likely than "might enjoy"? Would it be wrong to say, "might enjoy" in this case?

"If my grandfather were alive today, he would enjoy taking care of our garden."


----------



## BLUEGLAZE

Your sentence is good. I believe your understanding is good also.


----------



## Bondstreet

_>> "If my grandfather was alive today, he might have enjoyed looking after our garden."

1. Why is "might have enjoyed" used in this sentence instead of "might enjoy"? I thought "might" was a possible modal verb that could be used instead of "would" in conditional sentences, but why change the tense altogether? <<_

1: "might have enjoyed" is more correct - past subjunctive, a possible event in the past is being imagined. If you say "he might enjoy" you are assuming a present event which cannot exist. He might enjoy it, but he can't, because he cannot be here...

_>> 2. Nowadays, is the subjunctive "were" still commonly used?  <<_

It is used less than it should be.  If you mention the subjunctive to most modern youth, they do not know what you are talking about.  I would say "If my grandfather were alive today", but the uneducated would say "was".


----------



## Nawee

If "would" is used instead of "might", should the sentence be "would enjoy" or "would have enjoyed"?

"If my grandfather were alive today, he [would enjoy/would have enjoyed] taking care of our garden."
(= My grandfather is not alive today, so he can't enjoy taking care of our garden.)

Most grammar books talk about "the second conditional" with the past tense in the condition part and "would" + infinitive in the main clause. That's why "might have enjoyed" threw me a bit. "would" + infinitive seems to work fine in the following sentence.

"If my grandfather were alive today, he *would be* a hundred."
(= My grandfather is not alive today, so he *is not* a hundred years old.)

Thank you.


----------



## Parla

In my English, the sentence in the book that claims to be teaching you grammar is not grammatical: 
"If my grandfather was alive today, he might have enjoyed looking after our garden." This sentence entertains the possibility that the grandfather may have been alive earlier in the day.

In fact, the grandfather is dead, and other tenses are required for this contrary-to-fact "if" statement.

The grammatically correct sentence would be: 
If my grandfather *were* alive today, he *might enjoy* looking after our garden.


----------



## velisarius

It's well-known that there are AE/BE differences in the use of the subjunctive. In BE the subjunctive is often regarded as over-formal for speech, though there are circumstances where we do use it.

As entangledbank says in post #3, the subjunctive "were" is not obligatory in BE. Many BE speakers (even educated ones) would not use the subjunctive here, especially in speech. The textbook Nawee is using seems to be a British publication.

For me, "might have enjoyed" or "would have enjoyed" are the most obvious choices of modal verb.

(Edited to add missing word "are".)


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Nawee said:


> If "would" is used instead of "might", should the sentence be "would enjoy" or "would have enjoyed"?
> 
> "If my grandfather were alive today, he [would enjoy/would have enjoyed] taking care of our garden."
> (= My grandfather is not alive today, so he can't enjoy taking care of our garden.)
> 
> Most grammar books talk about "the second conditional" with the past tense in the condition part and "would" + infinitive in the main clause. That's why "might have enjoyed" threw me a bit. "would" + infinitive seems to work fine in the following sentence.
> 
> "If my grandfather were alive today, he *would be* a hundred."
> (= My grandfather is not alive today, so he *is not* a hundred years old.)
> 
> Thank you.


Hello Nawee,

I'm sorry that your thread has got hijacked by the great subjunctive goosechase, despite your pushing it in the other direction.

What you have here is not a 2nd conditional - _if he was alive, he would enjoy._

But a mixed 2nd/3rd conditional - _if he was alive, he would have enjoyed._

The difference is that the 2nd concentrates on an individual moment, and the mixed 2nd/3rd on an ongoing state.

As being dead is an ongoing state, the mixed 2nd/3rd is appropriate here.


Nawee said:


> Just to make sure I understand correctly. "might have enjoyed" is less likely than "might enjoy"? Would it be wrong to say, "might enjoy" in this case?
> 
> "If my grandfather were alive today, he would enjoy taking care of our garden."


I think that would be very odd.  You can't really posit his being here because he's dead.

I find the question interesting because we could say _If he_ (someone who is alive) _was here, he would enjoy_.

I'm sorry that someone has denounced the indicative in this sort of case as uneducated in BE.  I've known other people say that from time to time, but I'm entirely with Entangled and Velisarius on that point.


----------



## siares

Thomas Tompion said:


> You can't really posit his being here because


I am too struggling with 'would have enjoyed' construction.
How is the OP impossibility of the if clause different from: ?
_"If a lion could speak, we couldn't understand him" _(instead of 'we could not have understood him?')
Or a version with: if a lion spoke to us today..

Here is the link to that grammar book paragraph but it is very condensely written.
The sentence in there is: If my grandfather was/were *still* alive today, he might have enjoyed looking after our garden.
Does the 'still' play any part?

Thank you.


----------



## Parla

Question for some of the "was" folk:
Should the song "Wish You Were Here" have been, instead, titled "Wish You Was Here?"


----------



## e2efour

Parla said:


> Question for some of the "was" folk:
> Should the song "Wish You Were Here" have been, instead, titled "Wish You Was Here?"



I don't understand your point. Both _I wish he was here _(past simple or preterite tense)_ and I wish he were here (irrealis_ for a remote conditional) are regarded as equivalent. _Was _is described as less formal by the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, which gives the following examples:
"Preterite was, however, is very widely used instead of irrealis were in these constructions, especially in informal style:_ He talks to me as if I was a child_, _I wish I was going with you_."​Who is suggesting that _you were_ be replaced by _you was? _All these examples of a change from _was_ to _were_ concern only the third person of the verb.
It should also be noted that _If my grandfather was alive today_ has to be changed when the clause is inverted (i.e. we have to say _Were my grandfather alive today_).


