# He would have been shot if he didn’t cooperate.



## Ariesofspring

Hi,

I am studying an online university course based in the UK and this sentence sounds very strange to me,

'he would have been shot if he didn’t cooperate'.

In my opinion it should be a third conditional not a mixed conditional. Therefore it should be... 'if he hadn't cooperated'.

Context

'You may have decided that James did not have a choice about becoming a child soldier: he would have been shot if he didn’t cooperate, and there would have been repercussions on his family. The feelings that James would have had when he was forced to shoot his own friends, neighbours and even his own family are difficult to imagine, but again, he had little choice.

James had a terrible experience, but he was lucky to have been rescued and returned to his village...'


----------



## Nikined

Ariesofspring said:


> The feelings that James would have had when he was forced to shoot his own friends


Isn't this the same here? Is shooting his own friends etc also unreal?


----------



## lingobingo

It’s OK as it is. Which tenses you use depends on your perspective. A good rule of thumb is never to use the past perfect if you can convey exactly the same thing with the simple past tense (which is often the case in subordinate clauses).

The situation now (as in direct speech):
_He will be shot if he doesn’t cooperate._​
Same situation backshifted to the past tense (as in reported speech):
_He would be shot if he didn’t cooperate. _​
Same situation backshifted to the past perfect:
_He would have been shot if he hadn’t cooperated._​


----------



## abluter

#1 and #2 - Yes, I think you're both right to be uncomfortable with your sentences. Ariesofspring, you are right with your correction; Nikined, it should read "The feelings that James would have had if he had been forced to shoot his own friends etc"


----------



## Ariesofspring

Nikined said:


> Isn't this the same here? Is shooting his own friends etc also unreal?


The problem in my case was the mixed conditional. 
This is not the case. It sounds right to me even if I'm not English mother tongue.


----------



## Nikined

Ariesofspring said:


> The problem in my case was the mixed conditional.
> This is not the case. It sounds right to me even if I'm not English mother tongue.


Ok, but can you tell me was he forced to shoot his friends or is it only imaginary?


----------



## Ariesofspring

Nikined said:


> Ok, but can you tell me was he forced to shoot his friends or is it only imaginary?


Yes, he was forced to do it. It's a true story.


----------



## DonnyB

Ariesofspring said:


> The problem in my case was the mixed conditional.
> This is not the case. It sounds right to me even if I'm not English mother tongue.


It doesn't work for me with that combination of tenses.

I'd have done it as: 'he would have been shot if he *hadn't cooperated*'_,  _had I been writing it.  It's portraying a scenario which is the _reverse of what actually happened_ (he did co-operate by shooting his friends and survived).


----------



## Steven David

Ariesofspring said:


> Hi,
> 
> I am studying an online university course based in the UK and this sentence sounds very strange to me,
> 
> 'he would have been shot if he didn’t cooperate'.
> 
> In my opinion it should be a third conditional not a mixed conditional. Therefore it should be... 'if he hadn't cooperated'.
> 
> Context
> 
> 'You may have decided that James did not have a choice about becoming a child soldier: he would have been shot if he didn’t cooperate, and there would have been repercussions on his family. The feelings that James would have had when he was forced to shoot his own friends, neighbours and even his own family are difficult to imagine, but again, he had little choice.
> 
> James had a terrible experience, but he was lucky to have been rescued and returned to his village...'



To imagine the opposite of what happened in the past, we usually use had done, past perfect form.

However, we will hear, from time to time, native speakers of English use the simple past form, as in your example sentence.

The meaning is understood in context.

That said, in the end, I would just remember that the past perfect form for a sentence like this is more usual and correct.


----------



## Ariesofspring

DonnyB said:


> It doesn't work for me with that combination of tenses.
> 
> I'd have done it as: 'he would have been shot if he *hadn't cooperated*'_,  _had I been writing it.  It's portraying a scenario which is the _reverse of what actually happened_ (he did co-operate by shooting his friends and survived).


Yes, it's exactly what I said at the beginning.
However, as for the rest, the text seems correct to me.

This is the original source if you all want to take a look: Supporting children's mental health and wellbeing


----------



## Ariesofspring

Steven David said:


> To imagine the opposite of what happened in the past, we usually use had done, past perfect form.
> 
> However, we will hear, from time to time, native speakers of English use the simple past form, as in your example sentence.
> 
> The meaning is understood in context.
> 
> That said, in the end, I would just remember that the past perfect form for a sentence like this is more usual and correct.


Hi Steven,

Thank you very much. It's actually the same in Italian but I was surprised because it's a university source. It might be an oversight.


----------



## Steven David

Ariesofspring said:


> Hi Steven,
> 
> Thank you very much. It's actually the same in Italian but I was surprised because it's a university source. It might be an oversight.



Hi Ariesofspring,

You're welcome.

