# Indicative and subjunctive conditional sentences



## Honki

Hi, everyone.

Look at sentences (1)-(2) below.

(1a)  If I have finished reading the book by tomorrow, I will return it to you.
(1b)  If I had finished reading the book by tomorrow, I would return it to you.
(1c)  If I had finished reading the book by last night, I would have returned it to you this morning.

(2a)  If he has finished it by tomorrow, I will tell him everything.
(2b)  If he had finished it by tomorrow, I would tell him everything.
(2c)  If he had finished it by yesterday, I would have told him everything this morning.

I have already understood the semantic defference between the indicative mood and the subjunctive one.
However, I would like to know whether or not sentences (1a, b, c, ) and (2a, b, c) are correct English.
Are sentences (1a, b, c,) and (2a, b, c) correct English sentences.

Thank you in advance.


----------



## DonnyB

Neither (1b) nor (2b) work because you can't use a pluperfect tense "had finished" with an expression of time in the future "by tomorrow".

A correct sequence of tenses there would be something like:
(1b) If I *were to finish* reading the book by tomorrow, I would return it to you.
(2b) If he *were to finish* it by tomorrow, I would tell him everything.

The others all look absolutely fine to me.


----------



## dojibear




----------



## Honki

DonnyB said:


> Neither (1b) nor (2b) work because you can't use a pluperfect tense "had finished" with an expression of time in the future "by tomorrow".
> 
> A correct sequence of tenses there would be something like:
> (1b) If I *were to finish* reading the book by tomorrow, I would return it to you.
> (2b) If he *were to finish* it by tomorrow, I would tell him everything.
> 
> The others all look absolutely fine to me.



Thank you for your comment, DonnyB.

A grammar book of mine, however, gives an example (3) below:

(3)  If I* had had* money at the present moment, I would have paid you.

It seems to me that in if-clauses of (1b) and (2b) "were to finish" will be better stylistically.
But I would like to know whether sentences (1b) and (2b) are grammatically correct or not.

(1b) If I had finished reading the book by tomorrow, I would return it to you.
(2b) If he had finished it by tomorrow, I would tell him everything.

Everyone, do you judge sentences (1b) and (2b) are grammatically correct?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Honki said:


> Everyone, do you judge sentences (1b) and (2b) are *to be* grammatically correct?



(1b)_ If I had finished reading the book by tomorrow, I would return it to you_ is incorrect: conditional sentences use tense-sequencing which doesn't always follow what one would expect.

When learning the language, stick to the elementary formulae:

_If I finish the book by tomorrow, I will return it to you._ (I)
_If I finished the book by tomorrow, I would return it to you._ (II)

(2b)_ If he had finished it by tomorrow, I would tell him_ _everything_  is incorrect too.

Here you attempt the III/II conditional.

Good books will tell you that the III/II condition is appropriate for the present result of an imagined or real event in the past, eg. _ If you had read the book carefully, you would know this now._

Your if-clause concerns an event in the future, and so it cannot work.

Had it concerned an event in the past - (2b*) _If he had finished it yesterday, I would tell him everything_ - it would have been fine..


----------



## DonnyB

Honki said:


> A grammar book of mine, however, gives an example (3) below:
> 
> (3)  If I* had had* money at the present moment, I would have paid you.


Far be it from me to criticize what a grammar textbook tells you, but I think it's a bit odd.  The _pluperfect + conditional perfect_ construction (which you'll see referred to as a Type III conditional) generally refers to events which did or didn't happen_ in the past,_ as in your sentences (1c) and (2c).  

It does just about work grammatically _in the present_ with "at the present moment", but I don't think it does logically and I suspect most native speakers would say it as:
(3a) If I* had* money at the present moment, I *would pay* you.


----------



## Honki

Thomas Tompion said:


> (1b)_ If I had finished reading the book by tomorrow, I would return it to you_ is incorrect: conditional sentences use tense-sequencing which doesn't always follow what one would expect.
> 
> When learning the language, stick to the elementary formulae:
> 
> _If I finish the book by tomorrow, I will return it to you._ (I)
> _If I finished the book by tomorrow, I would return it to you._ (II)
> 
> (2b)_ If he had finished it by tomorrow, I would tell him_ _everything_  is incorrect too.
> 
> Here you attempt the III/II conditional.
> 
> Good books will tell you that the III/II condition is appropriate for the present result of an imagined or real event in the past, eg. _ If you had read the book carefully, you would know this now._
> 
> Your if-clause concerns an event in the future, and so it cannot work.
> 
> Had it concerned an event in the past - (2b*) _If he had finished it yesterday, I would tell him everything_ - it would have been fine..



