# Conditional ～ば and ～なら



## divisortheory

Hi all,

Sorry for the long-winded post.

I've studied Japanese for quite a long time and one thing that has always left me uneasy is the usage of conditional ～ば, and to a slightly lesser extend, なら

I remember when I first started learning Japanese we learned all the conditionals:  ～たら、AならB、～ば、AとB。

と I grasped pretty easily.  It's just used whenever B is a natural consequence, or inevitable as a result of A.  

O　"If it rains, you will get wet".
X　"If you want to get wet, go outside when it's raining".

～たら took me quite a long time to grasp since books and literature always translate it with "if", and I finally understood it to be more like "when" or "once".  The level of certainty that the condition will happen is almost 100%.  This became even more clear to me once I realized that forming the ～たら form of a verb or adjective in all cases is grammatically equivalent to forming the plain past tense form, and then simply attaching ～ら。  So you're literally saying something as if it has already happened in the past tense, followed by ～ら。

O　"Once you get to town, give me a call"
X　"Well, if you _do _come to town, give me a call" (listener has expressed that there is only a slim chance they will come.)

なら I often see explained in books or texts as meaning "If it is the case that".  But that's quite ambiguous.  Besides, almost nobody ever says that in English.  As best I can tell, なら is simply something that is a total hypothetical situation.  It might be completely invented by the speaker (Ahh, if aliens were to land on earth, I wonder what color they would be...) or the speaker making an assumption about something that he doesn't necessarily have enough (or any) information about (A: My son can't find a job anywhere, he's broke and about to be kicked out of his house.    B: Well, assuming he's good at math, I might have a job I can offer him)

What do some of the more experienced speakers think about this explanation?  Or is there some other unifying theory that can be used to understand ～なら more clearly?

Finally, ～ば.  I don't really see where this fits into the picture.  Is it basically just "everything else that wasn't described above"?  I can make perfectly grammatical sentences with ～ば with ease, but I'm never sure if they sound awkward.  I have a grammar dictionary that has many examples of where it can and cannot be used and I can't make out an underlying theme, or a unifying theme that ties all these together.  For example, according to the dictionary:



> S2 can be a command, request, or suggestion.  In this case, however, S1 cannot be an action.  For example:
> 
> X　山本さんが来れば知らせてください。
> X　シカゴへ行けばバスへ行ったらどうですか。



Why not?  What is it about ～ば that makes this sound unusual?

Does anyone have more insight into the usage of ～ば so that I might better understand its subtleties?

Thanks


----------



## Yoshiee

Hi divisortheory,

I've read your post very carefully, and it was funny but feeling something I am on the same thin line you are struggling with, from not your side but just from the other side.

First of all, I would like to reply to your last clear question:
S2 can be a command, request, or suggestion. In this case, however, S1 cannot be an action. For example:

X　山本さんが来れば知らせてください。
X　シカゴへ行けばバスへ行ったらどうですか。 


> Why not? What is it about ～ば that makes this sound unusual?
> 
> Does anyone have more insight into the usage of ～ば so that I might better understand its subtleties?
> 
> Thanks


 
I believe these ~たら,~ら,~ば can be almost interchangeable. There is not so big difference between in use. 

e.g.
1) *~ば * (These sentences are from your post.)：
- 山本さんが来れ(present)*ば*、知らせてください。=> If/when Mr.Yamamoto comes here, please let me know.
- シカゴへ行け(present)*ば*、バスへ行ったらどうですか。=> If/once you arrive at Chicago, I recommend you to go to Bath.

2) *~なら*
- 山本さんが来た(past)*なら、*知らせてください。=> Ditto.
- シカゴへ行く(present)*なら*、バスへ行ったらどうですか。=> Ditto

3) ~*たら*
*-* 山本さんが来た(past)*ら*、知らせてください。=> Ditto
*- *シカゴへ行った(past)*ら*、バスへ行ったらどうですか。=> Ditto

As you see, you could use/choose either of the above three options freely with some small changes but with the same meaning each, the small changes which are the exactly same as you described in your post.

For your question now about the *"~ば*", there is always the vowel *"e"* matching best with the word *"~ば*".

e.g. 
4) ku-r*e*-ba => 来*れ**ば、* as in the above item 1)
5) i-k*e*-ba　　=> 行*け**ば、 *as in the above item 1)

6) ka-*e*-ba  => 買*えば*、(if... buy)
7) a-tu-ma-r*e*-ba => 集ま*れば*、(if .... gather)
8) fu-r*e*-ba => 降*れば*、(if....rains)
9) etc....

This is the only rule on the conditional word ~ば. Inevitably, it looks like just a simple present tense before the ~ば, though it is not the will of the ~ば.

I hope this could help.


----------



## divisortheory

Yoshiee-さん、

Thanks for your response.  So when you read my example sentences about ～ば, do you actually feel they are correct and sound natural?  Specifically:



> X　山本さんが来れば知らせてください。
> X　シカゴへ行けばバスへ行ったらどうですか。



Do these sentences sound perfectly normal to you?  The reason I ask is that according to the book, they are incorrect.  

Regarding the differences, it's clear that all of the conditionals are very similar, but I can't get rid of the feeling that I still don't fully understand the subtleties.  

In all honesty, I'd probably be fine in most real world situations just using these constructs the way I already know, but I hope that one day I can understand them in the same way that a native speaker would understand them, to get the "full meaning" so to speak.  