Well, all I can say is that reference materials and books used for English language learning and teaching do not always reflect real-life language use in its entirety.

Among native speakers of English, certain things are sometimes learned formally rather than learned naturally as a consequence of learning English in an English-speaking country.

I always make it a point to take account of such things. There's a little flexibility with language in certain ways.


----------



## elroy

lingobingo said:


> The situation now (as in direct speech):
> _He will be shot if he doesn’t cooperate._​
> Same situation backshifted to the past tense (as in reported speech):
> _He would be shot if he didn’t cooperate. _​
> Same situation backshifted to the past perfect:
> _He would have been shot if he hadn’t cooperated._​



Yes, but the original (_He would have been shot if he didn't cooperate._) combines the two parts I've colored so it doesn't fit within your scheme.  I'm afraid it's not



lingobingo said:


> OK as it is.


----------



## lingobingo

You may have decided that James did not have a choice about becoming a child soldier: he would have been shot if he didn’t cooperate, and there would have been repercussions on his family. The feelings that James would have had when he was forced to shoot his own friends, neighbours and even his own family are difficult to imagine, but again, he had little choice.​
The basic timeframe of the text in question is the present: his feelings “*are* difficult to imagine”. This is what makes the use of the simple past idiomatic. If anything, what we should be criticising is not that *didn’t* *cooperate* was used rather than *hadn’t cooperated*, but that the past perfect was used at all in that part of the sentence. This is the sort of version I would prefer:

You may have decided that James did not have a choice about becoming a child soldier: he *was going to be shot* if he didn’t cooperate, and there would have been repercussions on his family *if that had happened*.​


----------



## elroy




----------



## Cagey

I agree that in the given context we have  a past unreal conditional and the past perfect is correct.

He would have been shot if he *hadn't cooperated*, and there would have been repercussions on his family.​
It's possible to think of a different grammatical construction that would use a simple past, but that is not what we have here.

If you are interested in a further explanation, see: Past Unreal Conditional


----------



## grammar-in-use

lingobingo said:


> Same situation backshifted to the past tense (as in reported speech):
> _He would be shot if he didn’t cooperate. _





lingobingo said:


> You may have decided that James did not have a choice about becoming a child soldier: he would have been shot if he didn’t cooperate, and



Does the "if he didn't cooperate" as used in these two different contexts have the same meaning (or timeframe)?


----------



## Steven David

grammar-in-use said:


> Does the "if he didn't cooperate" as used in these two different contexts have the same meaning (or timeframe)?



We would understand both to be a different time frame.

As I posted previously, sometimes native speakers of English, now and then, use the simple past in place of the past perfect form to imagine the opposite of what happened in the past. Context clears things up in this case. And it clears things up automatically. It's not like someone would have to think about it in conversation. They just automatically know.

With just would, as in would do, the simple past means contrary to reality at present, or, in other words, it's a present time reference.


----------



## grammar-in-use

Steven David said:


> We would understand both to be a different time frame.


Yeah, I also think they are different in meaning and time reference.
As I understand it, "if he didn't cooperate" could have (at least) three different meanings:
1. =if he had not cooperated, as you said.
2. =to express a present _unreal_ situation
3. =to express a past future _real_ situation

In other words, _He would be shot if he didn’t cooperate_ can be ambiguous between 2. and 3. Is that right?


----------



## Steven David

He would be shot if he didn't cooperate. <

This has both a present and future time reference. It doesn't have anything to do with future real. If we want future real, then we cannot use would.

Consider this. Context and specific words always mean something.

If he were not a cooperative person, he would be shot.

If he were not a cooperative person, he would have been shot.

In both sentences, we understand that he is generally speaking always a cooperative person. So if he were not cooperative is contrary to reality or contrary to what we know to be true at present.

If we use if he was, then there is ambiguity, and only context would make clear what the meaning is.

__________

If he hadn't cooperated, he wouldn't be alive now.

This is what is often referred to as a mixed conditional or mixed hypothetical. I prefer to use the term hypothetical.


----------



## elroy

_*He would be shot if he didn't cooperate.*_

This expresses the situation from his perspective at a certain time in the past before he decided whether to cooperate or not.  The sentence doesn't tell us whether he cooperated or not.  Consider the following two scenarios:​​(1) James did not agree with what he was being asked to do, but _he would be shot if he didn't cooperate_.  To save his life, he *cooperated*.​​(2) James did not agree with what he was being asked to do, but _he would be shot if he didn't cooperate_.  He decided that his values were more important than anything else, so he *did not cooperate *even at the risk of losing his life.​​Most people would assume that in Scenario (1), he wasn't shot and that in Scenario (2), he was.  However, strictly speaking we don't know that.  We only know what the conditions were that he had been given before he made a decision.  It's possible that in Scenario (1), they decided to shoot him anyway or that in Scenario (2), they decided to spare him despite his refusal to cooperate.​​_*He would have been shot if he hadn't cooperated.*_