----------



## Thomas Tompion

siares said:


> I am too struggling with 'would have enjoyed' construction.
> How is the OP impossibility of the if clause different from: ?
> _"If a lion could speak, we couldn't understand him" _(instead of 'we could not have understood him?')
> Or a version with: if a lion spoke to us today..
> 
> Here is the link to that grammar book paragraph but it is very condensely written.
> The sentence in there is: If my grandfather was/were *still* alive today, he might have enjoyed looking after our garden.
> Does the 'still' play any part?
> 
> Thank you.


It's a very good question, Siares.

Your grammar book couldn't inform me about what you have been told, because the link didn't work for me.

The problem with your grammar book's sentence is that the modals can easily hide the grammar, by stopping us knowing what tense is being used.

In BE many feel we should use the subjunctive (*if he were*) for logical impossibilities (my being you, retreating forwards, being in two places at once, etc) but  do not need to for technical impossibilities (my being in Paris, trains traveling at 2,000 mph, people rising from the dead, etc).

Now lions speaking is not a logical impossibility, so we can say *If a lion was to speak, we wouldn't be able to understand him* (let's clarify the modal auxiliaries).

But lions being leopards is a logical impossibility, so we'd say *If a lion were a leopard, we wouldn't be able to tell them apart*.

People who talk of 'unreal' conditions needing subjunctives trouble me, because they don't distinguish between these different cases, which people who care about language clearly do, not necessarily consciously.  I can only vouch for British English here; it's the language I speak.  Look at other threads for informed American English views; they are very varied.  I ought to add that there are British English speakers who disagree with me too, as may soon become evident.

Grandfather's being alive is not a logical impossibility, but it is a technical impossibility.  For me this means we can use both *was* or *were*, depending on how deeply we wish to stress his being dead.

But Grandfather's being alive cannot be an ongoing condition, granted that we know that he's dead; this means that we can't use the simple 2nd conditional in its standard conditional form, which is concerned with the future -* If he was awake, he would enjoy that *(were he awake, he would enjoy that).  We can use the 2nd conditional here because not being awake is not a permanent state).

We need, therefore, to use the mixed 2nd/3rd conditional in grandfather's case - *if he was alive, he would have enjoyed that* (this refers to a very recent event, maybe only a minute earlier).

We could also, of course, use the 3rd conditional - *if he had been alive, he would have enjoyed that *(this refers to an event some time back).

I'm sorry to produce such a long post, but your question merited serious consideration.  Happy Christmas!


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Parla said:


> Question for some of the "was" folk:
> Should the song "Wish You Were Here" have been, instead, titled "Wish You Was Here?"


Tiny point:
The past indicative tense of *to be* -_ I was, *you were*, he was, we were, *you were*, they were_.
The past subjunctive tense of* to be* - _I were,* you were*, he were, we were, *you were*, they were._


----------



## RedwoodGrove

_We need, therefore, to use the mixed 2nd/3rd conditional in grandfather's case -
_
What is this? I know what the subjunctive/conditional is. That is to say I know it as well as anybody else because in English it is totally screwed up, ruined, and incomprehensible. What is this 2nd/3rd business?


----------



## siares

I am overjoyed with your long response, thank you, Thomas. Merry Christmas to you too!


Thomas Tompion said:


> *if he was alive, he would have enjoyed that* (this refers to a very recent event, maybe only a minute earlier).


What gives clues that  OP refers to a recent event? I thought it was about grandfather's proclivity:
My grandad was good at gardening, but when he was alive, we didn't have a garden. Now we do but don't enjoy looking after it - if only he was still around! He might....

The grammar book I linked to wasn't mine, it was OP's (result of search in Google books). That paragraph didn't deal with was/were at all, only with the 'would have'. I attach it. It also gives this sentence:
_If my grandfather was/were still alive, he would be a hundred today._

Very interesting about logical/technical!
I am having trouble disentangling this with 'death'
For a dead thing to become alive, that sounds technical impossibility.
But, for a dead thing to be alive / to not be dead, that sounds also like a logical impossibility.

Unfortunately I didn't clearly understand the extent to which these 2 explanations overlap:
1) the explanation to preferring were/was (technical vs. logical impossibility)
and
2) the explanation to using mixed conditionals (technical impossibility + ongoingness?)

Because, in that case I am still not clear:
the below are both _technically_ impossible


Thomas Tompion said:


> Grandfather's being alive is not a logical impossibility, but it is a technical impossibility
> _*if he was alive, he would have enjoyed that*_
> But Grandfather's being alive cannot be an ongoing condition, granted that we know that he's dead; this means that we can't use the simple 2nd conditional in its standard conditional form, which is concerned with the future.
> 
> lions speaking is not a logical impossibility
> *If a lion was to speak, we wouldn't be able to understand him*


Why does not the the same logic (of the 'alive' sentence) apply in the lion sentence?
Lion's speaking cannot be ongoing, granted that we know lions can't speak.

Thank you.


----------



## Kirusha

Let me add my two pennies. The logic of English conditionals (in the context of the 2nd and 3rd conditional and putting aside the subjunctive issue), seems to suggest that pretty much anything is technically possible unless it belongs to the past (also construable as the state vs event distinction). My students used to wonder why "If I was/ were a man/woman" should be in the 2nd conditional since it's clearly impossible for somebody to be of the opposite sex but they no longer do. So apparently being alive or dead is only a matter of technological prowess.

I'm more intrigued by the "might have enjoyed" part. It does suggest a sense of being past. Of course, the original sentence lacks context and as such could be about anything (the family had to find somebody to look after the garden while they were on holiday, and if the grandfather was/ were alive, he might have enjoyed looking after the garden relative to this particular event either already past or soon to become past). I expect "If my grandfather was/ were alive today, he would enjoy looking after the garden" is not impossible (I don't like "might" here since the implication seems to be that the speaker didn't know the grandfather well enough).


----------



## RedwoodGrove

OK, "might" is the conditional/subjunctive of "may". Usage: I have a hammer. I may use it. OR: I have a hammer. If I had a nail I might use it.

The sentence in the OP seems pretty normal. I don't like using "might" very often because it seems as if you are squeezing out a possibility. "I might do it if you would just ..." I prefer the "if ... would" construction.

