# could not read vs could not have read



## Kross

I'd like to inquire about whether the use of_ could not read _in the if-clause is correct. The last sentence starting with_ As historians _talks about a past situation that did not happen. In this case, we are instructed to use "third conditional" meaning that If + past perfect, would have + past participle should be used. Since the if clause has _could_ in it, I think it should be re-written to _could not have read _as a variation. I cannot assume why_ could not read _is used there. Isn't that second conditional, the format that needs If + past, would + infinitive as in If we played tennis, I would win.  
This is from reading material for learners. 


> These writings suggest that the ancient Greeks had a high rate of literacy, even among common people. As historians point out, it would have been costly to carve messages into stone, and such expenditure would not have been worth it if many Athenian citizens *could not read *what was written. (continued)


(reference source: Fully Revised Practical English Usage, Third Edition, by Michael Swan, on pages, 256, 259)


----------



## Franco-filly

It is correct to me as it means “were unable to read”


----------



## ALEX1981X

Franco-filly said:


> It is correct to me as it means “were unable to read”



Franco in my humble opinion it must be "_if many Athenians hadn't been able to read what was written"_
"Could not read" seems to be a simplification


----------



## Kross

Franco-filly said:


> It is correct to me as it means “were unable to read”


Let's replace the phrase in question with what Franco-filly said, were unable to read. It will read as follows: ~ if many Athenian citizens *were unable to read *what was written.
That is an if-clause as part of second conditional, a structure that talks about untrue or imaginery situations. So the changed example implies that many Athenian citizens *do read *what was written.
Is that different from what the writer intended to show?


----------



## RM1(SS)

If many Athenian citizens *could not read *what was written, it would not have been worth it.
If many Athenian citizens *were unable to read *what was written, it would not have been worth it.

They mean the same.


----------



## ALEX1981X

RM1(SS) said:


> If many Athenian citizens *could not read *what was written, it would not have been worth it.
> If many Athenian citizens *were unable to read *what was written, it would not have been worth it.
> 
> They mean the same.



They seem wrong written in that way,at least to me
I think it should be "_If many Athenian citizens *could not have read *what was written (past), it would not have been worth it (past)."_


----------



## Parla

The quoted text looks fine to me.


----------



## ALEX1981X

Parla said:


> The quoted text looks fine to me.



Could you explain please?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

> ,,,such expenditure would not have been worth it if many Athenian citizens *could not read *what was written.



2nd Conditional: such expenditure would not be worth it if many Athenian citizens *could not read *what was written. (continued) 			 		

3rd Conditional: such expenditure would not have been worth it if many Athenian citizens *could not have read *what was written. (continued) 			 		

You want the 3rd Conditional form here.  The OP version is not right, in my view; you need that extra* have*.


----------



## PaulQ

ALEX1981X said:


> Franco in my humble opinion it must be "_if many Athenians hadn't been able to read what was written"_
> "Could not read" seems to be a simplification


The pluperfect – had had – and the imperfect – had- share a use: a completed action in the past.

He went to Paris and found a wife. Unfortunately, the wife was someone else’s.
He had gone to Paris and had found a wife. Unfortunately, the wife had been someone else’s.

With the imperfect there is a feeling of “during that time.” Whereas with the pluperfect there is a feeling of “at that time”,

In Swan’s example, it seems to me that the “during” is intended, but that the pluperfect could have been used.


----------



## Forero

The chronological order of things is:

1. Such expenditure is worth it. That is, people are willing to carve messages or to have messages carved.
so 2. Messages are carved into stone.
so 3. Most Athenian citizens can read what is written.

If many Athenian citizens cannot read what is written, messages will not have been carved into stone because such expenditure will not have been worth it.

In past tense, the above sentence becomes:

_If many Athenian citizens could not read what was written, messages would not have been carved into stone because such expenditure would not have been worth it._


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Forero said:


> The chronological order of things is:
> 
> 1. Such expenditure is worth it. That is, people are willing to carve messages or to have messages carved.
> so 2. Messages are carved into stone.
> so 3. Most Athenian citizens can read what is written.
> 
> If many Athenian citizens cannot read what is written, messages will not have been carved into stone because such expenditure will not have been worth it.
> 
> In past tense, the above sentence becomes:
> 
> _If many Athenian citizens could not read what was written, messages would not have been carved into stone because such expenditure would not have been worth it._


But the condition of the messages being carved into stone is that the citizens can read.

These are perfectly normal conditional forms, as is clear when you deconstruct the *can*'s and* could*'s into* to be able to*'s.