This one tells us for sure that he did cooperate, and that he wasn't shot.  The sentence also tells us that if he had made the choice to not cooperate, he would have been shot.  In other words, this sentence tells us that (A) happened and (B) did not:​​(A) He cooperated, and he wasn't shot.​​(B) He did not cooperate, and he was shot.​


----------



## Steven David

grammar-in-use said:


> This comment of yours has just reminded me of another usage of "would have done" - that of using it in place of "would do" to talk about a present unreal situation, as in:
> It *would have been* nice to go to America this coming Christmas.
> =It *would be* nice to...
> 
> If this is the case, I'm wondering if it can explain the use of "would have been shot" in the OP's "he *would have been shot* if he didn’t cooperate".



I'm not sure I know exactly what you mean here.

However, here is something in reference to your previous question which I also didn't quite get at first, but now I do.

He would be shot if he didn't cooperate. <

This formation can have a past time reference. However, in this particular sentence, logically, it does not and cannot.

The reason is that he would be shot causes this sentence to mean that he's shot with repetition, over and over again, if we consider it as a past time reference. This is unlikely unless we're dealing with science fiction.

So, as I posted before, the above sentence has a present time reference or future time reference. And it can have the combination of both present and future.

He would be threatened if he didn't cooperate. <

Now, this sentence, because of the verb, can have the past time reference I believe you were asking about before.

Someone can be threatened with repetition, over and over again. However, it seems very unlikely that someone would be shot with repetition, over and over again. We could probably think of a context in which this is possible, but then that's another story.


----------



## grammar-in-use

Steven David said:


> He would be shot if he didn't cooperate. <
> 
> This has both a present and future time reference. It doesn't have anything to do with future real. If we want future real, then we cannot use would.
> 
> Consider this. Context and specific words always mean something.
> 
> If he were not a cooperative person, he would be shot.
> 
> If he were not a cooperative person, he would have been shot.
> 
> In both sentences, we understand that he is generally speaking always a cooperative person. So if he were not cooperative is contrary to reality or contrary to what we know to be true at present.
> 
> If we use if he was, then there is ambiguity, and only context would make clear what the meaning is.
> 
> __________
> 
> If he hadn't cooperated, he wouldn't be alive now.
> 
> This is what is often referred to as a mixed conditional or mixed hypothetical. I prefer to use the term hypothetical.


This is pretty easy to understand and grasp.
The problem is that "if ...*did*..." can sometimes take the place of "if...had done..." to express a *past hypothetical* and that "*would have done*" is used to express a *present* *hypothetical* in the main clause (as in post #22).


----------



## elroy

grammar-in-use said:


> As I understand it, "if he didn't cooperate" could have (at least) three different meanings:
> 1. =if he had not cooperated, as you said.
> 2. =to express a present _unreal_ situation
> 3. =to express a past future _real_ situation
> 
> In other words, _He would be shot if he didn’t cooperate_ can be ambiguous between 2. and 3. Is that right?


I don't know what you're referring to here.  Can you give an example scenario for each of the three meanings you imagine the phrase "if he didn't cooperate" can have, and explain your conclusion that the sentence is ambiguous between 2 and 3?

The only meaning I've been able to identify so far for the sentence is the one I explained in my last post.


----------



## grammar-in-use

elroy said:


> Can you give an example scenario for each of the three meanings you imagine the phrase "if he didn't cooperate" can have, and explain your conclusion that the sentence is ambiguous between 2 and 3?


I'm sorry I didn't  make myself clear.
However, you already did a very good job in post #21 illustrating the ambiguity between what I called 2 and 3 (in post #19):


elroy said:


> Consider the following two scenarios:
> 
> (1) James did not agree with what he was being asked to do, but _he would be shot if he didn't cooperate_. To save his life, he *cooperated*.
> 
> (2) James did not agree with what he was being asked to do, but _he would be shot if he didn't cooperate_. He decided that his values were more important than anything else, so he *did not cooperate *even at the risk of losing his life.



Your (1) =my 3, which I would now call "a very *likely* situation in the past future" (For him to cooperate will be very likely=he *cooperated*).
Your (2) =my 2, which I would now call "a very *unlikely* situation in the past future" (For him to cooperate would be very unlikely=he did *not cooperate*).


----------



## grammar-in-use

Steven David said:


> The reason is that he would be shot causes this sentence to mean that he's shot with *repetition*, over and over again, if we consider it as a past time reference. This is unlikely unless we're dealing with science fiction.


Can't it be understood as a single instance in the (past) future (as Elroy illustrated in post #21)?


elroy said:


> (1) James did not agree with what he was being asked to do, but _he would be shot if he didn't cooperate_. To save his life, he *cooperated*.