Why bother talking about what grandfather "might" have done? We all might have done anything. Grandfather WOULD have enjoyed gardening, I'm sure.


----------



## Forero

Kirusha said:


> Let me add my two pennies. The logic of English conditionals (in the context of the 2nd and 3rd conditional and putting aside the subjunctive issue), seems to suggest that pretty much anything is technically possible unless it belongs to the past (also construable as the state vs event distinction). My students used to wonder why "If I was/ were a man/woman" should be in the 2nd conditional since it's clearly impossible for somebody to be of the opposite sex but they no longer do. So apparently being alive or dead is only a matter of technological prowess.


I am afraid I have not been able to make much sense of numbered conditionals. Are they forms, or meanings? Which is which?





> I'm more intrigued by the "might have enjoyed" part. It does suggest a sense of being past. Of course, the original sentence lacks context and as such could be about anything (the family had to find somebody to look after the garden while they were on holiday, and if the grandfather was/ were alive, he might have enjoyed looking after the garden relative to this particular event either already past or soon to become past). I expect "If my grandfather was/ were alive today, he would enjoy looking after the garden" is not impossible (I don't like "might" here since the implication seems to be that the speaker didn't know the grandfather well enough).


This is essentially my understanding of these forms. The perfect infinitive "have enjoyed" is about earlier enjoyment than plain "enjoy".

Suppose we are looking at a garden overgrown with tall grass and weed-strangled pepper plants. My grandfather, obviously, has not looked after it, but perhaps that is just because he is no longer alive. If he were still alive, he might have looked after it.


----------



## RedwoodGrove

I also asked. What are these numbered conditionals?


----------



## Nawee

As a student who learns English as a second language, I am taught these rules and constructions.

1st conditional: If I see him, I will tell him you called.
2nd conditional: If I were you, I would call him.
3rd conditional: If I had been there, I would have told him myself.

Some grammar books also talk about the "zero conditional": If water reaches 100C, it boils.

I think the numbers are there so the learner has some labels to call the constructions.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

siares said:


> Why does not the the same logic (of the 'alive' sentence) apply in the lion sentence?


Hello Siares,

Let's look at this one issue at a time, so that the posts don't become very long.

There are two issues: the _was/were_ issue and the _tense-sequencing_ (which number conditional?) issue.  Let's restrict ourselves to the _tense-sequencing_ issue.

*1. If a lion was to speak, we wouldn't be able to understand him *- ordinary 2nd conditional.
*2. If a lion had spoken, we wouldn't have been able to understand him *- ordinary 3rd conditional.
*3. If a lion was to speak, we wouldn't have been able to understand him* - mixed 2nd/3rd conditional.

*1a. If he was alive, he would enjoy that *_-_ ordinary 2nd conditional.
*2a. If he had been alive, he would have enjoyed that *- ordinary 3rd conditional.
*3a. If he was alive, he would have enjoyed that - *mixed 2nd/3rd conditional.

What's the difference between the two cases in the second conditional? (Remember we are concerned in its application to the future: what would follow from the condition's being met in the future).

Why is the lion sentence *(1.)* all right and the grandfather (he) sentence *(1a.)* not?  Because being alive is a continuous state, not something which can easily be a sudden event, like speaking. (Had sentence *1a* been* 1b. If he rose from the dead, he would enjoy that*, that would have been understandable, despite being macabre).

What's the difference between the two cases in the mixed 2nd/3rd conditional? (Remember we are concerned with an ongoing state and its effect upon a past event: what would have followed from the condition's being met both then and now).

Why is the grandfather (he) sentence *(3a.)* all right and  the lion sentence *(3.)* not?  Because being alive is a continuous state, not something which can easily be a sudden event, like speaking. (Had sentence* 3.* been *3b. If the lion was able to speak, we would not have understood him*, that would have been understandable).



Nawee said:


> I think the numbers are there so the learner has some labels to call the constructions.


This is a good point, Nawee.  The numbers provide templates for standard forms of _proper conditionals_ (sentences which are concerned with the consequences contingent upon a condition's being met).

One problem is that many native speakers use other forms, outside the numbered templates.  Sometimes they do this out of laziness or slovenliness; sometimes they do it because there are many if-clause forms which do not introduce _proper conditionals_.

This means that most attempts in a forum like this to explain tense-sequencing in conditional sentences using the standard templates meet opposition from members who don't think this complex issue can be reduced to a series of more-or-less simple rules.  If we don't reduce it to such rules, however, learners (and many natives) will find this area extremely difficult to approach.


----------



## Kirusha

Thomas Tompion said:


> *1a. If he was alive, he would enjoy that *_-_ ordinary 2nd conditional.



Sorry, Thomas Tompion, why is this one incorrect? Other than the "was/ were" issue, which can be put aside for the moment, I don't see any significant difference between this example and the ones below. 

My, *if he were alive today, he would enjoy *the Amsterdam News, the Pittshurgh Courier, the Philadelphia Trihune, and the Los Angeles Eagle and Sentinel. (Robert Scott Jones, Joy in the Morning)

I'm sure that *if he were alive today he would enjoy* the stories about himself, and the way they improve with age... (Crow and Dove, Perspectives on Genetics)

Bill has gone to that great beyond, and took his Charro costume with him insofar as possible, I am sure *if he were alive today he would enjoy *my relating the following colorful incident in his interesting life. (Trailer Life)


----------



## e2efour

I see nothing "incorrect" in these sentences with _today._


----------



## RedwoodGrove

Thomas Tompion said:


> This means that most attempts in a forum like this to explain tense-sequencing in conditional sentences using the standard templates meet opposition from members who don't think this complex issue can be reduced to a series of more-or-less simple rules.  If we don't reduce it to such rules, however, learners (and many natives) will find this area extremely difficult to approach.



What is a good source for learning the rules? Most grammar books that I have seen in my area are outdated.