*If the citizens are not able to read, the messages will not be carved*. - 1st
*
If the citizens were not able to read, the messages would not be carved.* 2nd

*If the citizens had not been able to read, the messages would not have been carved.* 3rd.  same thing as* If the citizens could not have read what was written, the messages would not have been carved.*

The original is missing one word, *have*.  Addition of that word makes it an entirely conventional 3rd conditional sentence.


----------



## ALEX1981X

Forero said:


> In past tense, the above sentence becomes:
> 
> _If many Athenian citizens could not read what was written, messages would not have been carved into stone because such expenditure would not have been worth it._



Thanks Forero but to me this sentence, although it is correct, is what I call a "real conditional"
Actually it means, at least to my non native ears, that *when/since/given that* the Athenian citizens were indeed unable to read, messages weren't carved into stone because such expenditure _would not have been worth it_.
It's an habitual occurrence and this is what happened at that time.

On the contrary the sentence provided is entirely conditional and hypothetical since those facts never happened thus we are dealing with a so called third conditional as Mr Thompion explained and with whom I agree.
My guess is that in this case were unable to read/could not read, although it is abosultely understandable in the context, is acting as a surrogate of the correct form "*could not have read"*


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I agree with you, Alex, and you've been arguing for the correct form, in my view; but the question isn't whether what is written is understandable, but whether it's idiomatic.


----------



## wandle

Analysis

*Thomas Tompion's* proposed third conditional is perfectly correct. However, it seems to me that the original is also valid as a mixed conditional.

The sentence deals with two situations of different types. 'Worth it' expresses a value judgement made by Athenians at that time. The conditional form 'would not have been worth it' is required, because this deals with a presumed idea in other people's minds.

The other part deals with the question whether many Athenian citizens were literate at that time. This is a factual matter. Considered from the writer's perspective, the two possible conditions are (a) if they were and (b) if they were not. The indicative form is correct for this.

Hence it is legitimate for a writer today to make a mixed conditional of it, and to say both: 
(a)_ 'If it is true that many Athenians were literate at that time, then the expenditure would have been worth it'_; and (b) _'If it is not true that many Athenians were literate at that time, then the expenditure would not have been worth it'._
This sentence (b), I submit, is the true equivalent of the original: _'such expenditure would not have been worth it if many Athenian citizens could not read what was written'._

Initial conclusion: both versions are valid.

The modified version is valid as a third conditional:
_'such expenditure would not have been worth it if many Athenian citizens could not have read what was written'._
The original version is valid as a mixed conditional:
_'such expenditure would not have been worth it if many Athenian citizens could not read what was written'_.

Is there a way to choose between these two valid options?
There is a key difference: the modified version is equally valid for a situation in which many Athenians were in fact literate, but were prevented by some other cause from reading the inscriptions. However, it is clear from the context that the issue is literacy and nothing else.

My concluding submission:

The original version, which relates only to literacy, is the more precise option and is preferable for that reason.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

wandle said:


> [...]The modified version is valid as a third conditional:
> _'such expenditure would not have been worth it if many Athenian citizens could not have read what was written'._
> The original version is valid as a mixed conditional:
> _'such expenditure would not have been worth it if many Athenian citizens could not read what was written'_.


We are dealing with the difference between a third conditional and a mixed 2nd/3rd conditional.

*Third conditonal*: _'If many Athenian citizens could not have read what was written, __such expenditure would not have been worth it__' - _past perfect in if-clause (3rd), past conditional in main clause(3rd)_._  Look at the BBC website on this.

With the third conditional, we are often talking about something  that might have happened, but didn't. When  we are discussing such past situations we normally use *past perfect* in the *if-clause*, followed by *would have + past participle* in the main clause. 

 _I didn't pass the exam. But if I had passed it, I  would have registered for the civil engineering course at Nottingham  Trent University._

*Mixed 2nd/3rd conditional*: _'If many Athenian citizens could not read what was written__, such expenditure would not have been worth it__'_ - past in if-clause (2nd), past conditional in main clause (3rd). Look at the BBC website on this:

With this combination, we are describing ongoing circumstances in relation to a previous past event.   Consider these examples:

 _If you weren't such a poor dancer, you would've got a job in the chorus line in that musical._

*What's the difference?*

 The 3rd conditional explains what might have happened in the past, but didn't,  in reaction to an event or a state in the past. 
The mixed 2nd/3rd conditional explains what might have happened in the past, but didn't, in reaction to a state in the past, *which still holds*.

If we use the mixed 2nd/3rd conditional we are saying that the fact that Athenians can read (*a condition which persists now*, in January 2014) explains why their ancestors undertook expensive carving in stone.

If we use the 3rd conditional we are saying that the fact that the Athenians could read (back in c.500 BC) explains why Athenians of the time undertook expensive carving in stone.