----------



## Steven David

grammar-in-use said:


> Can't it be understood as a single instance in the (past) future (as Elroy illustrated in post #21)?



No.

For a single instance in the past, I would only go with would have been shot in this particular context. The thing is that he wasn't shot. Again, the idea is that he wasn't shot. This is imagining a different result from what really happened in the past. And, no, he would be shot does not go with the idea that he would have been shot. No way.

In another context, this form is possible for a single instance in the past in which someone really is, in fact, shot one time and then dies.

He didn't know that as he attempted to get back in his car, he would be shot, and then he would die just a few minutes later.

Even without dying, this is possible because it's then a confirmed fact that he was shot. He was shot one time.

As he attempted to get back in his car, he didn't know that he would be shot.

For the original example sentence, this doesn't make sense. The reference points are different. The context is different.

We can use would do to show that something happened one time in the past. We cannot use would do to imagine the possibility of something not happening in the past. Again, for that, we use would have done as in he would have been shot.

In reported speech, this is possible.

His exact words are these:

I know that I'll be shot if I don't cooperate.

This is the report:

He knew that he would be shot if he didn't cooperate.

This is not imagining a different result than what really happened. This is a report of what really happened or did not happen in the past.


----------



## grammar-in-use

elroy said:


> (1) James did not agree with what he was being asked to do, but _he would be shot if he didn't cooperate_. To save his life, he *cooperated*.





Steven David said:


> Using would do to show that something happened one time in the past is not the same as using would do to imagine something different happening in the past. Again, for that, we use would have done as in he would have been shot.


I don't know if I understand you correctly, David. Anyway, how would you label Elroy's _he would be shot if he didn't cooperate_ as above? (Do you think it makes sense in that scenario? I think it does.) Is it something that happened one time in the *past*? Or is it something that would happen in the *past future*? 
I simply understand this "_he would be shot if he didn't cooperate_" as a backshifted version of "_he will be shot if he doesn't cooperate_". That's what I mean by "the past future". (I don't know if I've made myself clear this time...   )


----------



## Steven David

grammar-in-use said:


> I don't know if I understand you correctly, David. Anyway, how would you label Elroy's _he would be shot if he didn't cooperate_ as above? (Do you think it makes sense in that scenario? I think it does.) Is it something that happened one time in the *past*? Or is it something that would happen in the *past future*?
> I simply understand this "_he would be shot if he didn't cooperate_" as a backshifted version of "_he will be shot if he doesn't cooperate_". That's what I mean by "the past future". (I don't know if I've made myself clear this time...   )



I would paraphrase the sentence in Elroy's post this way:

He was going to be shot if he didn't cooperate.

He knew that he was going to be shot if he didn't cooperate.

In other words, this is what was going to happen, or this is what he knew was going to happen.

The sentence does not imagine a different past result as in contrary to reality in the past.

I think that presupposing the idea of backshifting confuses things. There's no reason to take this into consideration unless we know that we are reporting what someone said. Even then, I don't use the term backshift.


----------



## grammar-in-use

Steven David said:


> This is the report:
> 
> He knew that *he would be shot if he didn't cooperate*.
> 
> This is not imagining a different result than what really happened. This is a report of what really happened or did not happen in the past.


Exactly! That's what I meant.
So, to sum, "he would be shot if he didn't cooperate" can have *two* different meanings. And "if he didn't cooperate" can have *three*.


----------



## Steven David

grammar-in-use said:


> Exactly! That's what I meant.
> So, to sum, "he would be shot if he didn't cooperate" can have *two* different meanings. And "if he didn't cooperate" can have *three*.



Possibly.

I would have to read examples with the meaning applied next to each one.

Again, it all comes down to context. So, given different contexts, there could be different readings.


----------



## elroy

@Steven David is incorrect.  What I said here is valid.


----------



## Steven David

elroy said:


> @Steven David is incorrect.  What I said here is valid.



What are you saying I am incorrect about? It's not clear.

Okay, what you said there is valid. Still, it's not clear what you are saying I am incorrect about.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Both forms are grammatically correct but they are appropriate to different circumstances:

_He would have been shot if he hadn't cooperated._ (on that particular occasion in the past).
_
He would have been shot if he didn’t cooperate._ (ie. if he wasn't a guy who was in the habit of cooperating).

What I can't be certain of in all this is which circumstance applies in the context given.  _You may have decided that James did not have a choice about becoming a child soldier_ suggests quite a long time frame, which inclines me to think the second is the more likely choice, as talking about the boy's habitual behaviour, rather than about what happened on one occasion.


----------



## grammar-in-use

Thomas Tompion said:


> _He would have been shot if he didn’t cooperate._ (ie. if he wasn't a guy who was in the habit of cooperating).


That’s to say, it _is_ a mixed conditional, isn’t it?
It is not the case that uses “the simple past in place of the past perfect form to imagine the opposite of what happened in the past”, is it?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

grammar-in-use said:


> That’s to say, it _is_ a mixed conditional, isn’t it?