Thank you for your comment, Thomas Tompion.
Your comment is very helpful for me.

I have other questions.
Please look at sentences (4) and (5) below:

(4)  If I had finished reading the book now, I would return it to you.
(5)  If he had finished it at the present moment, I would tell him everything.

I would like to know whether or not sentences (4) and (5) are correct English sentences.
Everyone, do you judge sentences (4) and (5) to be grammatically correct?


----------



## JulianStuart

It seems as though your book may be making a distinction between "at the present moment" (as in 5) and "now" as in 4).  Is that what it says?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Honki said:


> (4) If I had finished reading the book now, I would return it to you.
> (5) If he had finished it at the present moment, I would tell him everything.


By analogy with 2b* in post #5 a sentence like *If I had finished reading the book, I would return it to you* is a correct III/II conditional.

The question is whether the words *now*, or *at the present moment *invalidate your sentences, Honki.

For me both phrases combined with the past perfect suggest that he is now in a state of having finished the book (so the finishing is now in the past), and that  means that, in my view, both sentences are correct.


----------



## DonnyB

JulianStuart said:


> It seems as though your book may be making a distinction between "at the present moment" (as in 5) and "now" as in 4).  Is that what it says?


I wondered about this, because I think "at the present moment" sounds as if it contradicts the normal sense of the pluperfect, and therefore I find (5) rather awkward to follow the logic of.

I don't have the same problem with (4), although had I been writing that sentence I'd have put:
(4a) "If I had *now* finished reading the book, I would return it to you."  

By the same token, perhaps:
(5a) "If, *at the present moment*, he had finished it, I would tell him everything." would sound better?
But I still don't think it's very idiomatic.


----------



## Honki

Thank you for your comment, DonnyB.
Your comment is very helpful for me.
Once again, thank you.

Everyone, do you judge sentences (4a) and (5a) to be correct English sentences?

(4a)  If I had now finished reading the book, I would return it to you.
(5a)  If, at the present moment, he had finished it, I would tell him everything.

I would like to know others' views and opinions.

Thanks in advance.


----------



## JulianStuart

Only if you take out the "now" or "at the present momemt" will they sound idiomatic.  You do realize that "now" = "at the present moment"?  Neither is needed when you use the conditional would with a _present_ tense.


----------



## Honki

JulianStuart said:


> Only if you take out the "now" or "at the present momemt" will they sound idiomatic.  You do realize that "now" = "at the present moment"?  Neither is needed when you use the conditional would with a _present_ tense.



I do realize that "now" = "at the present moment".

I am seeking example sentences with pluperfect and "now / at the present moment" within the if-clause.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Honki said:


> I do realize that "now" = "at the present moment".
> 
> I am seeking example sentences with pluperfect and "now / at the present moment" within the if-clause.


I must admit to disagreeing with Julian on two issues:

1. I don't think _now _does quite equal _at the present moment_.  They mean much the same but are used rather differently, in my view.

I see _if he had now finished _as meaning _if he had already _(or_ at last_)_ finished_.
I see _if he had at the present moment finished_ as being less idiomatic, but meaning, probably, _if he had just finished._

2.  In either case the finishing is firmly in the past, so the requirements of III/II conditional are met and I see nothing unidiomatic about 4a or 5a.