We are not concerned at all with whether modern Athenians can read, but with whether the fact that the ancient Athenians carved in stone shows that the population of Athens at that time was literate.  We need the third conditional.


----------



## wandle

Thomas Tompion said:


> We are dealing with the difference between a third conditional and a mixed 2nd/3rd conditional.


No; the original sentence mixes a hypothetical conditional with a real conditional:


> 'such expenditure would not have been worth it if many Athenian citizens could not read what was written'.


This is equivalent to the sentence mentioned in post 15:
_'If it is not true that many Athenians were literate at that time, then the expenditure would not have been worth it'._

As stated, the literacy issue is a factual question (not hypothetical). It is true or false in the present. Either (a) it is the case that many Athenians were literate or (b) it is not. 

Thus we can legitimately say: if (b) is (as a matter of fact) the case, then the expenditure would not (we hypothesise) have been worth it.


----------



## ALEX1981X

I see what you mean wandle but if we accept the logic of the sentence _'If it is *not *true that many Athenians were literate at that time (factual), then the expenditure would not have been worth it (we hypothesise)"_ to me it would mean that the writer *now know* that_ many Athenians were infact illiterate *and then* (for this reason) the expenditure would not have been worth it_.

It's like saying _'*Given that* it is *not* true that many Athenians were literate at that time (factual), then the expenditure would not have been worth it'_..
I hope I'm not confused but the original clearly states that Athenians *had a high rate of literacy* instead .

This is just what emerge from my reading


----------



## Thomas Tompion

wandle said:


> This is equivalent to the sentence mentioned in post 15:
> _'If it is not true that many Athenians were literate at that time, then the expenditure would not have been worth it'._


This is a mixed 1st/3rd conditonal - present in if-clause, past conditional in the main clause. This is not a form known to me. This is not in a language I recognise.  Have you found justification for it in any grammar?

I wonder if you mean: _If it were not true that many Athenians were literate at that time, then the expenditure would not have been worth it. _ Standard 2nd/3rd mixed conditional. The persistent state is there (its remaining true): the requirement I mentioned is met.

Introducing the _if-it-were-not-true_-clause takes attention away from the condition, and so disguises the error, in the sentence we were discussing and I am rejecting,  _'If many Athenian citizens could not read what was written__, such expenditure would not have been worth it__'_.

  This is not what the writer is trying to say: whether Athenians today can read and write is immaterial.


----------



## wandle

ALEX1981X said:


> to me it would mean that the writer now know that many Athenians were infact illiterate


_'If (as a matter of fact) it is not true that many Athenians were literate at that time, then the expenditure (we hypothesise) would not have been worth it'._

The above sentence does _not_ mean that the writer knows that many Athenians were illiterate.

It simply considers the consequence which follows if it is not true that many Athenians were literate.


----------



## wandle

Thomas Tompion said:


> I wonder if you mean: _If it were not true that many Athenians were literate at that time, then the expenditure would not have been worth it. _ .


No, I do not mean that.


> Standard 2nd/3rd mixed conditional. The persistent state is there (its remaining true): the requirement I mentioned is met.
> Introducing the _if-it-were-not-true_-clause takes attention away from the condition, and so disguises the error, in the sentence we were discussing and I am rejecting,  _'If many Athenian citizens could not read what was written__, such expenditure would not have been worth it__'_.
> 
> This is not what the writer is trying to say: whether Athenians today can read and write is immaterial.


I do agree that that is immaterial.

We can perfectly well mix factual and hypothetical statements about the past. It is said that Queen Elizabeth the First used to take a bath once a month, whether she needed it or not.

I do not know whether she bathed once a month or not. However, I can say:
 if (as a matter of fact) she only bathed once a month, then the aroma would (I hypothesise) have been stronger towards the end of the month.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

wandle said:


> No, I do not mean that.


The sentence was:


> _'If it is not true that many Athenians were literate at that time, then the expenditure would not have been worth it'._


and I asked:


> This is a mixed 1st/3rd conditional - present in if-clause, past  conditional in the main clause. This is not a form known to me. This is  not in a language I recognise.  Have you found justification for it in  any grammar?


I asked a question and didn't get an answer.

The problem is that this is a thread about tenses used in conditional sentences.  We all know that there are quite elaborate conventions about the sequence of tenses in conditional statements.  You don't seem to be following them.


----------



## ALEX1981X

[/QUOTE] It is said that Queen Elizabeth the First used to take a bath once a month, whether she needed it or not.