Yes, it's a standard II/III mixed conditional.


grammar-in-use said:


> It is not the case that uses “the simple past in place of the past perfect form to imagine the opposite of what happened in the past”, is it?


I'm not clear that what happens can have an opposite.  It shows what would have happened if a particular condition wasn't met, in this case, if he wasn't that sort of person.


----------



## Ariesofspring

Thomas Tompion said:


> Both forms are grammatically correct but they are appropriate to different circumstances:
> 
> _He would have been shot if he hadn't cooperated._ (on that particular occasion in the past).
> 
> _He would have been shot if he didn’t cooperate._ (ie. if he wasn't a guy who was in the habit of cooperating).
> 
> What I can't be certain of in all this is which circumstance applies in the context given.  _You may have decided that James did not have a choice about becoming a child soldier_ suggests quite a long time frame, which inclines me to think the second is the more likely choice, as talking about the boy's habitual behaviour, rather than about what happened on one occasion.



In my opinion the second case doesn't apply. James was forced to be collaborative. If we read the text carefully we don't find any particular reference to his collaborative nature, apart from a specific circumstance.
We do have a specific reference to tha past, so in this case we should use the third conditional not the mixed conditional.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Ariesofspring said:


> In my opinion the second case doesn't apply. James was forced to be collaborative. If we read the text carefully we don't find any particular reference to his collaborative nature, apart from a specific circumstance.
> We do have a specific reference to tha past, so in this case we should use the third conditional not the mixed conditional.


Thanks for this, Ariesofspring, and welcome to the forum. 

I found the description so heavily larded with modal auxiliaries as to keep open the possibility of his having a compliant nature.  And, of course, the use of the II/III mixed conditional confirmed that impression.  Using the III conditional would have altered the impact of the sentence.  I can't see the II/III mixed, which is grammatically correct, as clashing with the other parts of the sentence.

The implied question in the OP is _Should we change it? _ My answer would be that you could change it, but it's correct as it stands and different in an important way. I'd be sorry to lose that difference.


----------



## Ariesofspring

Thomas Tompion said:


> Thanks for this, Ariesofspring, and welcome to the forum.
> 
> I found the description so heavily larded with modal auxiliaries as to keep open the possibility of his having a compliant nature.  And, of course, the use of the III/II mixed conditional confirmed that impression.  Using the III conditional would have altered the impact of the sentence.  I can't see the III/II mixed, which is grammatically correct, as clashing with the other parts of the sentence.
> 
> The implied question in the OP is _Should we change it? _ My answer would be that you could change it, but it's correct as it stands and different in an important way. I'd be sorry to lose that difference.



Thank you very much for welcoming me, Thomas! 😊

In post #10 you'll find the original source if you want to better understand the situation.

The passage quoted in my OP is part of a speculative discussion. For this reason we have many modal verbs. 

Moreover, by reading the whole page we understand that if there is something certain is that James survived because he had no choice but to cooperate. Therefore the above deduction is referred to the past. That is, 

'he would have been shot if he hadn't cooperated'.

Obviously this is my humble opinion based of my reading not just grammar rules. It would be the same interpretation in Italian too. 😊


----------



## Steven David

While I have not read the whole passage, to me, even as an isolated sentence, I believe that most people, as do I, would infer or deduce that this is an expression of the past, which is to say imagining an opposite result and an opposite condition as reflected by the if clause. Or, more simply put, I would say a hypothetical statement about a past event.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Ariesofspring said:


> Moreover, by reading the whole page we understand that if there is something certain is that James survived because he had no choice but to cooperate. Therefore the above deduction is referred to the past.


Certainly the sentence refers to the past.

Suppose a blind boy in a fairy tale is visited by a princess, but does not see her, because he is blind.

Suppose I say: _He would have seen her if he wasn't blind_.

Do you you feel there's an error here?  Do you think I should have written _He would have seen her if he hadn't been blind_?  For me the two sentences are both correct but appropriate to different circumstances. 

If you grant me that both are possible, then please explain what the difference is between them and the sentences we have been considering, which makes the III conditional the only correct one of the two in the original pair, but either of the two possible here.


----------



## Steven David

Thomas Tompion said:


> Certainly the sentence refers to the past.
> 
> Suppose a blind boy in a fairy tale is visited by a princess, but does not see her, because he is blind.
> 
> Suppose I say: _He would have seen her if he wasn't blind_.
> 
> Do you you feel there's an error here?  Do you think I should have written _He would have seen her if he hadn't been blind_?  For me the two sentences are both correct but appropriate to different circumstances.
> 
> If you grant me that both are possible, then please explain what the difference is between them and the sentences we have been considering, which makes the III conditional the only correct one of the two in the original pair, but either of the two possible here.




