# they surely would have heard her



## thetazuo

The princess spent half the night hanging out the window, calling till her throat was raw, but no answering shouts came back to her. That frightened her more than she could say. If the Sand Snakes were imprisoned in the Spear Tower, they surely would have heard her shouting.
(A Feast for Crows)

Context: The princess was imprisoned on the top floor of the Spear Tower. The princess guessed that her cousins (referred to by “Sand Snakes”) might have also been imprisoned below her in the Spear Tower so she shouted to them, hoping they might respond.

Hi. This pattern is "open condition + would have", which I find alien to me. Why can "would have" be used with an open condition?

What is this grammar phenomenon?
Thank you.


----------



## grassy

thetazuo said:


> If the Sand Snakes were imprisoned in the Spear Tower, they surely would have heard her shouting.



But they aren't imprisoned in the Spear Tower, so they didn't hear her shouting.


----------



## thetazuo

grassy said:


> But they aren't imprisoned in the Spear Tower, so they didn't hear her shouting.


Thank you, grassy. But if it is a closed condition, why is “If the Sand Snakes *had been* imprisoned in the Spear Tower” not used?


----------



## dojibear

thetazuo said:


> If the Sand Snakes were imprisoned in the Spear Tower, they surely would have heard her shouting.


What is the problem with that sentence? It looks okay to me.



thetazuo said:


> Thank you, grassy. But if it is a closed condition, why is “If the Sand Snakes *had been* imprisoned in the Spear Tower” not used?



What if they *"had been *imprisoned in the Spear Tower" on Monday, but were moved somewhere else Wednesday, and her shouting was Wednesday night? To hear her, and shout back to her, they had to be in the tower *at the time that *she shouted. Using "were" with the adjective phrase "imprisoned in the Tower" expresses that more clearly.

If you read "were imprisoned" as the simple past passive of the verb "imprison", it has the same problem as "had been imprisoned": it does not imply "at the same time". But in this context, that interpretation would not make sense, and I did not interpret it that way.

Edit: 

I realize that either "were" or "had been" can be used with the adjective "imprisoned". Both are correct. To me "were" is clearer.

I have seen some comments in this forum saying that, in some situations, BE always uses past perfect, while AE uses either past perfect or simple past. Maybe this is one of those situations.


----------



## JJXR

Hi thetazuo.


thetazuo said:


> If the Sand Snakes were imprisoned in the Spear Tower, they surely would have heard her shouting.


"Would have heard" is used here to make an assumption, and the nature of it is not counterfactual. Here are two posts by Forero (this link) and TT (this link) that explain this well. The speaker isn't sure whether the snakes were imprisoned there or not, so they aren't sure whether the snakes heard her shouting or not. Based on that, your sentence is an open past conditional and should be interpreted as follows:

_If the Sand Snakes were imprisoned in the Spear Tower, they did hear her shouting, if they weren't, they didn't._

If the sentence was a counterfactual past conditional, the implication would be that the speaker was sure that the snakes weren't imprisoned there and that they didn't hear her shouting:

_If the Sand Snakes had been imprisoned in the Spear Tower, they surely would have heard her shouting.

But the Sand Snakes weren't imprisoned in the Spear Tower, so they surely didn't hear her shouting._


----------



## boozer

She thinks
If they are imprisoned in the tower, they will have heard me -> present tense narration
She thought
If they were imprisoned in the tower, would have heard me -> past tense narration 

Either way, the condition is open as she has no idea if the Sand Snakes are in the tower. Sometimes past-tense narration makes open conditionals look like closed ones.


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you all.
I have done some research into this question and found something relevant.

In _Conditionals A Comprehensive Empirical Analysis_ by Renaat Declerck and Susan Reed 
This pattern is called “imaginary P + imaginary Q”, which is still considered as a third conditional. 





> The past tense in the P-clause is a relative tense, expressing simultaneity between the P-situation and the Q-situation. In (500b), the past perfect is an instance of what in section 5.1.7 was called 'indirect binding': although the P-situation is interpreted as W-simultaneous with the Q-situation, the tense form used does
> not express this W-simultaneity relation but echoes the T-anteriority relation which is already expressed by have been busy in the preceding context.
> Temporally speaking, there is no difference of interpretation between the
> two examples.
> The following pair of examples is similar to (500a-b):
> a. He would have talked to Lyn if he *was* worried. [So she's the person to go to if you want to find out if anything was bothering him.]
> b. He would have talked to Lyn if he *had been* worried. [So she's the person to go to if you want to find out if anything was bothering him.]



I think this echoes dojibear’s “at the same time” notion.
What do you think?


----------



## thetazuo

Hi. Does anyone think this op example is similar to this one in terms of the grammatical structure?
*(If he disposed of his girl like this*, )he would not have been the first father to dispose of ...
He would not have been the first father to ...


----------



## se16teddy

thetazuo said:


> If the Sand Snakes were imprisoned in the Spear Tower, they surely would have heard her shouting.


This is indirect speech. It means: _She thought to herself "If the sand snakes were imprisoned in the Spear Tower they would surely have heard me shouting."_

The part between the speech marks is a type three conditional. The speaker can optionally use "were imprisoned" instead of "had been imprisoned" because at the time of speaking they are *not* imprisoned.