I do not know whether she bathed once a month or not. However, I can say:
 if (as a matter of fact) she only bathed once a month, then the aroma  would (I hypothesise) have been stronger towards the end of the  month.[/QUOTE]

In this case I would have used "will have" or other modals not "would have" which to me express something counterfactual and highly unlikely.
Here we're making an assumption

if (as a matter of fact) she only bathed once a month, then the aroma  *will* (I hypothesise)* have been* *stronger* towards the end of the  month
if (as a matter of fact) she only bathed once a month, then the aroma *must* (I hypothesise)* have been* *stronger* towards the end of the  month
if (as a matter of fact) she only bathed once a month, then the aroma *could *(I hypothesise) *have been stronger* towards the end of the  month
or maybe_ if (as a matter of fact) she only bathed once a month, then I can imagine/expect that  the aroma *must have been *stronger towards the end of the  month _


----------



## wandle

In view of post 23, perhaps I ought to have said 'noticeably stronger': thus introducing clearly an element of subjectivity.


----------



## wandle

Thomas Tompion said:


> I asked:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a mixed 1st/3rd conditional - present in if-clause, past conditional in the main clause. This is not a form known to me. This is not in a language I recognise. Have you found justification for it in any grammar?
> 
> 
> 
> I asked a question and didn't get an answer.
Click to expand...

It is (as I indicated) a mixture of factual and hypothetical, which I was taught many years ago and which occurs regularly in English, as in the example in post 21.

During the second world war, some houses in Britain had air-raid shelters and some did not. 
If (as a matter of fact) a given house did have a shelter, it would have been wise for the inhabitants to use it during air raids.


----------



## ALEX1981X

I see what you mean Wandle but in your examples I don't understand the usage of "would have".
We're dealing with a probable fact (it's history) and with its probable consequences (my personal point of view based on that facts), thus we're speculating but I have never seen such usage of "would" to express past assumptions in that way

If (as a matter of fact) a given house did have a shelter, it were probably wise/must have been wise for the inhabitants to use it during air raids. This is what I'd say .

I'm curious to know what other natives think about this particular usage you're suggesting.
I haven't found evidence of this usage in any English grammar book so far


----------



## Thomas Tompion

wandle said:


> [...]
> If (as a matter of fact) a given house did have a shelter, it would have  been wise for the inhabitants to use it during air raids.


I don't think you can be talking about true if-clauses at all.  These if-as-a-matter-of-fact-clauses of don't introduce real conditions, and that is why you aren't following the tense conventions governing if-clauses, and why you cannot find justification in the grammars.

You seem to be making the original the same as: *such expenditure would not have been worth it when* * many Athenian citizens could not read what was written*.  I'm entirely happy with the tense sequence there, of course, but it isn't a conditional sentence.

It's a very odd negative form of *such expenditure would have been worth it when* * many Athenian citizens could read what was written*.  That they could read is a given in such a sentence.

In its original form (with the _if_), I'd call it a false conditional sentence, because we need the true conditional, *Such expenditure would not have been worth it if many Athenian citizens could not have read what was written*, if we are to conclude from the fact that the expenditure was undertaken that Athenians could read.  I had thought, maybe wrongly, that we were being asked to draw this conclusion from this detail, not that the conclusion had already been drawn.


----------



## wandle

Thomas Tompion said:


> such expenditure would not have been worth it when many Athenian citizens could not read what was written.





Kross said:


> such expenditure would not have been worth it if many Athenian citizens could not read what was written.


These sentences are directly comparable and equally valid.
As far as tense and mood are concerned, they are equivalent.

Of course, the conjunction 'when' assumes the subordinate clause is true, whereas the conjunction 'if' specifically avoids assuming that. It states what applies on the condition that the subordinate clause is true. That is the point of 'if'.

The distinction made by 'if' in this case is a matter of fact, not of supposition. Consequently, it does not alter the mood and tense in the main clause from that of the sentence with 'when'. Provided that the 'if' clause is true, the situation it refers to is factually the same as that of the 'when' clause.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

We've cracked it.  Thank you.  I was taught never to use if in this way, because of the obvious ambiguities suggested.


----------



## ALEX1981X

Thomas Tompion said:


> We've cracked it.  Thank you.  I was taught never to use if in this way, because of the obvious ambiguities suggested.



I agree Thomas.
But in this case,by using "when" we're stating that many Athenians were indeed illiterate (it is now a fact) and for this reason historians  suppose/think that such expenditure would not have been worth it.
What I'm still not convinced of is these usage of "would have" in order to express supposition/deduction on the part of the speaker (historians).

Is it something common? As I said, I would have used other modals to render this thought.