With this particular pair of examples, both are correct.

Both can possibly mean the same thing with the condition referencing the past and the result referencing the past in both cases.

The sentence with if he wasn't blind can also reference his ongoing long-term state or permanent state. This means that if he wasn't references his present and likely permanent state or possible long-term ongoing state.

With the last possible meaning, some people would say that instead of if he wasn't, it must be if he weren't.

With the original example sentence, the simple past is an example of how native speakers of English, now and then, use simple past in place of past perfect for a third conditional sentence, with a third conditional sentence referencing the past entirely in both clauses.


----------



## Ariesofspring

Thomas Tompion said:


> Certainly the sentence refers to the past.
> 
> Suppose a blind boy in a fairy tale is visited by a princess, but does not see her, because he is blind.
> 
> Suppose I say: _He would have seen her if he wasn't blind_.
> 
> Do you you feel there's an error here?  Do you think I should have written _He would have seen her if he hadn't been blind_?  For me the two sentences are both correct but appropriate to different circumstances.
> 
> If you grant me that both are possible, then please explain what is the difference between them and the sentences we have been considering, which makes the III conditional the only correct one of the two in the original pair, but either of the two possible here.



The two examples are different. Moreover, in my opinion the context is important, as well as what is implied in the sentence.

In general I might interpret my example as stated by @Steven David in post #40.
However, I have also been trying to understand other possible implications in English because, in spite of similarities to my mother tongue derived from Latin, I know that there are many differences. For this reason, in my case it is very important to follow English grammar rules.

Let's consider the quote alone,

'He would have been shot if he didn't cooperate'

In this case we understand that James is still forced to cooperate as a permanent condition. This is an example of mixed conditional which works. However it's not our case and the context clarifies my original interpretation.

Your examples do not include a context and both look correct.

In the first case, it might be the description of the narrator in a story who knows the character and follows all his steps. The narrator tells us that the boy is still blind.

In the second case, it might be the summary of a story in the past.


----------



## Steven David

Ariesofspring said:


> The two examples are different. Moreover, in my opinion the context is important, as well as what is implied in the sentence.
> 
> In general I might interpret my example as stated by @Steven David in post #40.
> However, I have also been trying to understand other possible implications in English because, in spite of similarities to my mother tongue derived from Latin, I know that there are many differences. For this reason, in my case it is very important to follow English grammar rules.
> 
> Let's consider the quote alone,
> 
> 'He would have been shot if he didn't cooperate'
> 
> In this case we understand that James is still forced to cooperate as a permanent condition. This is an example of mixed conditional which works. However it's not our case and the context clarifies my original interpretation.
> 
> Your examples do not include a context and both look correct.
> 
> In the first case, it might be the description of the narrator in a story who knows the character and follows all his steps. The narrator tells us that the boy is still blind.
> 
> In the second case, it might be the summary of a story in the past.



Additionally, I would say that in the first case, the first example that is, it can be interpreted in the same way as the original example sentence which uses simple past. This could be, possibly, depending on context, a case in which a native speaker uses simple past in place of past perfect.

I tell people about this and caution them about it when I teach them, and I did this not so long ago. It's important because this is what they could hear in reality when they step outside of a class.

In the end, as I said, I believe, in my very first post here, I tell them to stick with the past perfect, for what we call third conditional sentences, to keep things straight in their minds and so they understand what they're saying. The idea is to not get confused while at the same time recognizing this other possibility. These are advanced speakers, and so they can understand this just in the same way you can.

Now, maybe, what I'm saying here is more applicable to American English than British English. That's possible, but I don't know.


----------



## Ariesofspring

I


Steven David said:


> Additionally, I would say that in the first case, the first example that is, it can be interpreted in the same way as the original example sentence which uses simple past. This could be, possibly, depending on context, a case in which a native speaker uses simple past in place of past perfect.
> 
> I tell people about this and caution them about it when I teach them, and I did this not so long ago. It's important because this is what they could hear in reality when they step outside of a class.
> 
> In the end, as I said, I believe, in my very first post here, I tell them to stick with the past perfect, for what we call third conditional sentences, to keep things straight in their minds and so they understand what they're saying. The idea is to not get confused while at the same time recognizing this other possibility. These are advanced speakers, and so they can understand this just in the same way you can.
> 
> Now, maybe, what I'm saying here is more applicable to American English than British English. That's possible, but I don't know.


I think it's the same in British English, which I'm actually more familiar to, if you think about Oxford or Cambridge Grammar books or other sources like BBC Learning English.

Moreover, if I think about my mother tongue we do have similar differences between spoken and written or literary Italian.


----------



## Steven David

Cambridge books are very good. I would not be surprised if there are Cambridge grammar books or grammar references that account for all of this.

Side note

Coincidentally, I know of someone (internet acquaintance) who is Australian, lives in Italy, and teaches English. I believe he would agree with all this.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Thank you both for addressing the question I asked.