I suspect that when we transform a type 3 conditional from direct to indirect speech we never backshift, even when the direct speech contains a simple past tense.


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you, teddy. I still have some questions.


se16teddy said:


> because at the time of speaking they are *not* imprisoned.


I appreciate this is a third conditional. But how can you be sure that at the time of speaking they are *not* imprisoned? We have no way to make sure whether they are imprisoned, judging from the context. The if clause in a third conditional doesn’t have to be counterfactual, according to that book I referred to in post 7. What do you think?

And does what I quoted in post 7 relevant to this op example? e.g, the pattern of the op example is “imaginary P+ imaginary Q”?
P=condition
Q=main clause


----------



## se16teddy

thetazuo said:


> We have no way to make sure whether they are imprisoned, judging from the context.


 The fact that the princess uses the type 3 conditional, with simple past tense, in her thought implies that (in her judgment) the sand snakes are *not* imprisoned in the Spear Tower at the time when she is having the thought. That is what this kind of type 3 conditional implies. If we use the type 3 conditional with past perfect, it may refer to a past *or *present time.

The *difficult *question is: how do we know that this sentence is the indirect speech/thought of the princess, rather than the opinion of the narrator?


----------



## thetazuo

Many thanks, teddy. I see.


se16teddy said:


> If we use the type 3 conditional with past perfect, it may refer to a past *or *present time.


But why can past perfect refer to present time?


se16teddy said:


> The *difficult *question is: how do we know that this sentence is the indirect speech/thought of the princess, rather than the opinion of the narrator?


But if this is the opinion of the narrator, how would you analyze it? If this is the opinion of the narrator, then perhaps the quote in post 7 will come into play?


----------



## manfy

se16teddy said:


> This is indirect speech. It means: _She thought to herself "If the sand snakes were imprisoned in the Spear Tower they would surely have heard me shouting."_


Interesting approach! In my opinion this also opens up the possibility of a justifiable mixed conditional:
_She thought to herself "If the sand snakes *were* imprisoned in the Spear Tower *[right now]* they would surely have heard me shouting *[a moment ago]* and they surely would have responded -- since they didn't, it implies that they are not here."
_
Using the formal third conditional with "If the sand snakes *had been* imprisoned ..." seems possible, but more confusing than the first second conditional "If they *were* imprisoned" because the former suggests that they may have been there before, but not now (which makes the whole statement unlogical in the context of being imprisoned and no notion of any prisoner movement, isn't it?)

[edit: correcting typos, terminology, wording]


----------



## boozer

The situation is different.

She spent a lot of time imprisoned in the tower and she had reasons to believe the Sand Snakes (her sister and cousin*) were also imprisoned there. There is no question of her knowing that they were not imprisoned. In fact, she suspected, if I remember correctly, that they were imprisoned because they all attempted a coup, of sorts.

So, for me, this is not a type 3 conditional at all. Type 3 conditionals are most of the time counterfactual and, as I explained, this is not the case here. It is a past open conditional - she is considering options and the story goes in the past tense, the author explaining what goes on inside her head from his (the author's) perspective - if they were[if they still were, concurrent], indeed, imprisoned, they would have heard me while I shouted all through the night [an assumption].

*Or, rather, her two cousins that are sisters...


----------



## manfy

boozer said:


> So, for me, this is not a type 3 conditional at all. Type 3 conditionals are most of the time counterfactual and, as I explained, this is not the case here.


Right. And that stems from that simplified teaching aid "conditional 0/1/2/3". As simple and as straight-forward as it may seem for the beginner, it does show its ugly and confusing side once you get more fluent and once you go into the finer details of conditionals.
I've participated in quite a number of discussions on conditionals and subjunctive mood over the past few years here and I've seen it many times that learners proactively are confusing themselves when they're trying to reduce everything to the basic 0/1/2/3 conditionals.
The terminology of open/closed conditional seems more productive in those cases where the simplified form fails.

I agree that the interpretation as open conditional makes more sense here; the princess (or narrator) is voicing out a potential scenario. After re-reading the OP, I'm confident now that it is the narrator's opinion and not implied reported speech because it ends with "..., they surely would have heard *her* shouting."
But it doesn't really matter. It is a common logical conclusion a person would draw in such a situation; whether the princess really had that thought or whether the narrator states the very same obvious thought should have no impact on the tenses and verb moods used.


----------



## se16teddy

thetazuo said:


> But why can past perfect refer to present time?


Because the type 3 conditional is tenseless. I suppose that this is the reason why we don’t backshift it in indirect speech.
_I went for my cancer test results yesterday. If I had told Fred about it he would have gone with me. 
I am on my way for my cancer test results. If I had told Fred about it he would have come with me. 
I am going for my cancer test results tomorrow. If I had told Fred about it he would have come with me. _


----------



## SevenDays

thetazuo said:


> The princess spent half the night hanging out the window, calling till her throat was raw, but no answering shouts came back to her. That frightened her more than she could say. If the Sand Snakes were imprisoned in the Spear Tower, they surely would have heard her shouting.
> (A Feast for Crows)
> 
> Context: The princess was imprisoned on the top floor of the Spear Tower. The princess guessed that her cousins (referred to by “Sand Snakes”) might have also been imprisoned below her in the Spear Tower so she shouted to them, hoping they might respond.
> 
> Hi. This pattern is "open condition + would have", which I find alien to me. Why can "would have" be used with an open condition?
> 
> What is this grammar phenomenon?
> Thank you.