----------



## wandle

ALEX1981X said:


> by using "when" we're stating that many Athenians were indeed illiterate (it is now a fact)


In fact, in some cases of this kind, 'when' (though in theory non-conditional) is used in a sense equivalent to 'if'. Thus the conjunction 'when' is somewhat ambiguous.

'If' avoids that ambiguity, while 'could not read' avoids the ambiguity of 'could not have read'.


> What I'm still not convinced of is these usage of "would have" in order to express supposition/deduction on the part of the speaker (historians).
> Is it something common? As I said, I would have used other modals to render this thought.


That question relates to the result clause, whereas the thread topic ('could not read' v. 'could not have read') relates to the 'if' clause. 'Would' and 'would have' are regularly used in result clauses.


----------



## ALEX1981X

wandle said:


> In fact, in some cases of this kind, 'when' (though in theory non-conditional) is used in a sense equivalent to 'if'. Thus the conjunction 'when' is somewhat ambiguous.
> 
> 'If' avoids that ambiguity, while 'could not read' avoids the ambiguity of 'could not have read'.
> 
> That question relates to the result clause, whereas the thread topic ('could not read' v. 'could not have read') relates to the 'if' clause. 'Would' and 'would have' are regularly used in result clauses.



My problem is that the real fact is, as described, that the Athenians were *literate* people so I see the  "could not read" part as another factual event I should take care of (since the fact they couldn't read is a fact now and not hyphotetical).
The only way is to consider that there were many Athenians who could read,thus literate, and many others who were illiterate.Otherwise we're obliged to use a third conditional
If it weren't so, I'm struggling to see the logic of what historians pointed out


----------



## wandle

The clause 'if many Athenian citizens could not read' does not state a fact as true: it raises a question whether the fact is true.

If it is not true that many Athenians were able to read, we may suppose (= hypothesise) that it would not have been worth the expenditure required to make inscriptions. However reasonable this conclusion is, it still involves making an assumption about what the Athenians' value judgements would have been.


----------



## ALEX1981X

wandle said:


> The clause 'if many Athenian citizens could not read' does not state a fact as true: it raises a question whether the fact is true.
> 
> If it is not true that many Athenians were able to read, we may suppose (= hypothesise) that it would not have been worth the expenditure required to make inscriptions. However reasonable this conclusion is, it still involves making an assumption about what the Athenians' value judgements would have been.


So we can agree that "if" in the sentence is open to different interpretation and could be "tricky" for the reader, as it were
I agree with the assumption and maybe instead of "if it is true that" can also work something like "given that premise"....then we may say that....
It's like saying "_accepting the fact that many Athenians were unable to read...then we can assume that it would not have been worth the expenditure required to make inscriptions"_


----------



## wandle

ALEX1981X said:


> So we can agree that "if" in the sentence is open to different interpretation and could be "tricky" for the reader, as it were


Sorry, I certainly cannot agree with that. 'If' in this case means what 'if' regularly means:


wandle said:


> It states what applies on the condition that the subordinate clause is true. That is the point of 'if'.





ALEX1981X said:


> It's like saying "_accepting the fact that many Athenians were unable to read...then we can assume that it would not have been worth the expenditure required to make inscriptions"_


Nor would I agree with that paraphrase, I am afraid.


wandle said:


> (b) _'If it is not true that many Athenians were literate at that time, then the expenditure would not have been worth it'._
> This sentence (b), I submit, is the true equivalent of the original:
> _'such expenditure would not have been worth it if many Athenian citizens could not read what was written'_.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

wandle said:


> _'If it is not true that many Athenians were literate at that time, then the expenditure would not have been worth it'._


Mixed 1st/3rd conditional.

The problem is that this isn't a form known to English grammar, as far as I can discover.  You haven't produced a grammatical explanation of it, despite requests.

Yet you say that you don't mean _'if it were true__ that many Athenians were literate at that time, then the expenditure would not have been worth it'_, mixed 2nd/3rd - the form we looked at some time back, and which is a recognised form.

You're not writing in a language which I recognise as English; I've no idea what you mean.


----------



## ALEX1981X

wandle said:


> Sorry, I certainly cannot agree with that. 'If' in this case means what 'if' regularly means:
> 
> 
> Nor would I agree with that paraphrase, I am afraid.



Well Wandle if one use the form "if it is true that..." the meaning is that we are now not certain 100% of something but we're supposing it is/was true thus we have to express  a personal assumption.The condition is still open regarding a past event
Based on this assumption then we may imagine/expect a certain result or consequence, this is why I've chosen "accepting the fact that" or "given that premise" or similar and I'm struck that you don't read it at least this way. Never mind  It's been a useful exchange of ideas


----------



## boozer

I have not been able to read all posts and I apologise if what I'm going to say has already been said, but I believe the quoted text is entirely correct. In addition, I would say it is the 1st conditional, sort of - open condition referring to a past situation where historians are simply not sure (now) if all Athenians were able to read (back then).