Ariesofspring said:


> In this case we understand that James is still forced to cooperate as a permanent condition.


The permanent condition is that he is compliant, not that he was forced to do anything - _if he didn’t cooperate_ (but, of course he did cooperate, because he was that sort of person).


Ariesofspring said:


> In the second case, it might be the summary of a story in the past.


You must forgive me: I'm not sure what the second case is.  If you mean my story: it's a part of a fairy story.  It's not a summary of a story in the past.


Steven David said:


> Additionally, I would say that in the first case, the first example that is, it can be interpreted in the same way as the original example sentence which uses simple past. This could be, possibly, depending on context, a case in which a native speaker uses simple past in place of past perfect.


I'm not interested in uneducated speech.  We both know that native speakers make this sort of mistake.  I'm discounting this for the purpose of discussion.  I'm interested in the differences between the two correct sentences we are considering.


Steven David said:


> In the end, as I said, I believe, in my very first post here, I tell them to stick with the past perfect, for what we call third conditional sentences, to keep things straight in their minds and so they understand what they're saying.


Here you seem to be saying that you tell your students never to use a standard form (the II/III mixed).  I may have misunderstood you.


Ariesofspring said:


> I think it's the same in British English, which I'm actually more familiar to, if you think about Oxford or Cambridge Grammar books or other sources like BBC Learning English.


If you are saying that you don't think the II/III mixed is a common or standard form, look at this: BBC World Service | Learning English | Learn it

The BBC employ competent people.  Look at their examples; eg. _If you weren't such a poor dancer, you would've got a job in the chorus line in that musical_.

I'm worried that you, and several others on this thread, would say that this is an incorrect sentence, and that it should run _If you hadn't been such a poor dancer, you would've got a job in the chorus line in that musical_.

That seems to me both wrong and to eliminate an important complexity in the language.

Look at the circumstances where the website says the II/III mixed applies: _With this combination, we are describing ongoing circumstances in relation to a previous past event_.

In the OP the previous past event is _He would have been shot_ and the ongoing circumstances_ that he cooperated_ (ie. he was a person who cooperated, he had a compliant nature) - I see this as the key issue of disagreement in the thread: I think that reading is possible; I suspect that you don't.

In the fairy story the previous past event is _He would have seen the princess_ and the ongoing circumstances_ that he was blind_.

Forgive the long post.


----------



## Steven David

Thomas Tompion said:


> Thank you both for addressing the question I asked.
> 
> The permanent condition is that he is compliant, not that he was forced to do anything - _if he didn’t cooperate_ (but, of course he did cooperate, because he was that sort of person).
> 
> You must forgive me: I'm not sure what the second case is.  If you mean my story: it's a part of a fairy story.  It's not a summary of a story in the past.
> 
> I'm not interested in uneducated speech.  We both know that native speakers make this sort of mistake.  I'm discounting this for the purpose of discussion.  I'm interested in the differences between the two correct sentences we are considering.
> 
> Here you seem to be saying that you tell your students never to use a standard form (the II/III mixed).  I may have misunderstood you.
> 
> If you are saying that you don't think the II/III mixed is a common or standard form, look at this: BBC World Service | Learning English | Learn it
> 
> The BBC employ competent people.  Look at their examples; eg. _If you weren't such a poor dancer, you would've got a job in the chorus line in that musical_.
> 
> I'm worried that you, and several others on this thread, would say that this is an incorrect sentence, and that it should run _If you hadn't been such a poor dancer, you would've got a job in the chorus line in that musical_.
> 
> That seems to me both wrong and to eliminate an important complexity in the language.
> 
> Look at the circumstances where the website says the II/III mixed applies: _With this combination, we are describing ongoing circumstances in relation to a previous past event_.
> 
> In the OP the previous past event is _He would have been shot_ and the ongoing circumstances_ that he cooperated_ (ie. he was a person who cooperated, he had a compliant nature) - I see this as the key issue of disagreement in the thread: I think that reading is possible; I suspect that you don't.
> 
> In the fairy story the previous past event is _He would have seen the princess_ and the ongoing circumstances_ that he was blind_.
> 
> Forgive the long post.



You're welcome.

How is uneducated speech relevant here?

We have different perspectives and viewpoints of things.

I would not say that using simple past in place of the past perfect form for a past hypothetical sentence, also called third conditional, is uneducated. It's just something that native speakers of English might do from time to time. We hear it here and there. It does not happen with great frequency, though it does happen.

No, I don't tell them that. You are correct to say that you may have misunderstood.

Anyway, further clarification of these points would require a different discussion thread.

Also, no problem about the long post.