Also, this "were" is "counterfactual;" it is a _fixed expression_. "Counterfactual were" is _tenseless _and as such it doesn't change to "had been" in a past context (though advocates of the type 4 conditionals might disagree).


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you all.


boozer said:


> if they were[if they still were, concurrent], indeed, imprisoned, they would have heard me while I shouted all through the night [an assumption].


So do you think the example I cited in post 8 is similar to the op example (i.e. both of them use the pattern “open condition+assumption”)?


----------



## thetazuo

Hi. 
To Teddy and SevenDays:
Is “they surely would have heard her shouting” also counterfactual?


----------



## boozer

SevenDays said:


> Also, this "were" is "counterfactual;" it is a _fixed expression_. "Counterfactual were" is _tenseless _and as such it doesn't change to "had been" in a past context (though advocates of the type 4 conditionals might disagree).


I have mentioned this several times before - I have read the book and I have seen the film more than once (although this part does not feature in the film). I know the situation and the context and I most emphatically disagree that this is the subjunctive 'were' used in type 3 conditional or a counterfactual 'were'. It is not.

All interpretations given here are perfectly possible grammatically, but the example in post 1 is used in a different context.


----------



## boozer

thetazuo said:


> So do you think the example I cited in post 8 is similar to the op example (i.e. both of them use the pattern “open condition+assumption”)?


Looks that way, yes, I think.


----------



## boozer

manfy said:


> Right. And that stems from that simplified teaching aid "conditional 0/1/2/3". As simple and as straight-forward as it may seem for the beginner, it does show its ugly and confusing side once you get more fluent and once you go into the finer details of conditionals.



The additional problem is that the 4 basic types of conditionals are valid from the perspective of normal present time. Insert any of them in some past-tense narration, take them out of their context, and you get all the confusion you will ever need, and more.


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you, boozer.
Then do you think what I quoted in post 7 is relevant to this op example? e.g, the pattern of the op example can be considered “imaginary P+ imaginary Q”?
P=condition
Q=main clause


----------



## boozer

Sorry, Thetazuo, I am not in the business of considering patterns.


----------



## JJXR

thetazuo said:


> Thank you, boozer.
> Then do you think what I quoted in post 7 is relevant to this op example?





boozer said:


> Sorry, Thetazuo, I am not in the business of considering patterns.


Since boozer doesn't consider your original sentence in the OP to be a third conditional, I think if boozer was in the business of considering grammar patterns, his answer would be no. In post #7, your sentences are both counterfactual conditionals which is not the case in the OP. The sentence in the OP is an open past conditional.


thetazuo said:


> b. He would have talked to Lyn if he was worried.


Your sentence b can be a present counterfactual condition with a past counterfactual consequence, in which case the interpretation is as follows:

_But he is not worried, so he didn't talk to Lyn._

Or it can be an open past conditonal in which the nature of "would have talked" is not counterfactual:

_I predict that if it was true that he was worried, it was also true that he talked to Lyn._


thetazuo said:


> If the Sand Snakes were imprisoned in the Spear Tower, they surely would have heard her shouting.


My reasoning regarding sentence b can be applied to the sentence in the OP. But given the context, the sentence is not a counterfactual one, as boozer explained in post #6.


----------



## SevenDays

boozer said:


> I have mentioned this several times before - I have read the book and I have seen the film more than once (although this part does not feature in the film). I know the situation and the context and I most emphatically disagree that this is the subjunctive 'were' used in type 3 conditional or a counterfactual 'were'. It is not.
> 
> All interpretations given here are perfectly possible grammatically, but the example in post 1 is used in a different context.



All that "counterfactual" means is that something is presented as _nonfactual _(i.e., imagined, a hypothesis, an assumption). In post 6 you tell us that "she has no idea if the snakes are in the tower," and in post 14 that "she had reasons to believe the Sand Snakes (her sister and cousin*) were also imprisoned there." Either way, it's an assumption of something that isn't factual, and that's what "if" points to. In past time, we have "were;" in present time, "were" alternates with "are" (_If the Sand Snakes are/were imprisoned in the tower_) precisely because "if" signals counterfactual/non-factual (and the only semantic difference is that "are" is _closer_ to reality/factuality, in the mind of the speaker).


----------



## boozer

SevenDays said:


> All that "counterfactual" means is that something is presented as _nonfactual _(i.e., imagined, a hypothesis, an assumption).


No way.  _Counterfactual _is when you know what happened in fact, but imagine a situation to the contrary. And this is clearly not the case here. She had no idea if the Sand Snakes were also imprisoned in the tower, although she had reasons to think they _might _be. Either way, she had no knowledge of the facts, so her thinking cannot be counterfactual.


----------



## SevenDays

boozer said:


> No way.  _Counterfactual _is when you know what happened in fact, but imagine a situation to the contrary. And this is clearly not the case here. She had no idea if the Sand Snakes were also imprisoned in the tower, although she had reasons to think they _might _be. Either way, she had no knowledge of the facts, so her thinking cannot be counterfactual.