----------



## siares

e2efour said:


> I see nothing "incorrect" in these sentences with _today._


Oh no. Is the '_today_' paramount in there?
OP contains '_still today_' - yet different.

edited


----------



## Kirusha

siares said:


> Oh no. Is the '_today_' paramount in there?
> OP contains '_still today_' - yet different.



Sorry, I'm totally lost. How can "today" or "still" change the acceptability of the 2nd conditional with the "if he was/ were alive" clause (as contrasted with a mixed 2nd/ 3rd conditional)? Here are some other examples:

“Nevertheless,” said the solicitor, “*if he were still alive he would inherit* if—er —anything happened to the present legatee.” (Catherine Aird, Slight Mourining)

She knew he was only in her imagination, because *if he were alive, he would never hurt her* by pretending he was dead. (Mallory Kane, Security Breach)


----------



## e2efour

_Today_ is of no relevance.
Sentences of the following kind are acceptable:
_If George Washington were alive, would he chop the cherry tree down?
Were George Washington alive, would he chop the cherry tree down?_

To quote the following two sentences from the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language:
"
b. If they were alive now they would be horrified. [remote]
c. If they had been alive now they would have been horrified. [doubly remote]​
The difference between and [c] is not very tangible."​


----------



## Thomas Tompion

e2efour said:


> _Today_ is of no relevance.
> Sentences of the following kind are acceptable:
> _If George Washington were alive, would he chop the cherry tree down?
> Were George Washington alive, would he chop the cherry tree down?_
> 
> To quote the following two sentences from the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language:
> "
> b. If they were alive now they would be horrified. [remote]
> c. If they had been alive now they would have been horrified. [doubly remote]​
> The difference between and [c] is not very tangible."​


Hi E2e4,

Remember that I was considering, as I specified,





Thomas Tompion said:


> _its application to the future: what would follow from the condition's being met in the future_


  Both your examples from the Cambridge descriptive grammar use the word *now*.

I may be over-sensitive about life and death - I'm not happy with the George Washington examples either, though I'm entirely comfortable with the 3rd and mixed 2nd/3rd versions of that first sentence -

_If GW was alive, would he have chopped down the tree?_
_If GW had been alive, would he have chopped down the tree?_

Apply the argument to another state, _being awake_.

What's the 2nd conditional equivalent of* If she's awake, she'll see it*?  *If she was awake, she would see it* can be applied to the idea of her being awake in the future, it seems to me, so I found the wrong grammatical reason for my objection to the sentence about the grandfather's death (*1a*). I couldn't say it, nevertheless, and sentences like it, concerning death, don't appear much in literature.


----------



## e2efour

Hi Thomas,

Could you clarify your position? As I understand you, you object to sentences like (1), where the question of someone who is dead is concerned. I don't understand why words like _now_, _still, today_ could make any difference, except to make clear that the past is not involved.

(1)  If he were still alive, he would … now be being questioned_…_ by Scotland Yard. (from the _Evening Standard_, 1992)

The sentences below come from grammar books. None of the _if _clauses refer to the past. Do you have any objections to them?

(2)  It would be a pity if he were to give up now.
(3)  If he loved her, he’d give up his job.
(4)  If he was in love with her, he’d change his job.
(5)  If he were in love with her, he’d change his job.
(6)  If he were here, he would vote for the motion.
(7)  If she were here, she would speak on my behalf.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

e2efour said:


> Hi Thomas,
> 
> Could you clarify your position? As I understand you, you object to sentences like (1), where the question of someone who is dead is concerned. I don't understand why words like _now_, _still, today_ could make any difference, except to make clear that the past is not involved.
> 
> (1)  If he were still alive, he would … now be being questioned_…_ by Scotland Yard. (from the _Evening Standard_, 1992)
> 
> The sentences below come from grammar books. None of the _if _clauses refer to the past. Do you have any objections to them?
> 
> (2)  It would be a pity if he were to give up now.
> (3)  If he loved her, he’d give up his job.
> (4)  If he was in love with her, he’d change his job.
> (5)  If he were in love with her, he’d change his job.
> (6)  If he were here, he would vote for the motion.
> (7)  If she were here, she would speak on my behalf.


Hi E2E4,
*
Now, still, today*, make a difference because I was considering the application of the second conditional to future events.  They (with the possible exception of *still*) discount the case I was considering.

I'll run briefly through your examples:

(1)  _If he were still alive, he would … now be being questioned… by Scotland Yard. (from the Evening Standard, 1992)_ - no problem, present.
(2)  _It would be a pity if he were to give up now_ - no problem, future and eventive.
(3) _ If he loved her, he’d give up his job - no problem, future and eventive._
(4) _ If he was in love with her, he’d change his job _- could be future, is concerned with a state other than death.
(5) _ If he were in love with her, he’d change his job_ - ditto.
(6)  _If he were here, he would vote for the motion_ - no problem, present probably, and eventive.
(7)  _If she were here, she would speak on my behalf_ - no problem, present probably, and eventive.

I'm entirely happy with all of them.

The one I'm troubled by is death in the future - _if he were dead, he would sing the national anthem tomorrow with the rest of us_.  I can't bring myself to see that as possible.  Maybe I'm alone in this.

Maybe it's a question of logic rather than grammar, because I'm happy with - _if he were not dead, he would sing the national anthem tomorrow with the rest of us._


----------



## Forero

RedwoodGrove said:


> What is a good source for learning the rules? Most grammar books that I have seen in my area are outdated.


As far as I can tell, numbered conditionals belong only to the world of English as a foreign language, and as far as I can tell, they represent an oversimplification of the job of the subordinating conjunction _if_ and the job of "conditional" verb forms (_would_, _could_, _should_, _might_, etc.).

To learn more about numbered conditionals, look for a grammar book for English as a foreign language, but don't expect such a book to consistently agree with native English speakers' usage or understanding.

For example, does the term "first conditional" apply to the sentence "If I see him, I will tell him you called" just because this sentence has a simple present in the subordinate clause and a _will_ in the main clause, regardless of whether it refers to a possible future or to my usual practice of telling him you called if I see him? Or would the term "first conditional" apply to any sentence about a possible future, regardless of the forms or tenses used, just because it is about a possible future?