----------



## Loob

I also see "could" in Kross's sentence as correct. For me, the issue has something to do with the peculiarities of the verb "can", and the fact that *'could not have'* doesn't equate exactly to *'had not been able to'*.

I think it might help to take a simpler example, and look at the first/second/third conditional options:
_(1) If John isn't able to read, I won't buy him any books._
_(2) If John wasn't/weren't able to read, I wouldn't buy him any books._
_(3) If John hadn't been able to read, I wouldn't have bought him any books._

So far so good, but if I use "can" instead of "be able", these become, for me:
_(1a) If John can't read, I won't buy him any books._
_(2a) If John couldn't read, I wouldn't buy him any books._
_(3a) If John *couldn't* read, I wouldn't have bought him any books._

Using _If John *couldn't* *have read*_... in (3a) would sound really awkward to me, largely, I think, because *'**couldn't have done x'* generally indicates a deduction: in other words, *'John couldn't have read'* is the past tense version of *'John can't have read'*.

I think I'll stop there and go and cower under the bed before the fall-out hits me.


----------



## wandle

ALEX1981X said:


> Well Wandle if one use the form "if it is true that..." the meaning is that we are now not certain 100% of something but we're supposing it is/was true


Well, again, I would not put it that way.


> The condition is still open regarding a past event


That is the right way to put it. The question is open; it is either A or B: it is not about 90%,  99%, 1%, 2%, 49% or any other number. It is either A or B. It is not about probability, just possiblity.


> Based on this assumption then we may imagine/expect a certain result or consequence, this is why I've chosen "accepting the fact that" or "given that premise" or similar and I'm struck that you don't read it at least this way.


Paraphrasing the word 'if' is not a problem, provided we observe a key rule: that the paraphrase does not prejudge the question in any way.

In my view, the following three sentences are equivalent:
(1) the original: 
_'such expenditure would not have been worth it if many Athenian citizens could not read what was written'_;
(2) first paraphrase:
_'If it is not true that many Athenians were literate at that time, then the expenditure would not have been worth it'_.
(3) second paraphrase:
_'Given that it is not true that many Athenians were literate at that time, then the expenditure would not have been worth it'._

On the other hand, in (3), 'Given the fact that ...' would not be a valid substitution for the word 'if', because it prejudges the point by saying it is a fact. However, 'On the assumption that ...' would be valid as a replacement of 'if'.


----------



## wandle

Loob said:


> I think I'll stop there and go and cower under the bed before the fall-out hits me.


No flak from this quarter, anyway.


----------



## wandle

Thomas Tompion said:


> You haven't produced a grammatical explanation of it, despite requests.


I have explained it as a mixture of factual and hypothetical. The 'if' clause represents an open question on a matter of fact: the result clause represents an assumption of people's probable judgement in the given case.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Loob said:


> _[...]_
> _(3a) If John *couldn't* read, I wouldn't have bought him any books._
> 
> Using _If John *couldn't* *have read*_... in (3a) would sound really awkward to me, largely, I think, because *'**couldn't have done x'* generally indicates a deduction: in other words, *'John couldn't have read'* is the past tense version of *'John can't have read'*.
> 
> I think I'll stop there and go and cower under the bed before the fall-out hits me.


Thank you very much, Loob.  That's admirably clear.

People don't forget how to read, so it might help if we reverse the negatives - _If John could read, I would have bought him some books.
_
Your sentence now, to my ear, suggests that John still can't read.  This is a standard feature of the mixed 2nd/3rd - the condition persists.  The point was made, with grammatical support from the BBC site, back in the dark ages of this thread.  It would be tiresome and trumpet-blowing of me to point out where.

So, in the context of the sentence in the OP, we are being made to consider whether or not the Athenians of today can still read.  It's this absurdity which made me reject the form, and recommend the 3rd conditional, _If John could have read a word, I would have bought him some books.

_The 3rd conditional relates the condition in the past (the Athenians being literate), with the result of their literacy (the carving of text into stone), and thus makes the carving evidence for the literacy, which was the purpose of the sentence in the OP.