----------



## JulianStuart

So if the "finishing" is firmly in the past, how do the words "now" or "at the present moment" add to or change the meaning  compared to their absence in those sentences?  I am still confused over how the "past in the past" can be used  in a clause that refers to the present (moment).  (I am not familiar with the terms I II and III for conditionals - I was never taught them  Is the finishing "real"or "hypothetical", for example? )


----------



## JulianStuart

JulianStuart said:


> So if the "finishing" is firmly in the past, how do the words "now" or "at the present moment" add to or change the meaning  compared to their absence in those sentences?  I am still confused over how the "past in the past" can be used  in a clause that refers to the present (moment).  (I am not familiar with the terms I II and III for conditionals - I was never taught them  Is the finishing "real"or "hypothetical", for example? )


Edit:
If he had just now finished it, I would tell him everything. (But if he had finished it ten minutes ago, I would tell him nothing.) Is that the sense that intended?  Is that a different meaning from "If he has just now finished it, I will tell him everything"?


----------



## Honki

Thomas Tompion said:


> I must admit to disagreeing with Julian on two issues:
> 
> 1. I don't think _now _does quite equal _at the present moment_.  They mean much the same but are used rather differently, in my view.
> 
> I see _if he had now finished _as meaning _if he had already _(or_ at last_)_ finished_.
> I see _if he had at the present moment finished_ as being less idiomatic, but meaning, probably, _if he had just finished._
> 
> 2.  In either case the finishing is firmly in the past, so the requirements of III/II conditional are met and I see nothing unidiomatic about 4a or 5a.



Thank you for your comment, Thomas.

Do you agree that sentences (4a) and (5a) per se are correct English sentences?

(4a) If I had now finished reading the book, I would return it to you.
(5a) If, at the present moment, he had finished it, I would tell him everything.


----------



## JulianStuart

Honki said:


> Thank you for your comment, Thomas.
> 
> Do you agree that sentences (4a) and (5a) per se are correct English sentences?
> 
> (4a) If I had now finished reading the book, I would return it to you.
> (5a) If, at the present moment, he had finished it, I would tell him everything.



Is your intended meaning (assuming you have a specific meaning in mind, rather than just concocting examples of grammar structures)  the same as the following, and if not, how do you think they differ?
(4a) If I had finished reading the book, I would return it to you.
(5a) If  he had finished it, I would tell him everything


----------



## Thomas Tompion

JulianStuart said:


> Is your intended meaning (assuming you have a specific meaning in mind, rather than just concocting examples of grammar structures)  the same as the following, and if not, how do you think they differ?
> (4a) If I had finished reading the book, I would return it to you.
> (5a) If  he had finished it, I would tell him everything


If I've understood Julian correctly and he's suggesting that the adverb and the adverbial phrase have only rhetorical impacts on their respective sentences, then I'm very happy to agree with him.


Honki said:


> Do you agree that sentences (4a) and (5a) per se are correct English sentences?


In the post of mine you quote in your post, Honki, I tell you that I don't see anything unidiomatic about them.


----------



## JulianStuart

Thomas Tompion said:


> If I've understood Julian correctly and he's suggesting that the adverb and the adverbial phrase have only rhetorical impacts on their respective sentences, then I'm very happy to agree with him.



I think it goes a bit beyond rhetorical, though, because there is ambiguity as to when the _finishing_ occurred, as contrasted with the time (now, the present moment) of _uttering_ the sentence.


----------



## Honki

JulianStuart said:


> Is your intended meaning (assuming you have a specific meaning in mind, rather than just concocting examples of grammar structures)  the same as the following, and if not, how do you think they differ?
> (4a) If I had finished reading the book, I would return it to you.
> (5a) If  he had finished it, I would tell him everything



OK.
In my view, if sentences (4a) and (5a) is grammatically correct, an if-clause with pluperfect will have two different meanings.
One indicates only 'single action', as in (6a) and (7a). This is a basic and orthodox usage.

(6a)  If I had finished reading the book yesterday, I would return it to you.
(7a)  If he had finished it yesterday, I would tell him everything.

The other indicates 'single action' plus 'perfect aspect'. It seems to me that sentences (4a) and (5a) correspond to this case.

(4a)  If I had now finished reading the book, I would return it to you.
(5a)  If, at the present moment, he had finished it, I would tell him everything.

Do you agree with my view?
Do you judge sentences (4a) and (5a) to be grammatically correct?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Honki said:


> Everyone, do you judge sentences (4a) and (5a) to be correct English sentences?





Honki said:


> Do you agree that sentences (4a) and (5a) per se are correct English sentences?





Honki said:


> Do you judge sentences (4a) and (5a) to be grammatically correct?