But as for the original sentence this thread is about, I can say, without attempting to assign a numbered type to it, that it is ambiguous in several ways.

For example, "If my grandfather was alive today" might be a stand-in for "If my grandfather were alive today", perhaps with a nuanced difference in meaning, or it might mean "If my grandfather was alive earlier today".

Also, "might have enjoyed" is the "conditional" form as well as the past tense form of "may have enjoyed" and is as ambiguous as "could have enjoyed", which can mean, among other things, "was able to have enjoyed", "had been able to enjoy", or "would be able to have enjoyed".

In what context did the original sentence arise? Are we looking at a garden full of weeds? Are we trying to solve a mystery, for example by trying to work out whether the grandfather died today or last night?


----------



## e2efour

Thomas Tompion said:


> The one I'm troubled by is death in the future - _if he were dead, he would sing the national anthem tomorrow with the rest of us_. I can't bring myself to see that as possible. Maybe I'm alone in this.



I don't see any grammatical difference in this sentence from _If he were here, he would sing the anthem tomorrow with the rest of us_. It's no different from _Imagine he was alive. What would he do?
_
If a herd of elephants had been slaughtered near a village, why could the villagers not say _If the elephants were alive, they would eat up our coming harvest?
_
If a business was failing, why not say _If my father were alive, he would succeed in saving the company from bankruptcy_?

I may be misunderstanding your objections, Thomas, but I don't see how grammar comes into it.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I think we'll just have to disagree, E2e4.  I made the point that the grammar was identical; that's why I thought it must be a problem of logic.

As for the elephants, I'd more naturally shift them into the 3rd conditional - *had we not shot the elephants, they would have eaten up our harvest*.

I couldn't make your sentence work for a potential future.  Those were real elephants which were then dead.  The prospective elephants of the future, in the construction I'm considering, wouldn't be interesting if they were not alive, so one wouldn't use your sentence.


----------



## Forero

e2efour said:


> I don't see any grammatical difference in this sentence from _If he were here, he would sing the anthem tomorrow with the rest of us_. It's no different from _Imagine he was alive. What would he do?
> _
> If a herd of elephants had been slaughtered near a village, why could the villagers not say _If the elephants were alive, they would eat up our coming harvest?
> _
> If a business was failing, why not say _If my father were alive, he would succeed in saving the company from bankruptcy_?
> 
> I may be misunderstanding your objections, Thomas, but I don't see how grammar comes into it.


I agree. I could use any of these sentences.

I read them as follows:

Present tense: _If he is here, he will sing the anthem tomorrow with the rest of us._
Past tense: _If he was here, he would sing the anthem tomorrow with the rest of us._ [ambiguous as to which "tomorrow" is meant]
_Irrealis_: _Were he here, he would sing the anthem tomorrow with the rest of us._
Alternative for _irrealis_: _If he were here, he would sing the anthem tomorrow with the rest of us._

Present tense: _If the elephants are alive, they will eat up our coming harvest._
Past tense: _If the elephants were alive, they would eat up our coming harvest.
Irrealis_: _Were the elephants alive, they would eat up our coming harvest._
Alternative for _irrealis_: _If the elephants were alive, they would eat up our coming harvest._ [same form as past tense]


----------



## thetazuo

Hi. I have read this thread twice but I’m still a bit confused.
As far as the op example is concerned, it seems that some advocate conditional perfect “might have enjoyed” while some others “might enjoy”. So this sentence is debatable. To me, I’d use either 1) “If my grandfather was/were alive today, he would enjoy that”, or 2) “If my grandfather had been alive today, he would have enjoyed that”.
I think that “If my grandfather was alive today, he would have enjoyed that” only makes sense if it is intended as a third conditional, which is equivalent to 2).
Does my thinking make sense?


----------



## lingobingo

You have every right to be confused! So am I.

Note that in giving the version you would use of the OP statement, you’ve (instinctively perhaps?) changed the modal verb.

Original version:
If my grandfather *was* alive today, he *might* have enjoyed looking after our garden.  

Standard version:
If my grandfather *had been* alive today, he *would* have enjoyed that.   

I can’t find that original version anywhere online (except with regard to this thread), which I find very suspicious. I wonder whether the person who started the thread made it up and inadvertently sent everyone on a wild goose chase?


----------



## thetazuo

Thanks for your response.


lingobingo said:


> I can’t find that original version anywhere online (except with regard to this thread), which I find very suspicious. I wonder whether the person who started the thread made it up and inadvertently sent everyone on a wild goose chase?


The original example is from Advanced Grammar in Use by Martin Hewings, page 239, as the OP said. But is the original version necessarily bad? I think we can treat it as an equivalent of the standard type 3 conditional “If my grandfather *had been* alive today, he *might* have enjoyed that.” I think of it this way because I have read this thread (Would have been vs would be) previously and learned that this pattern “if+simple past+conditional perfect” can also be treated as a type 3 conditional.


----------



## Vronsky

"He would have enjoyed" - you know for sure that he would have enjoyed
"He might have enjoyed" - knowing your grandfather, you assume that he might have enjoyed


----------



## Thomas Tompion

thetazuo said:


> [...]
> I have...learned that this pattern “if+simple past+conditional perfect” can also be treated as a type 3 conditional.


I don't think this is a fair conclusion.  I think you've been misled, Thetazuo.

I don't see _If my grandfather *had been* alive today_ as something I could correctly say.  The _had been_ takes us to a moment in the past; it's inconsistent with _today_ or _tomorrow._


----------



## GreenWhiteBlue

Thomas Tompion said:


> I don't see _If my grandfather *had been* alive today_ as something I could correctly say.  The _had been_ takes us to a moment in the past; it's inconsistent with _today_ or _tomorrow._


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you for the response.


Thomas Tompion said:


> I don't think this is a fair conclusion. I think you've been misled, Thetazuo.