----------



## Loob

Hi TT

If I may, I'm going to sidestep your invitation to  consider an affirmative example, because "could" works differently in  affirmative and negative contexts. But it has struck me, looking at your  _If John could have read a word...._ that I should probably have  used transitive examples, as in the original text, making the "ability  to read" rather more specific.  So here goes:
_(I) I won't buy John the 'Harry Potter' books if he isn't able to read them.
(II) I wouldn't buy John the 'Harry Potter' books if he wasn't/weren't able to read them.
(III) I wouldn't have bought John the 'Harry Potter' books if he hadn't been able to read them._

Using "can" instead of "be able", these still become, for me:
_(Ia) I won't buy John the 'Harry Potter' books if he can't read them.
(IIa) I wouldn't buy John the 'Harry Potter' books if he couldn't read them.
(IIIa) I wouldn't have bought John the 'Harry Potter' books if he *couldn't* read them.

_Making the examples transitive, though, does help, I think on the "couldn't have" front; I'll come back to that in a moment....

On  the mixed conditional point, for me, (IIIa) is not a mixed conditional,  though I agree that the mixed conditional version would look identical:
_(IV) I wouldn't have bought John the 'Harry Potter' books if he wasn't/weren't able to read them._
_(IVa) I wouldn't have bought John the 'Harry Potter' books if he couldn't read them._

Where your "couldn't have read" comes in, I think, is in relation to a different set of examples from those in (I)/(II)/(III):
_(V) I won't buy John the 'Harry Potter' books if he won't be able to read them.
(VI) I wouldn't buy John the 'Harry Potter' books if he wouldn't be able to read them.
(VII) I wouldn't have bought John the 'Harry Potter' books if he wouldn't have been able to read them._
>>
_(Va) I won't buy John the 'Harry Potter' books if he can't read them.
(VIa) I wouldn't buy John the 'Harry Potter' books if he couldn't read them.
(VIIa) I wouldn't have bought John the 'Harry Potter' books if he couldn't have read them._

The "couldn't" in VIa and VIIa is conditional/future-in-the-past, unlike the "couldn't" in (IIa)/(IIIa), which is past tense.

So  the bottom line, for me, is that in Kross's sentence:





> and such  expenditure would not have been worth it if many Athenian citizens *could not read *what was written.


"could not read" works is you parse _could_ as a past tense; "could not have read" works if you parse _could_ as a conditional.

And now I need some coffee.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Hi Loob,

Thank you very much for your most helpful analysis.

I fully agree about moving to a transitive example.  I wanted to do that, but felt that we had enough issues running.

The leap I'm having trouble with is that from III to IIIa.  I still hear the suggestion that he can read.

I'm interested in the way progress affects the choice of tense here.

Would you say* I wouldn't have bought him the riding lessons, if he was too young to ride*?


----------



## Loob

I think I'll sidestep that one too, TT: for me, as I said, the issue here is really to do with the peculiarities of the verb "can".

Also, my brain hurts!


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Many thanks, Loob. I hope that example explains why I feel as I do.


----------



## boozer

I have been re-reading the original example again and again. I am no longer certain what the author actally intended. On the one hand he seems to assert that Athenians were highly literate and could, therefore, read those carvings. This makes me think he should have really used a proper 3rd conditional. On the other hand, for some reason he elected not to. I read this as actual doubt about their reading skills but that seems to clash with the excerpt's overall logic.  Either way there is no grammar fault, but I am now inclined to think "could have read" should have been used, which, by the way, does not sound awkward to me...

Anyway, I think this is a good cerebral-fitness question


----------



## wandle

An example on the subject of evolution which employs very similar reasoning to that of the original and is in my view equally valid:

The Evolution of Human Speech 
Its Anatomical and Neural Bases
by Philip Lieberman

_Some form of speech must have been in place in the archaic hominids ancestral to both humans and Neanderthals. There would have been no selective advantage for retention of the mutations that yielded the species-specific human supralaryngeal vocal tract at the cost of increased morbidity from choking unless speech was already present. _

Another similar case:

Science & Mathematics > Biology > Reference Question

_If a male's call didn't indicate his fitness, there would have been no selective advantage to it becoming a means of mate selection by the female and therefore it wouldn't have happened._


----------



## Thomas Tompion

boozer said:


> I have been re-reading the original example again and again. I am no longer certain what the author actally intended. On the one hand he seems to assert that Athenians were highly literate and could, therefore, read those carvings. This makes me think he should have really used a proper 3rd conditional. On the other hand, for some reason he elected not to. I read this as actual doubt about their reading skills but that seems to clash with the excerpt's overall logic.  Either way there is no grammar fault, but I am now inclined to think "could have read" should have been used, which, by the way, does not sound awkward to me...
> 
> Anyway, I think this is a good cerebral-fitness question


Hi Boozer,

Good to have you in this discussion.  

What did you feel about* I wouldn't have bought him the riding lessons, if he was too young to ride*?

I could only say that if he was not then too young to ride, and_ a fortiori_ is old enough now.  