_The thinking_ is not counterfactual/non-factual; "thinking" (the process of using one's mind) is _always_ factual (_Cogito, ergo sum_). What's counterfactual/non-factual is _the situation_ being described. There's no reality/factuality involved, and so the speaker is making an assumption/setting up a hypothesis.


----------



## boozer

SevenDays said:


> What's counterfactual/non-factual is _the situation_ being described..


And that only if you adjust (ergo distort ) the meaning of 'counterfactual' in line with this statement.


----------



## se16teddy

thetazuo said:


> The princess spent half the night hanging out the window, calling till her throat was raw, but no answering shouts came back to her. That frightened her more than she could say. If the Sand Snakes were imprisoned in the Spear Tower, they surely would have heard her shouting.


The Princess's reasoning is this.

Either the Sand Snakes are imprisoned in the Spear Tower or they not.
If they are imprisoned in the Sand Tower they have inevitably heard me.
If they have heard me, they have inevitably shouted back to me.
I have not heard them shouting.
Therefore they are not imprisoned in the Spear Tower.
Some grammarians express the Princess's conclusion in this odd way: _For the Princess the statement "The Sand Snakes are imprisoned in the Spear Tower" is counterfactual._ (Some people say that this statement is a "hypothetical", which seems even more bizarre and confusing to me. But each to their own.)
Because the Princess believes that the Sand Snakes are *not *imprisoned in the Spear Tower, she is free to open a type 3 conditional sentence with the words "If the Sand Snakes were imprisoned in the Spear Tower".

Does anyone really disagree with any of this?


----------



## boozer

se16teddy said:


> I have not heard them shouting.
> Therefore they are not in the Spear Tower.
> .....
> Does anyone really disagree with any of this?


Mildly, Teddy, yes, I do.
_They _may have heard _her _shouting, not she them. Which tells us nothing about whether she knows they are there. All she knows is that _if_ they are, they will have heard her, nothing more, nothing less. That is the situation being described. She still has no idea if they are in the tower.


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you, teddy and boozer. I forgot to add that the example in question is followed by these sentences “Why didn’t they answer? _If Father has done them harm, I will never forgive him, never,_ she told herself.”.
This seems to suggest the princess really believed the Sand Snakes were imprisoned in the tower and they heard her; they just didn’t answer. So I begin to think the condition “If the Sand Snakes were imprisoned in the Spear Tower” is not counterfactual; it is imaginary. I have read the relevant part of that book again. See the example below:


> (500) a. ["I always talked to her when she came in." — "But you *might have been *busy that morning.] Would you have talked to her if you *were* busy?"


It seems that imaginary P is equivalent to open P. What do you think?


----------



## boozer

Thetazuo, I think you should have posted the additional context a lot earlier (but thanks for this anyway). If you had, we would not have gone into fruitless arguments on the meaning of 'counterfactual' and we would not have had to (mis)interpret the meaning of that simple sentence <-- standard type 3 counterfactual conditional  It is counterfactual because you did not post additional context earlier. 

There is not much to analyse here really. It all boils down to backshifting the verbs in the sentence below to the past tense.
_If they are [-> were] imprisoned in the tower, they will have[-> would have] heard me_
As it stands, that sentence is a regular type 1 conditional. When a regular type 1 conditional is narrated in the past tense, it does not turn into type 2 or type 3 conditional. I said I was not in the business of considering patterns, but having considered this one, I do not think any specific pattern has emerged


----------



## thetazuo

Many thanks, boozer. Just another question, is the example I cited in post 8 also backshifted version of “*If he disposes of his girl like this*, he will not have been the first father to dispose of ...”?


----------



## boozer

In that example the condition is inferred - it is recovered from the surrounding context, so we do not really have a conditional sentence there. 

However, 'if he disposes' makes no sense in that scenario, because they are talking about something that happened in the past, i.e. before the time in reference - if he did dispose of his girl. Again, a past open conditional
_If he disposed of his girl, he will not have been..._

Now, if you backshift 'disposed', you get 'had disposed'. As I am sure you already know by know, this form coincides with the form of a type 3 counterfactual condition. So the author cannot really backshift any further without introducing ambiguity. He therefore keeps the original past tense:

_If he disposed... he would not have been._

Of course, I am just guessing at what the author _would have said_ because we all know he only said the second half, which is no conditional sentence in itself.


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you, boozer. It makes good sense to me.
After reading this whole thread again, I find dojibear thinks both past perfect and simple past are possible in the if clause of the op example, which makes me think the points made in the grammar book I mentioned earlier are also valid and relevant here. But unfortunately none of you have heard this book ...

1a. If the Sand Snakes *were* imprisoned in the Spear Tower, they surely would have heard her shouting.
1b. If the Sand Snakes *had been* imprisoned in the Spear Tower, they surely would have heard her shouting.

2a. _If he *disposed* of his girl, he would not have been the first father ...
2b. If he *had disposed* of his girl, he would not have been the first father ...