Or I may have misrepresented teddy’s idea?


Thomas Tompion said:


> The _had been_ takes us to a moment in the past; it's inconsistent with _today_ or _tomorrow._


I’ve just found this example, which shows that past perfect can be used with today:



Or “had been” introduces a state rather than an action, so it can only refer to a moment in the past?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

thetazuo said:


> I’ve just found this example, which shows that past perfect can be used with today:
> View attachment 32636
> Or “had been” introduces a state rather than an action, so it can only refer to a moment in the past?


1.  The previous example was stative.

2.  Your unacknowledged quote talks of a meeting today.  For me this clearly, because of the _had spoken_, took place earlier in the day, ie. in the past. So I'm inclined to believe that this talk of an 'extended present' indicated by the past perfect is unsound.

3.  I'm not happy with your use of the verb _to show_, Tetazuo, in a discussion.  One can only show things that are true, so _to suggest _or _to state_ would be less contentious.


----------



## lingobingo

If your father had spoken at the meeting today, he would have rehearsed his speech in front of me yesterday.​
Let’s be honest… the above is a dreadful sentence that no one in their right mind would ever use — unless to make a point in an academic book about conditionals. However, what we lesser mortals _might_ say would be:

If your father *had been going to* / *had intended to* speak at the meeting today, he would have rehearsed his speech in front of me yesterday.​​Why does this work and the other one not? Because despite the fact that no verb tense goes further back in time than the past perfect, that does effectively backshift the hypothesis in the if-clause (that he had _intended_ to speak) to a time before the action described in the main clause (i.e. rehearsing the speech yesterday).


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you all. I see.


Thomas Tompion said:


> I don't see _If my grandfather *had been* alive today_ as something I could correctly say. The _had been_ takes us to a moment in the past; it's inconsistent with _today_ or _tomorrow._





e2efour said:


> c. If they had been alive now they would have been horrified. [doubly remote]





lingobingo said:


> Original version:
> If my grandfather *was* alive today, he *might* have enjoyed looking after our garden.
> 
> Standard version:
> If my grandfather *had been* alive today, he *would* have enjoyed that.


After reading this I’m confused. Whether or not can we use “had been” to refer to present?


----------



## lingobingo

If my grandfather had been alive today = If it were the case that my grandfather was still alive


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you. So as to this sentence "If my grandfather *was* alive today, he would/might have enjoyed looking after our garden.", can we treat it as a type 3 conditional, which is equivalent to "If my grandfather *had been* alive today, he would/might have enjoyed looking after our garden."?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

thetazuo said:


> Thank you. So as to this sentence "If my grandfather *was* alive today, he would/might have enjoyed looking after our garden.", can we treat it as a type 3 conditional, which is equivalent to "If my grandfather *had been* alive today, he would/might have enjoyed looking after our garden."?


No.  I've already responded to this question.


----------



## thetazuo

I know, TT. But it’s just strange to me that your and lingobingo’s ideas are opposite to each other that I’m left at a loss.


----------



## Forero

Original sentence: "If my grandfather was alive today, he might have enjoyed looking after our garden."

This seems to refer to sometime earlier today, not now. In other words, it means that if "My grandfather was alive (earlier) today" is true, then "He might have enjoyed looking after our garden" is true of that same time period.

But so many people use the indicative form "was" in place of the subjunctive form "were" that I have to say the intended meaning is probably "If 'My grandfather is (still) alive today' were true, then 'He might enjoy looking after our garden' would be true of this same time period." This uses "today" to refer to "current times"/"nowadays", probably years after the grandfather's death.

For this meaning, I would use "were" where the original has "was", and I would keep "might have enjoyed".

The question then is why I choose to say "might have enjoyed" in such a context when referring to current times.

What I think is happening is that "He might enjoy looking after our garden" works as a standalone sentence referring to current times (still, even today), and to say that it would (have to) be true if my grandfather were still alive requires backshifting it to "He might have enjoyed looking after our garden".

In other words, I imagine a rule for making a conditional main clause out of an ordinary statement, i.e. making one clause— I'll call it _x'_ — meaning "_x_ would be true (in that case)" out of a one-clause statement _x_ without resorting to imbedding the statement in a clause about its truth.

For example, if _x_ is "This apple is ripe", we have the clause _x'_ = "This apple would be ripe (in that case)."

And if _x_ is "This apple will be ripe tomorrow", we have _x'_ = "This apple would be ripe tomorrow (in that case)."

If _x_ is "This apple may be ripe tomorrow", we have _x'_ = "This apple might be ripe tomorrow (in that case)."

I suggest the rule for generating _x'_ from _x_ is something like:


If _x_ has no modal, replace a present tense (e.g. "is") with _would_ + bare infinitive (e.g. "would be") and replace a past tense (e.g. "was") with _would have_ + past participle (e.g. "would have been").

If _x_ has a present tense modal (e.g. "will", "shall", "can", "may"), replace it with its past tense (e.g. "would", "should", "could", "might", respectively).

If _x_ has a past tense modal (even if it refers to present or future time), replace modal + bare infinitive with modal + "have" + past participle (e.g. "would like" -> "would have liked", "might enjoy" -> "might have enjoyed").

Part 3 of this rule explains this:

_I would like to be there, but I don't have a way to get there. If I did have a way to get there_ (= _Had I some way to get there_),_ I would have liked to be there._

And, hopefully, this:

_I always think of my grandfather when I work in this garden. My grandfather died ten years ago, but were he still alive today, he might have enjoyed looking after it himself._

I hope this makes sense and helps someone.


----------



## aaronsun666

If you were there, mom would still be alive.
If you were there, mom would have been alive.

Which one is correct?


----------



## Uncle Jack

aaronsun666 said:


> If you were there, mom would still be alive.
> If you were there, mom would have been alive.
> 
> Which one is correct?


Neither. I take it that the speaker knows that the other person was not there, at some specific time in the past. This requires the past perfect: "If you hade been there,...".