I'm not sure that I found all the instances where Honki has asked this question in this thread.

  I'm afraid I lack the emotional stamina to answer it again.  My view on it hasn't changed.


----------



## DonnyB

One of the problems I have with all this, which I touched on in post #6 and again in post #10, is that I'm struggling to envisage a real-life situation in which anyone - particularly a native speaker - would actually _say_ any of these.

Suppose for a minute, just for the sake of argument, you take the sentences as answering questions such as "When are you going to return my book?" or "When are you going to tell him?" the examples we started off with (1, 2 and 3) are fairly standard conditional sentence patterns and are reasonably idiomatic.  There's nothing wrong per se in tinkering about with tenses and expressions of time just to see what effect it has, but while between us we've managed to produce sentences which are grammatically correct, the logic is starting to get a a bit flawed.  And I think part of what's causing that is trying to use a pluperfect in the if-clause and combining it with a sense of the present: I'm not saying it can't be done, merely that this isn't the way to do it.

To be honest, I don't really think (7a) works:  "If he had finished it yesterday, I would tell him everything".  (2c) does: "If he had finished it by yesterday, I would have told him everything this morning". The clear inference there is that he didn't finish it yesterday and therefore you haven't (yet) told him.  But in (7a) I'm starting to wonder... what's he doing, why is your telling him dependent on his having finished, and when _are_ you going to tell him?  I just don't have a clear picture in my mind of what's going on there and if I did I could probably come up with a better way of expressing it.


----------



## srk

If he had finished the book yesterday, I would now tell him everything that I believe accounts for the strange ending.  Instead, he finished it today, too late for me to call his sister to stop her from visiting his hospital bed with the lethal injection she feels he deserves for never getting around to finishing a book. I was faced with the choice of spoiling the ending for him or saving his life.

What's the problem, DonnyB?


----------



## JulianStuart

Honki said:


> OK.
> In my view, if sentences (4a) and (5a) is grammatically correct, an if-clause with pluperfect will have two different meanings.
> One indicates only 'single action', as in (6a) and (7a). This is a basic and orthodox usage.
> 
> (6a)  If I had finished reading the book yesterday, I would return it to you.
> (7a)  If he had finished it yesterday, I would tell him everything.
> 
> The other indicates 'single action' plus 'perfect aspect'. It seems to me that sentences (4a) and (5a) correspond to this case.
> 
> (4a)  If I had now finished reading the book, I would return it to you.
> (5a)  If, at the present moment, he had finished it, I would tell him everything.
> 
> Do you agree with my view?
> Do you judge sentences (4a) and (5a) to be grammatically correct?


OK I'll ask again
Do 4a and 5a have the same meaning, in your mind,  as
(19a)  If I had finished reading the book, I would return it to you.
(20a)  If he had finished it, I would tell him everything.
?
Do you expect you will ever find a native speaker who might say 4a and 5a?
In using past perect (pluperfect) there are ormally two reference points in time - one before the other and both in the paat.  What are those timepoints in 4a and 5a?  I am trying to understand the meaning of the sentences - in partiular your insistence on inserting a phrase which means "now".


----------



## DonnyB

srk said:


> If he had finished the book yesterday, I would now tell him everything that I believe accounts for the strange ending.  Instead, he finished it today, too late for me to call his sister to stop her from visiting his hospital bed with the lethal injection she feels he deserves for never getting around to finishing a book. I was faced with the choice of spoiling the ending for him or saving his life.
> 
> What's the problem, DonnyB?


Context is everything!


----------



## Honki

JulianStuart said:


> OK I'll ask again
> Do 4a and 5a have the same meaning, in your mind,  as
> (19a)  If I had finished reading the book, I would return it to you.
> (20a)  If he had finished it, I would tell him everything.
> ?
> Do you expect you will ever find a native speaker who might say 4a and 5a?
> In using past perect (pluperfect) there are ormally two reference points in time - one before the other and both in the paat.  What are those timepoints in 4a and 5a?  I am trying to understand the meaning of the sentences - in partiular your insistence on inserting a phrase which means "now".