Does anyone else really think 1a=1b and 2a=2b (e.g. temporarily speaking, simple past and past perfect are the same in these cases) when all of them can refer to purely imaginary past situations rather than counterfactual ones?_


----------



## boozer

Out of context, there is one way in which the average English speaker, myself included, would interpret 1b and 2b
1b The Sand snakes were not imprisoned in the tower so they did not hear her
2b He did not dispose of his girl but there were others who had disposed of their children in that way

Pay attention to the phrase 'out of context', though. There are not enough verb forms in English for all the fine distinctions that can be made in context. As it happens, the _had-done_ form is the default form that a counterfactual conditional takes. If any other meaning is possible, it is only possible in context.


----------



## thetazuo

boozer said:


> Out of context, there is one way in which the average English speaker, myself included, would interpret 1b and 2b


Thank you again. I think you mean “there is only one way”.


----------



## thetazuo

Hi, everyone.
I have a new question about the topic sentence.

Can I think the sentence "If the Sand Snakes were imprisoned in the Spear Tower, they surely *would* have heard her shouting". is backshifted from "If the Sand Snakes were imprisoned in the Spear Tower, they surely *will* have heard her shouting.", which is her direct thought?

And is it correct to change the original sentence into "
If the Sand Snakes were imprisoned in the Spear Tower, they *must* have heard her shouting."while keeping the original meaning?

Thanks everyone.


----------



## Uncle Jack

thetazuo said:


> Can I think the sentence "If the Sand Snakes were imprisoned in the Spear Tower, they surely *would* have heard her shouting". is backshifted from "If the Sand Snakes were imprisoned in the Spear Tower, they surely *will* have heard her shouting.", which is her direct thought?


I don't know. What does the speaker know about the situation? Is "were" subjunctive or indicative? What function does "would" serve?

The following are all plausible originals:
If the Sand Snakes are imprisoned in the Spear Tower, they surely would hear my shouting.​If the Sand Snakes are imprisoned in the Spear Tower, they surely will have heard my shouting.​If the Sand Snakes were imprisoned in the Spear Tower, they surely would hear my shouting.​
Although this one is possible grammatically, it does not fit the pattern of a hypothetical situation, which I think is the only situation in modern English where "were" would be the subjunctive:
If the Sand Snakes were imprisoned in the Spear Tower, they surely will have heard my shouting​


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you, Jack. 


Uncle Jack said:


> What does the speaker know about the situation? Is "were" subjunctive or indicative? What function does "would" serve?


The speaker and her cousins and sisters attempted a coup, which was almost successfully. But one of them betrayed them and told her father about this coup. So her father imprisoned her in a tower. So she was cut off from the outside world. She suspected her cousins and sisters were also imprisoned in the same tower at a lower level, but she didn’t know it for sure. Therefore, this sentence is an open past conditional, as boozer said. The “were” is indicative, I think. 
I don’t know what function “would” serves here. I think it’s backshifted from “will”.
Boozer thinks the original sentence is backshifted from “If the Sand Snakes are imprisoned in the Spear Tower, they surely will have heard my shouting.” But I think he somewhat contradicts himself because the sentence “If the Sand Snakes are imprisoned in the Spear Tower, they surely will have heard my shouting.” is a present open conditional. And a standard open past conditional should use the pattern “If+simple past+will have past participle”, not ”If+simple past+would have past participle” which is neither common nor good. So only backshifting can justify the original example. 
So which do you think is the princess’s direct thought? “If the Sand Snakes *are* imprisoned in the Spear Tower, they surely will have heard my shouting.”? Or “If the Sand Snakes *were* imprisoned in the Spear Tower, they surely will have heard my shouting.”? And what’s the difference between them?


----------



## Uncle Jack

Looking at this from a backshifting perspective surely makes it more complicated than necessary. Still, conditionals are tricky, and if this helps you understand them I'll see what you can do.

There are two clauses. The if-clause is straightforward: at the time the Princess is shouting, and even immediately after she has shouted and wonders whether they have heard, the only question is whether the Sand Snakes are in the tower in the present (there being no expectation of any change between her finishing shouting and her wondering whether they heard). Thus the if-clause has to be:
If the Sand Snakes are imprisoned in the Spear Tower...​
The main clause depends on the exact time of the thought in relation to the shouting. If it was said (or thought) before or during the shouting, the future tense is most likely: ...they will surely hear my shouting (I have moved the adverb to a more conventional position).
If she is saying this shortly after shouting, then I think it has to be: ...they will surely have heard my shouting. 
I think this is the only option, because "surely" does not go well with the more tentative "would".

Since the "reported" version is "If the Sand Snakes were imprisoned in the Spear Tower, they surely would have heard her shouting", then the "direct" version is most likely:
If the Sand Snakes are imprisoned in the Spear Tower they surely will have heard my shouting.​which is what Boozer said in post #6. 

If the original "direct" thought was sufficiently after the shouting for the Princess to use the past indicative in the if-clause, then there would be no need for backshifting at all, since there is no reporting verb.