The main clause refers to the present, so "...mom would still be alive" is correct.

This is a mixed type 3/2 conditional.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

aaronsun666 said:


> If you were there, mom would still be alive.
> If you were there, mom would have been alive.
> 
> Which one is correct?


Hello Aaronsun,

Your first ls a normal II conditional.
Your second is normal II/III mixed conditional.

The II/III mixed conditional is appropriate to the impact of ongoing circumstances on a previous previous past event.  

_ If you weren't blind, you would've seen the flash of the camera._

The condition (being blind) is ongoing: you were blind then; you are blind now.

In your sentence - _If you were there, mom would have been alive_ - it's hard to see that you were not there then and are not there now.  I don't see the II/III as appropriate to your case.

So your second sentence doesn't work.  How about the first one?

The II conditional is appropriate for a hypothetical event in the future: eg. If you were there, you would see the flash of the camera.

But your main clause - _Mom would still be alive_ - closes all future possibilities, because it implies that Mom is dead now.

So, for me, the II conditional doesn't work.

Of course a III/II mixed conditional could work - _If you had been there, Mom would still be alive_.

The III/II mixed looks at the impact of an event or a state in the past (your not being there) on the present (Mom's being still alive).

That fits this sentence very well.


----------



## aaronsun666

"If you were there, mom would still be alive." This comes from a movie. So should be correct.


Help me with another one, please, guys. Still getting my head around.

1. I would have bought the silver stock yesterday if I had the money.
2. I would buy the silver stock yesterday if I had the money.

Meaning is I wanted to buy the stock but couldn't and didn't because I had no money for the purchase.


----------



## Uncle Jack

aaronsun666 said:


> "If you were there, mom would still be alive." This comes from a movie. So should be correct.


No, not necessarily. You find bad English in movies just the same as you find it in real life, and native speakers do sometimes get conditional sentences wrong. However, what was the situation it was spoken in? What were the previous lines of dialogue? "If you were there, mom would still be alive" is a grammatically-correct sentence, but it requires an unusual situation for it to work. Perhaps if the previous line was "I was there", then it would make sense.



aaronsun666 said:


> Help me with another one, please, guys. Still getting my head around.
> 
> 1. I would have bought the silver stock yesterday if I had the money.
> 2. I would buy the silver stock yesterday if I had the money.
> 
> Meaning is I wanted to buy the stock but couldn't and didn't because I had no money for the purchase.


Everything is in the past, and you are describing what would have happened if the situation had been different. This requires a type 3 conditional, using the past perfect in the if-clause and the past conditional in the main clause:
I *would have bought* the silver stock yesterday if I *had had* the money.​


----------



## Thomas Tompion

aaronsun666 said:


> "If you were there, mom would still be alive." This comes from a movie. So should be correct.


Don't believe that everything you hear in films, or on the street, is correct.  This has been analysed for you; I think you need to respond to the analysis, rather that simply saying that the sentence must be right, Aaronsun.   I can't think of circumstances in which that sentence could be correct, for the reasons I gave you: it implies that you are permanently not there.

Of your new ones: 2. has the form of a II conditional, and II conditionals are about the future or, sometimes, the present.  The _yesterday_ makes that impossible.

As you can see, 1. is a II/III conditional and is fine: you didn't have the money then and you don't have it now.

Some people would have expected the III conditional there:_ I would have bought the silver stock yesterday if I had had the money. _ That tells us you didn't have the money then; it says nothing about whether you have it now.


----------



## aaronsun666

Thomas Tompion said:


> hypothetical event in the future: eg. If you were there, you would see the flash of the camera.



If it is to describe a future event, why not just "if you are there, you will see the flash of the camera?"

Your example seems like talking about an event in the past and the speaker doesn't know if you were there or not back then.

Please help.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

aaronsun666 said:


> If it is to describe a future event, why not just "if you are there, you will see the flash of the camera?"
> 
> Your example seems like talking about an event in the past and the speaker doesn't know if you were there or not back then.
> 
> Please help.


Hello Aaronsun.

Please look what your book tells you about the difference between the first and second conditional.

You say my example 'seems like talking about an event in the past'.  Maybe it does seem like that to you, but I assure you it is a standard second conditional and they deal with possible events in the future and, sometimes, in the present.

If you want to discuss the difference between

"if you were there, you would see the flash of the camera?" and "if you are there, you will see the flash of the camera?"

You need to look at your book and threads on the difference between the first and second conditional.


----------



## aaronsun666

Thomas Tompion said:


> You say my example 'seems like talking about an event in the past'. Maybe it does seem like that to you, but I assure you it is a standard second conditional and they deal with possible events in the future and, sometimes, in the present.


I got it. If it were to describe a past event, it would be written as "If you were there, you would have seen the flash of the camera."  Therefore it can't be describing about the past.

I am correct on this?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

aaronsun666 said:


> I got it. If it were to describe a past event, it would be written as "If you were there, you would have seen the flash of the camera."  Therefore it can't be describing about the past.
> 
> I am correct on this?


Look carefully at my posts, aaronsun.  

If it's describing a past event you'd probably need the III conditional _If you had been there, you would have seen the flash of the camera._


----------



## lingobingo

If you were there *now*, you would … (a hypothesis about something that is not happening, but might if feasible)
If you had been there *then*, you would have … (a hypothesis about something that you know did not happen)

_"If you were there, mom would still be alive."_
What was the context of this statement? It’s presumably just a non-standard construction meant in the same way as a 3rd conditional (if you had been there – but you weren’t). The only other way it might makes sense, as far as I can see, is if the speaker meant something like: 
If what you say is true, and you really were there, why isn’t mom still alive? Why didn’t you save her?


----------



## JJXR

Hello to all! I've come across the following scenario, in which the conditional perfect is used, and I'm a little bit confused.

*Source:*

Prison break 2, TV series.

*Context:*

Micheal has a boat named after his dead mother. Alex has taken Michael's brother hostage (Michael's brother's name is Lincoln), and he's now blackmailing Michael by threatening to kill Lincoln. He says he will let Lincoln go if Michael gives him the boat. Michael comes to the place where Lincoln and Alex are, and the dialog below takes place between Alex and Michael.