In my view, a subjunctive mood sentence with the past pafect plus "now / at the present moment" in the if-clause would be possible.
In fact, an English grammar of mine gives example sentences below:

  (8)  If she *had been* here *since yesterday*, I would have been happy.
  (9)  If Her Majesty *had been* here *now* she would have been embarrassed.
(10)  If I *had had* money enough* at the present moment*, I would have paid you.

In examples (8)-(10), the sentences embedded in the if-clauses indicate perfect aspect; actually "since yesterday", "now" and "at the present moment" are used.
In this way, sentences (4a) and (5a) would not be impossible.

OK.
Now, do you judge sentences (4b), (4c), (5b) and (5c) below to be grammatically correct?

(4b)  If I had finished reading the book now, I would have returned it to you.
(4c)  If I had now finished reading the book, I would have returned it to you.
(5b)  If he had finished it at the present moment, I  would heve told him everything.
(5c)  If, at the present moment, he had finished it, I would have told him everything.

I would like to know whether or not sentences (4b), (4c), (5b) and (5c) are correct English sentences.

Everyone, please tell me your judges.

Thanks in advance.


----------



## JulianStuart

Honki said:


> Now, do you judge sentences (4b), (4c), (5b) and (5c) below to be grammatically correct?
> 
> (4b)  If I had finished reading the book now, I would have returned it to you.
> (4c)  If I had now finished reading the book, I would have returned it to you.
> (5b)  If he had finished it at the present moment, I  would heve told him everything.
> (5c)  If, at the present moment, he had finished it, I would have told him everything.
> 
> I would like to know whether or not sentences (4b), (4c), (5b) and (5c) are correct English sentences.
> 
> Everyone, please tell me your judges.
> 
> Thanks in advance.


I would never use any constructions like those - I find the clash between "now" and "at the present moment" with "had finished" and "would have pp" intolerable without further context.  Replace them with a _past_ reference (like yesterday" or "then"), they would be fine with me.  Alternatively, contrive the previous sentence(s) setting up the context for each in which you think the sentences are good.  If you succeed in that, I will be educated  (I'll leave the answer to your question about "correctness" until then.)


----------



## Honki

JulianStuart said:


> I would never use any constructions like those - I find the clash between "now" and "at the present moment" with "had finished" and "would have pp" intolerable without further context.  Replace them with a _past_ reference (like yesterday" or "then"), they would be fine with me.  Alternatively, contrive the previous sentence(s) setting up the context for each in which you think the sentences are good.  If you succeed in that, I will be educated  (I'll leave the answer to your question about "correctness" until then.)



How do you feel about sentences (8)-(10), which are adduced in an English grammar book?


----------



## Honki

Everyone, please tell me your judges about sentences (4b), (4c), (5b), and (5c).


----------



## DonnyB

JulianStuart said:


> I would never use any constructions like those - I find the clash between "now" and "at the present moment" with "had finished" and "would have pp" intolerable without further context.  Replace them with a _past_ reference (like yesterday" or "then"), they would be fine with me.  Alternatively, contrive the previous sentence(s) setting up the context for each in which you think the sentences are good.  If you succeed in that, I will be educated


Yes, you've stated, much more succinctly than me, the doubts and reservations I have about all of this, which I tried to express in post #23.  


Honki said:


> In fact, an English grammar of mine gives example sentences below:
> 
> (8)  If she *had been* here *since yesterday*, I would have been happy.
> (9)  If Her Majesty *had been* here *now* she would have been embarrassed.
> (10)  If I *had had* money enough* at the present moment*, I would have paid you.


(8) is a bit strange because "here *since yesterday*" suggests that she's still here now, which contradicts the _past_ in "would have been happy".

(9) appears to refer possibly to some sort of faux-pas which has just been committed, so again I don't see how *now* can refer to something which already happened.  I would expect:
(9a)  If Her Majesty *were* here *now* she *would be* embarrassed.

(10) sounds really stilted to me.  I really do not think anyone would actually use that in real life.

If that were my grammar book, I'd be asking for my money back!   