Are the Sand Snakes her sisters? And is she in the Spear Tower herself? You said she thought it likely her sisters were imprisoned in the same tower as she was, so a using a hypothetical type 2 conditional is highly unlikely. However, in a more unlikely scenario (unlikely in respect of the if-clause, not in the internal logic of the sentence), then she might have considered it a hypothetical situation and her thought could have been a straightforward type 2 conditional:
If the Sand Snakes were imprisoned in the Spear Tower they surely would hear my shouting.​This, too, can be backshifted into your original sentence. 
If her original thought was a little time after the shouting, it would be a type 2/3 mixed conditional:
If the Sand Snakes were imprisoned in the Spear Tower they surely would have heard my shouting.​This cannot be backshifted, so it, too, matches your reported version.

So there you are, take your pick.


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you very much, Jack.


Uncle Jack said:


> Are the Sand Snakes her sisters? And is she in the Spear Tower herself?


The Sand Snakes are her cousins and she is in the Spear Tower herself.

I think the issue would be simpler if the author wrote “If the Sand Snakes were imprisoned in the Spear Tower, they surely would have *answered* her shouting.” Given that the sentence is followed by “Why didn’t they answer? If Father has done them harm, I will never forgive him, never, she told herself.” as I posted it in post 32, the sentence is clearly a detective’s conditional: they didn’t answer, so they were not imprisoned in the Spear Tower.

But with “hear”, the issue is complicated with at least two possibilities being involved in:
1) The Sand Snakes were in the tower, but they are gagged on her father’s orders so they can’t answer. (Or they were too weak to answer because they were tortured)
2) The Sand Snakes were not in the tower.

Therefore,


Uncle Jack said:


> However, in a more unlikely scenario (unlikely in respect of the if-clause, not in the internal logic of the sentence), then she might have considered it a hypothetical situation and her thought could have been a straightforward type 2 conditional:
> If the Sand Snakes were imprisoned in the Spear Tower they surely would hear my shouting.This, too, can be backshifted into your original sentence.


This version is unlikely, as you said, which I agree with.


Uncle Jack said:


> If her original thought was a little time after the shouting, it would be a type *2/3 mixed *conditional:
> If the Sand Snakes were imprisoned in the Spear Tower they surely would have heard my shouting.


This version, echoing grassy’s comment in post 2, is also impossible since the speaker didn’t know whether the Sand Snakes were in the tower.


Uncle Jack said:


> If the original "direct" thought was sufficiently after the shouting for the Princess to use the past indicative in the if-clause, then there would be no need for backshifting at all, since there is no reporting verb.


This is possible. And the “direct” thought was said/thought during the shouting is also possible. It’s more possible that she was saying this shortly after shouting. (I’d say the more she shouted, the more she doubted if the Sand Snakes were imprisoned in the tower, although she still couldn’t be sure (or the more she believed they were tortured/gagged).


Uncle Jack said:


> *during* the shouting, the future tense is most likely: ...they will surely hear my shouting (I have moved the adverb to a more conventional position).
> If she is saying this shortly *after* shouting


I’m not sure about the bold part because the context is not that clear, please see above.


Uncle Jack said:


> So there you are, take your pick.


I find it hard to choose between the three options you’ve provided.
The first option is echoing boozer’s backshifting idea, which you don’t agree with. And the other two (type 2 conditional and mixed conditional) are not possible.


Uncle Jack said:


> Looking at this from a backshifting perspective surely makes it more complicated than necessary.


So how would you analyze it if you don’t think it’s backshifting? I’m interested to know. (Please let me know if you need more context)


----------



## Uncle Jack

thetazuo said:


> This version is unlikely, as you said, which I agree with.
> This version, echoing grassy’s comment in post 2, is also impossible since the speaker didn’t know whether the Sand Snakes were in the tower.


You are being too restrictive in when people use type 2 conditionals.
The speaker is referring to a real situation in the present/past. If they think the situation (the if-clause) is reasonably likely, the speaker will use the present tense. If the speaker knows the if-clause to be false, they will use the past perfect (type 3 conditional), but if they want to express that the situation is unlikely, they may use a type 2 conditional.



thetazuo said:


> I find it hard to choose between the three options you’ve provided.
> The first option is echoing boozer’s backshifting idea, which you don’t agree with.


Why do you say I don't agree with it?



thetazuo said:


> So how would you analyze it if you don’t think it’s backshifting? I’m interested to know. (Please let me know if you need more context)


Backshifting is only carried out so that indirect speech makes sense with respect to what is now the present and the time of the reporting verb. Learners (native and non-native speakers alike) are taught rules for carrying out backshifting. Experienced speakers are largely unaware that any rules exist, since we select tenses that make sense in the context, exactly the same as for any other sentence. There is nothing special about indirect speech. Of course, those of us who post on here have had to re-familiarise ourselves with the "rules" so we can engage in meaningful discussion with learners.

I would analyse the sentence by reading the book to work out what the Princess really thought. If this still left more than one possibly matching meaning, I wouldn't worry about it. I would presume the writer meant it to be intentionally ambiguous. All this chasing round trying to work out the meaning while avoiding the context is fruitless. If a sentence has more than one meaning, always use the context to work out which one applies.


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you again.


Uncle Jack said:


> You are being too restrictive in when people use type 2 conditionals.
> The speaker is referring to a real situation in the present/past. If they think the situation (the if-clause) is reasonably likely, the speaker will use the present tense. If the speaker knows the if-clause to be false, they will use the past perfect (type 3 conditional), but if they want to express that the situation is unlikely, they may use a type 2 conditional.