----------



## Ariesofspring

Thomas Tompion said:


> Thank you both for addressing the question I asked.
> 
> The permanent condition is that he is compliant, not that he was forced to do anything - _if he didn’t cooperate_ (but, of course he did cooperate, because he was that sort of person).
> 
> You must forgive me: I'm not sure what the second case is.  If you mean my story: it's a part of a fairy story.  It's not a summary of a story in the past.
> 
> I'm not interested in uneducated speech.  We both know that native speakers make this sort of mistake.  I'm discounting this for the purpose of discussion.  I'm interested in the differences between the two correct sentences we are considering.
> 
> Here you seem to be saying that you tell your students never to use a standard form (the II/III mixed).  I may have misunderstood you.
> 
> If you are saying that you don't think the II/III mixed is a common or standard form, look at this: BBC World Service | Learning English | Learn it
> 
> The BBC employ competent people.  Look at their examples; eg. _If you weren't such a poor dancer, you would've got a job in the chorus line in that musical_.
> 
> I'm worried that you, and several others on this thread, would say that this is an incorrect sentence, and that it should run _If you hadn't been such a poor dancer, you would've got a job in the chorus line in that musical_.
> 
> That seems to me both wrong and to eliminate an important complexity in the language.
> 
> Look at the circumstances where the website says the II/III mixed applies: _With this combination, we are describing ongoing circumstances in relation to a previous past event_.
> 
> In the OP the previous past event is _He would have been shot_ and the ongoing circumstances_ that he cooperated_ (ie. he was a person who cooperated, he had a compliant nature) - I see this as the key issue of disagreement in the thread: I think that reading is possible; I suspect that you don't.
> 
> In the fairy story the previous past event is _He would have seen the princess_ and the ongoing circumstances_ that he was blind_.
> 
> Forgive the long post.


As already written, in my opinion the mixed conditional doesn't apply in the OP because James is not compliant anymore. For this reason it looks an oversight to me.

Regarding your examples, I have simply written that you haven't contestualized them and both are correct. In the second case it might be part of a summary.

As for my sources, I consulted Oxford and BBC material before starting this thread and they reinforce my interpretation.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Ariesofspring said:


> in my opinion the mixed conditional doesn't apply in the OP because James is not compliant anymore.[...]


Thank you for saying this.  It's the important point.

If we say of someone that he doesn't cooperate, we can easily mean that he's not a cooperative person; we could be talking about his character.

If we say of someone that he didn't cooperate, we can easily mean that he was not a cooperative person; we could be talking about his character.

What is it about the sentence _He would have been shot if he didn’t cooperate _which enables you to say, as you do, "He is not compliant any more"?

I can't see that you can assume this, and I can't see evidence in the sentence.


----------



## Ariesofspring

Thomas Tompion said:


> Thank you for saying this.  It's the important point.
> 
> If we say of someone that he doesn't cooperate, we can easily mean that he's not a cooperative person; we could be talking about his character.
> 
> If we say of someone that he didn't cooperate, we can easily mean that he was not a cooperative person; we could be talking about his character.
> 
> What is it about the sentence _He would have been shot if he didn’t cooperate _which enables you to say, as you do, "He is not compliant any more"?
> 
> I can't see that you can assume this, and I can't see evidence in the sentence.


As I have been trying to explain the context confirms that.

Let's agree to disagree.😊


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Ariesofspring said:


> As I have been trying to explain the context confirms that.
> 
> Let's agree to disagree.😊


You disappoint me.

What is it in the context which tells you he is no longer compliant?  Remember that you need to show that the possibility is closed to show that the sentence is wrong.

The point of choosing the example of the blind person was that it's easier to imagine a blind person remaining blind.

If you are saying you are exhausted and don't wish to continue, I sympathise.


----------



## Ariesofspring

Ariesofspring said:


> Hi,
> 
> I am studying an online university course based in the UK and this sentence sounds very strange to me,
> 
> 'he would have been shot if he didn’t cooperate'.
> 
> In my opinion it should be a third conditional not a mixed conditional. Therefore it should be... 'if he hadn't cooperated'.
> 
> Context
> 
> 'You may have decided that James did not have a choice about becoming a child soldier: he would have been shot if he didn’t cooperate, and there would have been repercussions on his family. The feelings that James would have had when he was forced to shoot his own friends, neighbours and even his own family are difficult to imagine, but again, he had little choice.
> 
> James had a terrible experience, but he was lucky to have been rescued and returned to his village...'


@Thomas Tompion it's also a problem of 'consecutio temporum' if your read the whole sentence. 
I am sorry but also in Italian it doesn't work  in my opinion.


----------



## DonnyB

This topic has been thoroughly aired, with a range of opinions being expressed as to whether the original sentence does or doesn't work in the context provided.  It seems to me that further discussion is in danger of taking the thread off-topic without yielding a definitive answer on which everyone is agreed.

I'm therefore now closing the thread: thanks to everyone for their contributions, which I hope Aries has found useful.  DonnyB - moderator.


----------