Honki said:


> Now, do you judge sentences (4b), (4c), (5b) and (5c) below to be grammatically correct?
> 
> (4b)  If I had finished reading the book now, I would have returned it to you.
> (4c)  If I had now finished reading the book, I would have returned it to you.
> (5b)  If he had finished it at the present moment, I  would heve told him everything.
> (5c)  If, at the present moment, he had finished it, I would have told him everything.
> 
> I would like to know whether or not sentences (4b), (4c), (5b) and (5c) are correct English sentences.


Well, we're just going round in circles now.  (4b) is the same as the original (4), (4c) is the same as (4a), and (5b) & (5c) are the same as (5) & (5a) respectively.

So the comments I made about them all back in post #10 still hold true, in my opinion: (4c) and (5c) are more or less grammatically correct, but the logic is definitely weird.


----------



## JulianStuart

Honki said:


> In my view, a subjunctive mood sentence with the past pafect plus "now / at the present moment" in the if-clause would be possible.
> In fact, an English grammar of mine gives example sentences below:
> 
> (8)  If she *had been* here *since yesterday*, I would have been happy.
> (9)  If Her Majesty *had been* here *now* she would have been embarrassed.
> (10)  If I *had had* money enough* at the present moment*, I would have paid you.





Honki said:


> How do you feel about sentences (8)-(10), which are adduced in an English grammar book?


Please provide a source for this "grammar" book.
In 8 I would either take out the _since_ or change the last verb to present (I would be happy - the sentence is being uttered now, not yesterday)
In 9 we have the same clash and need a past reference - it might even be as simple as adding "just" before "now" - that would then be a fine sentence.
Same in 10 - change "present" to "that" and it becomes fine also.

(I fear we are in the realm of Chomsky's famous "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously." as a sentence that is grammatically correct but nonsense by any other measure)


----------



## Honki

DonnyB said:


> Yes, you've stated, much more succinctly than me, the doubts and reservations I have about all of this, which I tried to express in post #23.
> 
> (8) is a bit strange because "here *since yesterday*" suggests that she's still here now, which contradicts the _past_ in "would have been happy".
> 
> (9) appears to refer possibly to some sort of faux-pas which has just been committed, so again I don't see how *now* can refer to something which already happened.  I would expect:
> (9a)  If Her Majesty *were* here *now* she *would be* embarrassed.
> 
> (10) sounds really stilted to me.  I really do not think anyone would actually use that in real life.
> 
> If that were my grammar book, I'd be asking for my money back!
> Well, we're just going round in circles now.  (4b) is the same as the original (4), (4c) is the same as (4a), and (5b) & (5c) are the same as (5) & (5a) respectively.
> 
> So the comments I made about them all back in post #10 still hold true, in my opinion: (4c) and (5c) are more or less grammatically correct, but the logic is definitely weird.


 
Thank you for comment, DonnyB.
Your comment is very helpful for me.

However, please remember that according to my informants, sentences (8)-(10) are really correct English.


----------



## JulianStuart

Honki said:


> Thank you for comment, DonnyB.
> Your comment is very helpful for me.
> 
> However, please remember that according to my informants, sentences (8)-(10) are really correct English.


You really should tell us who your "informants" are and what their goal is in presenting such sentences. (name your source)

I found (9) in this essay online : Antecedents and Consequents V. H. Dudman and it is largely impenetrable, partly because of the eclectic style* it is written in and the messages it tries to convey.  Colorless green ideas sleep furiously is "really correct English" too

* Can we really take someone seriously who writes:
On the other hand, no grammatically tenable theory of antecedents and consequents yet existing, I am emboldened to venture a proposal or two of my own (Part 4) in a treatment which I conceive to recommend the attractions of starting with grammar.


----------



## Honki

JulianStuart said:


> Please provide a source for this "grammar" book.
> In 8 I would either take out the _since_ or change the last verb to present (I would be happy - the sentence is being uttered now, not yesterday)
> In 9 we have the same clash and need a past reference - it might even be as simple as adding "just" before "now" - that would then be a fine sentence.
> Same in 10 - change "present" to "that" and it becomes fine also.
> 
> (I fear we are in the realm of Chomsky's famous "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously." as a sentence that is grammatically correct but nonsense by any other measure)



Sentences (8)-(10) are examples collected from English linguistics study so far.

Please remember that I have already realized the sentences below are grammatically correct.