What do you mean by “restrictive” here? Too strict?
And I know these principles as to when to use what kind of conditional, but I might understand them slightly different from you. For example, you say “if the speaker wants to express that the situation is unlikely, they may use a type 2 conditional.”; I would think the if-clause in a type 2 conditional is not just unlikely, but counterfactual—this is especially the case when the verb is stative.



Uncle Jack said:


> Why do you say I don't agree with it?


Because you put the words “direct” and “reported” in quotation marks, which suggests  you don’t really think it’s backshifting; while boozer’s reasoning is based on backshifting. And you also said:


Uncle Jack said:


> Looking at this from a backshifting perspective surely makes it more complicated than necessary.





Uncle Jack said:


> then there would be no need for backshifting at all, since there is no reporting verb.


Which means you think involving backshifting is both unnecessary and unreasonable (no reporting verb).
But it seems I misunderstand you. So you agree with boozer?


Uncle Jack said:


> All this chasing round trying to work out the meaning while avoiding the context is fruitless. If a sentence has more than one meaning, always use the context to work out which one applies.


I am not avoiding context. I do take the context into consideration and we already worked out the meaning, didn’t we? (The princess didn’t know if the Sand Snakes were imprisoned in the same tower as her, nor did she know whether they heard her)

I don’t find there are other meanings, though whether the thought was said during, shortly after or sufficiently after the shouting is unknown. The possibility of a type 2 conditional and mixed conditional are ruled out by the context—only an open past conditional is possible here, right?

So I just want to know: can we say “If the Sand Snakes were imprisoned in the Spear Tower, they surely *will* have heard her shouting.” in the original context? If not, why?


----------



## Uncle Jack

thetazuo said:


> What do you mean by “restrictive” here? Too strict?


Yes.


thetazuo said:


> I would think the if-clause in a type 2 conditional is not just unlikely, but counterfactual—this is especially the case when the verb is stative.


For a real situation, the counterfactual conditional is the type 3 if-clause. The type 2 if-clause is for a hypothetical situation (it is neither true nor false), but most people don't think in these terms; if they did then we would not be discussing type 2 if-clauses at all, because it could not possibly apply to this situation. Instead, the type 2 if-clause is sometimes used to denote an unlikely, but not impossible, situation.


thetazuo said:


> Because you put the words “direct” and “reported” in quotation marks, which suggests you don’t really think it’s backshifting; while boozer’s reasoning is based on backshifting. And you also said:


It is possible to analyse it as a backshifted sentence, and if you insist on doing this then Boozer's analysis is fine, but I think there are better ways to approach it.


thetazuo said:


> So I just want to know: can we say “If the Sand Snakes were imprisoned in the Spear Tower, they surely *will* have heard her shouting.” in the original context? If not, why?


What function does "were" serve in the if-clause?


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you again.


Uncle Jack said:


> but I think there are better ways to approach it.


What are the better ways? A mixed 2/3 conditional?


Uncle Jack said:


> What function does "were" serve in the if-clause?


Indicative “were”, not subjunctive “were”.


----------



## Uncle Jack

thetazuo said:


> What are the better ways? A mixed 2/3 conditional?


No. Use the context to see what the likely meaning is. In this case, we know for certain it is about a real situation in the past, so the most likely if-clauses are the past indicative where the actual situation is unknown, or the past perfect where the Sand Snakes are known not to be imprisoned in the Spear Tower. Because the Princess did not use the past perfect, then we can safely assume that the Princess does not know whether they are imprisoned or not.

The conditional perfect main clause is a little more problematic. Could it be possible that the Princess wishes to argue that their not having heard her means that the Sand Snakes cannot be imprisoned there? For this to be the case, the Princess would have to know that the Sand Snakes had not heard her. You have already said that the Princess cannot know this (and the Princess must also realise she cannot know this), so this cannot possibly be the meaning. Therefore we are left with it being an ordinary open past conditional.

I realise you are interested in why the sentence uses "would" and not "will", to which the only decisive answer is that "it just does". 


thetazuo said:


> Indicative “were”, not subjunctive “were”.


Why would the person use that and not "are"?


----------



## thetazuo

Many thanks.


Uncle Jack said:


> Therefore we are left with it being an ordinary open past conditional.


So the topic sentence in op is used in the same way as “_If he had the directions, he would have arrived on time”__, _right?


Uncle Jack said:


> I realise you are interested in why the sentence uses "would" and not "will", to which the only decisive answer is that "it just does".


I think if “would” works, then “will” should also work because both are open past conditionals and mean the same thing. Does it make sense?


Uncle Jack said:


> Why would the person use that and not "are"?


I think if the speaker uses “are”, then the sentence becomes an open present conditional expressing the princess’s direct thought, which needs to be italicized in the novel.


----------



## Uncle Jack

thetazuo said:


> So the topic sentence in op is used in the same way as “_If he had the directions, he would have arrived on time”__, _right?