*Sample sentence:*

Alex: "Michael, that's a beautiful boat."

Michael: "Just promise you'll change the name when you take it. I don't think my mother *would have approved* of you."

Alex: "Consider it done."

*Question:*

Could Michael have used "would approve" instead of "would have approved" in the above dialog? As far as I can tell, the implied condition here is "If my mother were alive...". So, if the sentences below are correct:


e2efour said:


> If the elephants were alive, they *would eat up* our coming harvest





e2efour said:


> If my father were alive, he *would succeed* in saving the company from bankruptcy


so should be this sentence:

_If my mother were alive, I don't think she *would approve* of you._

And if so, then the simple form "would approve" is possible in the original sentence, in which the implied condition is not mentioned but still understood from the context.

Is my reasoning correct? Thanks in advance.


----------



## lingobingo

JJXR said:


> And if so, then the simple form "would approve" is possible in the original sentence, in which the implied condition is not mentioned but still understood from the context.
> 
> Is my reasoning correct? Thanks


No. You could only use the present tense in the original sentence if you added a counterfactual if-clause that justified it grammatically (as in the other examples).

I don't think my [late] mother would have approved of you. 
I don't think my [late] mother would have approved of you, had she ever met you. 
I don't think my [late] mother would approve of you.  (How could she? She’s dead!)
I don't think my [late] mother would approve of you if she were still here.


----------



## JJXR

Thanks for the explanation, lingobingo.


----------



## sinukg

Thomas Tompion said:


> It's a very good question, Siares.
> 
> Your grammar book couldn't inform me about what you have been told, because the link didn't work for me.
> 
> The problem with your grammar book's sentence is that the modals can easily hide the grammar, by stopping us knowing what tense is being used.
> 
> In BE many feel we should use the subjunctive (*if he were*) for logical impossibilities (my being you, retreating forwards, being in two places at once, etc) but  do not need to for technical impossibilities (my being in Paris, trains traveling at 2,000 mph, people rising from the dead, etc).
> 
> Now lions speaking is not a logical impossibility, so we can say *If a lion was to speak, we wouldn't be able to understand him* (let's clarify the modal auxiliaries).
> 
> But lions being leopards is a logical impossibility, so we'd say *If a lion were a leopard, we wouldn't be able to tell them apart*.
> 
> People who talk of 'unreal' conditions needing subjunctives trouble me, because they don't distinguish between these different cases, which people who care about language clearly do, not necessarily consciously.  I can only vouch for British English here; it's the language I speak.  Look at other threads for informed American English views; they are very varied.  I ought to add that there are British English speakers who disagree with me too, as may soon become evident.
> 
> Grandfather's being alive is not a logical impossibility, but it is a technical impossibility.  For me this means we can use both *was* or *were*, depending on how deeply we wish to stress his being dead.
> 
> But Grandfather's being alive cannot be an ongoing condition, granted that we know that he's dead; this means that we can't use the simple 2nd conditional in its standard conditional form, which is concerned with the future -* If he was awake, he would enjoy that *(were he awake, he would enjoy that).  We can use the 2nd conditional here because not being awake is not a permanent state).
> 
> We need, therefore, to use the mixed 2nd/3rd conditional in grandfather's case - *if he was alive, he would have enjoyed that* (this refers to a very recent event, maybe only a minute earlier).
> 
> We could also, of course, use the 3rd conditional - *if he had been alive, he would have enjoyed that *(this refers to an event some time back).
> 
> I'm sorry to produce such a long post, but your question merited serious consideration.  Happy Christmas!


Please see your sentence "*If a lion was to speak, we wouldn't be able to understand him". *_Can we rewrite it as_* " If a lion could speak, we wouldn't be able to understand him"?*


----------



## Forero

JJXR said:


> Hello to all! I've come across the following scenario, in which the conditional perfect is used, and I'm a little bit confused.
> 
> *Source:*
> 
> Prison break 2, TV series.
> 
> *Context:*
> 
> Micheal has a boat named after his dead mother. Alex has taken Michael's brother hostage (Michael's brother's name is Lincoln), and he's now blackmailing Michael by threatening to kill Lincoln. He says he will let Lincoln go if Michael gives him the boat. Michael comes to the place where Lincoln and Alex are, and the dialog below takes place between Alex and Michael.
> 
> *Sample sentence:*
> 
> Alex: "Michael, that's a beautiful boat."
> 
> Michael: "Just promise you'll change the name when you take it. I don't think my mother *would have approved* of you."
> 
> Alex: "Consider it done."
> 
> *Question:*
> 
> Could Michael have used "would approve" instead of "would have approved" in the above dialog? As far as I can tell, the implied condition here is "If my mother were alive...". So, if the sentences below are correct:
> 
> 
> so should be this sentence:
> 
> _If my mother were alive, I don't think she *would approve* of you._
> 
> And if so, then the simple form "would approve" is possible in the original sentence, in which the implied condition is not mentioned but still understood from the context.
> 
> Is my reasoning correct? Thanks in advance.


Yes, "would approve" is possible, but it is less "conditional".

Consider (1) "She does not approve of you" as a standalone sentence compared with (2) "She would not approve of you." Sentence (1) is stark, not at all contingent on anything, but sentence (2) suggests there are conditions involved (e.g. "if she saw how you treat her boat").

"If she were alive, she would not approve of you" is like sentence (1) but with an added explicit unreal condition.

"If she were alive, she would not have approved of you" is like sentence (2) with an explicit unreal condition added on top of the suggested conditions.



sinukg said:


> Please see your sentence "*If a lion was to speak, we wouldn't be able to understand him". *_Can we rewrite it as_* " If a lion could speak, we wouldn't be able to understand him"?*


Your new sentence is valid, but it is not a rewriting of the original. "Could" is a form of "can"; "was to" is past tense of "is to".


----------