  (8') If she *had been* here *yesterday*, I *would be* happy *now*.
  (9') If Her Majesty *had been* here *yesterday* she would have been embarrassed.
(10') If I *had had* money enough* at that moment*, I would have paid you.

The sentences embedded in the if-clauses of (8'), (9') and (10') indicate single actions (, not perfect aspect).
The sentences embedded in the if-clauses of (8), (9) and (10) indicate perfect aspect.


----------



## Honki

JulianStuart said:


> You really should tell us who your "informants" are and what their goal is in presenting such sentences. (name your source)
> 
> I found (9) in this essay online : Antecedents and Consequents V. H. Dudman and it is largely impenetrable, partly because of the eclectic style* it is written in and the messages it tries to convey.  Colorless green ideas sleep furiously is "really correct English" too
> 
> * Can we really take someone seriously who writes:
> On the other hand, no grammatically tenable theory of antecedents and consequents yet existing, I am emboldened to venture a proposal or two of my own (Part 4) in a treatment which I conceive to recommend the attractions of starting with grammar.



My informants are scholars working for the university.

The goal is native check.


----------



## JulianStuart

Honki said:


> Sentences (8)-(10) are examples collected from English linguistics study so far.
> 
> The sentences embedded in the if-clauses of (8), (9) and (10) indicate perfect aspect.


Hence my confusion about the inclusion of a temporal marker for the present.


Honki said:


> My informants are scholars working for the university.
> 
> The goal is native check.


Perhaps they work in the Department of _Theoretical_ English? 
This native speaker has given a "spoken English" response to the request for checking.


----------



## DonnyB

Honki said:


> Sentences (8)-(10) are examples collected from English linguistics study so far.
> 
> Please remember that I have already realized the sentences below are grammatically correct.
> 
> (8') If she *had been* here *yesterday*, I *would be* happy *now*.
> (9') If Her Majesty *had been* here *yesterday* she would have been embarrassed.
> (10') If I *had had* money enough* at that moment*, I would have paid you.
> 
> The sentences embedded in the if-clauses of (8'), (9') and (10') indicate single actions (, not perfect aspect).
> The sentences embedded in the if-clauses of (8), (9) and (10) indicate perfect aspect.


There seems to be a growing discrepancy between what these "scholars" (are they native speakers, by the way?) are telling you is _correct_, and what we native speakers (Julian and I) are telling you people would actually _use_.  The issue as I see it is not one of correct grammar: all the sentences have the correct grammatical combination of subject plus verb and so on.  Sentences (8'), (9') & (10') are very standard examples of perfectly correct conditional sentences.

But in trying to create this 'perfect aspect' - and I'm not at all sure what that means in the context of (8), (9) & (10), by the way - they've created this unhappy mix in the if-clause of a pluperfect tense, which always denotes a completed action in the _past, _with an expression of time referring to the_ present.  _As they stand those three sentences don't work _logically_, and no native speaker would _say_ them.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

DonnyB said:


> they've created this unhappy mix in the if-clause of a pluperfect tense, which always denotes a completed action in the _past, _


Careful!  In an if-clause, a past perfect usually indicates a condition which was not met, ie. an action which was not completed in the past.


----------



## DonnyB

Thomas Tompion said:


> Careful!  In an if-clause, a past perfect usually indicates a condition which was not met, ie. an action which was not completed in the past.


Sorry yes, you're quite right of course.  

I rather carelessly applied it to the result of both positive and negative pluperfect verbs in the if-clause.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

_(8') If she *had been* here *yesterday*, I *would be* happy *now*_ - Standard III/II
_(9') If Her Majesty *had been* here *yesterday* she would have been embarrassed_ - Standard III
_(10') If I *had had* money enough* at that moment*, I would have paid you_ - Standard III

There is no problem with any of these.  I've indicated which of the standard forms they each take.

Conditional sentences of these two types make very specific time-references, which are implied in the tense-sequencing.

You cannot insert adverbials of time which contradict these time references without losing coherence.  Natives just won't understand you, for reasons which Julian has explained, and the moment you cease to be comprehensible to natives, you need to find a different way of saying what you wish to express.

The question of grammatical correctness doesn't arise, because the concept is meaningless in such contexts.


----------