As I recall, the OP in that thread never said whether the speaker and whoever they were speaking to knew whether he arrived on time or not. This makes a crucial difference as we cannot infer whether or not the speaker knew from the internal logic of the sentence.


thetazuo said:


> I think if the speaker uses “are”, then the sentence becomes an open present conditional expressing the princess’s direct thought, which needs to be italicized in the novel.


I thought we were discussing a theoretical pre-backshifted version.


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you again.


Uncle Jack said:


> As I recall, the OP in that thread never said whether the speaker and whoever they were speaking to knew whether he arrived on time or not. This makes a crucial difference as we cannot infer whether or not the speaker knew from the internal logic of the sentence.


I get it.


Uncle Jack said:


> I thought we were discussing a theoretical pre-backshifted version.


Yes, we are. I think the sentence “If the Sand Snakes *are* imprisoned in the Spear Tower they surely *will* have heard my shouting.” is both a theoretical pre-backshifted version and the speaker’s direct thought. But can it be used in the original context? 

By the way, you think the sentence “If the Sand Snakes *were* imprisoned in the Spear Tower they surely *will* have heard my shouting.” doesn’t work in the original context, right?


----------



## Uncle Jack

thetazuo said:


> Yes, we are. I think the sentence “If the Sand Snakes *are* imprisoned in the Spear Tower they surely *will* have heard my shouting.” is both a theoretical pre-backshifted version and the speaker’s direct thought. But can it be used in the original context?


We had been talking about this sentence, which I thought was a theoretical pre-backshifted version, which is why I was asking about the function of "were". 


thetazuo said:


> So I just want to know: can we say “If the Sand Snakes were imprisoned in the Spear Tower, they surely *will* have heard her shouting.” in the original context? If not, why?


There are no problems at all in using "are" in a theoretical pre-backshifted version, and I was not aware there was anything more to be discussed.



thetazuo said:


> By the way, you think the sentence “If the Sand Snakes *were* imprisoned in the Spear Tower they surely *will* have heard my shouting.” doesn’t work in the original context, right?


What do you mean by the original context? Where everything is in the past? Of course the writer could have used "were"/"will have heard", but they didn't.


----------



## thetazuo

Thanks again.


Uncle Jack said:


> We had been talking about this sentence, which I thought was a theoretical pre-backshifted version, which is why I was asking about the function of "were".


Yes, I know and accept the pre-backshifted idea. 


Uncle Jack said:


> There are no problems at all in using "are" in a theoretical pre-backshifted version, and I was not aware there was anything more to be discussed.


Yes, I know.


Uncle Jack said:


> What do you mean by the original context?


I just mean if we can use the sentence “If the Sand Snakes *are* imprisoned in the Spear Tower they surely *will* have heard my shouting.” and the sentence “If the Sand Snakes *were* imprisoned in the Spear Tower they surely *will* have heard my shouting.” to replace the original “If the Sand Snakes *were* imprisoned in the Spear Tower they surely *would* have heard my shouting.” in the op text?


----------



## Uncle Jack

thetazuo said:


> I just mean if we can use the sentence “If the Sand Snakes *are* imprisoned in the Spear Tower they surely *will* have heard my shouting.” and the sentence “If the Sand Snakes *were* imprisoned in the Spear Tower they surely *will* have heard my shouting.” to replace the original “If the Sand Snakes *were* imprisoned in the Spear Tower they surely *would* have heard my shouting.” in the op text?


No, of course you cannot use "are" in a narrative that appears to be written in what might be called the historical past; that is, where there is no time link between the events described and the time they are being narrated; everything may have happened centuries ago.


----------



## thetazuo

Uncle Jack said:


> No, of course you cannot use "are" in a narrative that appears to be written in what might be called the historical past; that is, where there is no time link between the events described and the time they are being narrated; everything may have happened centuries ago.


Thank you. But I think “are” is OK, at least in George R.R. Martin’s novels, because he likes to use italicized sentences to describe what is going on in a character’s mind (e.g. “Fear cuts deeper than sword”). So theoretically the present version is OK in the past narrative, as long as it is italicized, I think.

By the way, 


Uncle Jack said:


> Of course the writer could have used "were"/"will have heard", but they didn't.


If the "were"/"will have heard" version is used to replace the original sentence "were"/"would have heard", the meaning won’t change, right?


----------



## Uncle Jack

thetazuo said:


> Thank you. But I think “are” is OK, at least in George R.R. Martin’s novels, because he likes to use italicized sentences to describe what is going on in a character’s mind (e.g. “Fear cuts deeper than sword”). So theoretically the present version is OK in the past narrative, as long as it is italicized, I think.


This is non-standard usage. There are a number of ways writers can refer to past actions as if they are in the present, but that is not the case here. The previous sentence, with "that frightened her" makes this clear, as it describes her own feelings at the time she thought about the sentence we have been discussing.


thetazuo said:


> If the "were"/"will have heard" version is used to replace the original sentence "were"/"would have heard", the meaning won’t change, right?


Not in this case.


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you, Jack.


Uncle Jack said:


> Not in this case.


Sorry, but do you mean I’m not right? Or do you mean “the meaning will not change”?


----------



## Uncle Jack

thetazuo said:


> Or do you mean “the meaning will not change”?


The meaning won't change.


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you very much for your time and effort, Jack.


----------