And what do you feel about Loob's contention, if I've understood her aright, that the sentence in the OP is really a 3rd conditional, not a mixed conditional at all, so the question of whether or not the Athenians, long dead, can still read what is engraved on the stone, doesn't arise?

I can 'hear' that suggestion in the original, which is why I objected to it, though the idea is entirely charming, as I'm confident you will agree.


----------



## ALEX1981X

wandle said:


> An example on the subject of evolution which employs very similar reasoning to that of the original and is in my view equally valid:
> 
> The Evolution of Human Speech
> Its Anatomical and Neural Bases
> by Philip Lieberman
> 
> _Some form of speech must have been in place in the archaic hominids ancestral to both humans and Neanderthals. There would have been no selective advantage for retention of the mutations that yielded the species-specific human supralaryngeal vocal tract at the cost of increased morbidity from choking unless speech was already present. _
> 
> Another similar case:
> 
> Science & Mathematics > Biology > Reference Question
> 
> _If a male's call didn't indicate his fitness, there would have been no selective advantage to it becoming a means of mate selection by the female and therefore it wouldn't have happened._



So we could rephrase the above as :_*If it is true that/on the assumption that* a male's call *didn't *indicate his fitness, *(then) we may suppose that* there would have been  no selective advantage to it becoming a means of mate selection by the  female and therefore it wouldn't have happened._

I think this mix of tenses and interpretations, factual and hyphotetical, is becoming a little bit complicated, at least to me  

I've also noticed the other TT's sentence :*I wouldn't have bought him the riding lessons, if he was too young to ride*
I might be wrong but if I made the same changes I've made above, it would mean to me that the speaker has *now* some doubt regarding the fact that he was too young to do something in the past  (yesterday,two years ago,20 years ago..) However, you are the natives guys, not me


----------



## boozer

Thomas Tompion said:


> Good to have you in this discussion.


Good to be in your distinguished company, TT. 


Thomas Tompion said:


> What did you feel about* I wouldn't have bought him the riding lessons, if he was too young to ride?*


Frankly, TT, I felt that any example in the 1st person singular might not be entirely relevant here because the original sentence is in the historical past tense and the speaker (or any modern _I_) cannot have witnessed the events described. Otherwise, this is a classic example of a faulted 3rd conditional or a perfectly correct example in a situation where I bought him those riding lessons quite recently and the time lapse is insignificant next to the person's age. Or some such thing... 



Thomas Tompion said:


> And what do you feel about Loob's contention, if I've understood her aright, that the sentence in the OP is really a 3rd conditional, not a mixed conditional at all, so the question of whether or not the Athenians, long dead, can still read what is engraved on the stone, doesn't arise?


If it is a 3rd conditional, it is a heavily faulted one, in my humble opinion. As I said in my earlier post, the overall logic of the excerpt requires a 3rd conditional (I saw this logic a bot late though...). However, as a mixed conditional, as far as I could tell, it would be a mixture of a different kind, one that I am not quite able to place. See, a 2nd conditional is either closed or very unlikely:

_If he could read, I would buy him this book._ - the implication is that he is not getting the book because he is illiterate. Present reference, closed condition.

But this is not our situation. I could easily interpret the original example as an entirely open condition in the past. This is because a condition, though past, may remain open in a modern speaker's mind as long as the speaker has no way of knowing with certainty what really happened:

... such expenditure would not have been worth it if many Athenian citizens *could not read what was written. *- past reference, open condition, closed consequent (the expenditure was never made). In other words, I believe 'could' here is the past tense form of 'can', plain and simple, if at all this interpretation is to be accepted as valid. I'm saying 'if at all' because such a hesitation in the author's mind sounds unlikely - I mean, it was only in the preceding sentence that he claimed Athenians were highly literate.



Thomas Tompion said:


> I can 'hear' that suggestion in the original


I can hear it too but not to the extent of being bothered by it, given the excerpt's _long-gone past-ism _ I think though that Loob makes an interesting point about the use of 'can' in her examples:
_I wouldn't have bought John the 'Harry Potter' books if he *couldn't* read them. - _this sentence sounds very fluent but it tells me the lapse of time between buyng the books and now is insignificant and John could read back then just like he can read now. In a situation where I bought the book 20 years ago and back then John was not even expected to be able to read, though now John is 25 years old and, naturally, a proficient reader, I would use the following sentence without batting an eyelid  :

_I wouldn't have bought John the 'Harry Potter' books if he *couldn't* have read them.
_
If I bought the books yesterday and John is yet to read them, I might even go with 

_I wouldn't have bought John the 'Harry Potter' books if he *can't* read them.
_
And now Loob will crawl out from under her bed and catch me by the throat.


----------