If you see the following 3 sentences:

山本さんが来れば、知らせてください。
山本さんが来たなら、知らせてください。
山本さんが来たら、知らせてください。

Do you have *any* difference of feeling at all?  Does one sentence cause you to make some assumption about either 山本さん or the speaker that the other sentences do not?  Or perhaps offer some "hint" as to the greater context?

In English I would translate all 3 sentences as "If Mr. Yamamoto comes, please let me know" which is what makes it so difficult.  But I feel like there might be some very subtle "hints" that are different depending on which sentence you read, and that's the part I'm missing.

Thanks again for your response


----------



## Yoshiee

Hi divisortheory,

Regarding the 5 sentences, I can't see anything unnatural. THese are all in perfect expression to me.

I think you should believe in your feeling on the conditionals, the feelling which could be usefull at any situation, say, 99.9%. 

However if you would like to see the subtle, probalbly I could say the following, but these are just my feelings, because it depends on contexts:

1) 山本さんが来れば、知らせてください。=> There is still a chance that Mr. Yamamoto will not show up.
2) 山本さんが来たなら、知らせてください。=> There is still a chance that Mr. Yamamoto will not show up.
3) 山本さんが来たら、知らせてください。=> The speaker is not expecting that Mr. Yamamoto will not show up 

Again, these are very, very subtle, therefore whatever you choose the above, it must work perfectly.

possible rules:
1) ~ば:the vowel "e" (e/ke/se/te/ne/he/me/re) should be placed before the ~.
2) ~なら：either vowel "a" or "u" could be placed before the ~なら.
- a (a/ka/sa/ta/na/ha/ma/ya/ra/wa)--> past(but does not mean past.)
- u (u/ku/su/tsu/nu/hi/mi/ri) --> present 

A big complicated one is that this patern can accept a simple noun before the ~なら such as:

 - それがよい*映画*なら、見に行きます。（If the movie is good, I will go seeing it.)
 - それが腐った*牛乳*なら、臭いがするでしょう。（If it is spoiled milk, you could smell it.)
 - etc...

3) ~たら：either vowel "i" or the charactor "た（ta)" will be placed before the ~たら.

The item 1) ~ば　and 3)~たら will follow a verb. And the item 2) ~なら will follow either a verb or a noun.

However, if you have any exception (~なら), please let us know.

I hope this would help.


----------



## Strutter

> Do these sentences sound perfectly normal to you? The reason I ask is that according to the book, they are incorrect.


I don't agree with the explanation of the book so far. I want to also know correct examples on the book in order to make sure of writer's understanding of ば.

To me,
X　山本さんが来れば知らせてください。
Natural. I don't think this is incorrect.

X　シカゴへ行けばバスへ行ったらどうですか。
Makes sense, but not natural. I agree with the writer in this case.



> Regarding the differences, it's clear that all of the conditionals are very similar, but I can't get rid of the feeling that I still don't fully understand the subtleties.
> 
> In all honesty, I'd probably be fine in most real world situations just using these constructs the way I already know, but I hope that one day I can understand them in the same way that a native speaker would understand them, to get the "full meaning" so to speak.


Hmmm, I guess it is too hard to explain the difference between those words by using words. The meaning or nuance of sentences depends on the whole words and the context, not only one word. Speaking of which, I'd never thought about it since I was born, so you will get it someday unless you give up studying or speaking Japanese.



> If you see the following 3 sentences:
> 
> 山本さんが来れば、知らせてください。
> 山本さんが来たなら、知らせてください。
> 山本さんが来たら、知らせてください。
> 
> Do you have any difference of feeling at all? Does one sentence cause you to make some assumption about either 山本さん or the speaker that the other sentences do not? Or perhaps offer some "hint" as to the greater context?


I think they are almost the same so that you don't have to care about the difference.

If I just hear the following sentences,

もし万が一山本さんが来たら、知らせてください。 You're pretty sure that Yamamoto will not come.
山本さんが来た時に、知らせてください。 You believe Yamamoto will come.
山本さんが来れば、知らせてください。 and the other. You're not sure. Yamamoto might come. Like 50/50.

Note contexts can change each meaning.



> In English I would translate all 3 sentences as "If Mr. Yamamoto comes, please let me know" which is what makes it so difficult. But I feel like there might be some very subtle "hints" that are different depending on which sentence you read, and that's the part I'm missing.


Me too. At least, the "If" part would definitely be the same. And I don't think your translation misses the nuance.


----------



## divisortheory

Strutter said:


> I don't agree with the explanation of the book so far. I want to also know correct examples on the book in order to make sure of writer's understanding of ば.
> 
> To me,
> X　山本さんが来れば知らせてください。
> Natural. I don't think this is incorrect.
> 
> X　シカゴへ行けばバスへ行ったらどうですか。
> Makes sense, but not natural. I agree with the writer in this case.



For reference, the book is

A Dictionary of Basic Japanese Grammar
「日本語基本文法辞典」
Seiichi Makino and Michio Tsutsui
ISBN: 4-7890-0454-6

There are 3 entire pages devoted to ～ば, so it is too much to reproduce everything here.  It gives many examples of correct sentences, but only 3 examples of incorrect sentences, 2 of which I already listed.  The other is:

O 日本へ行ったら日本語が上手になった。
X 日本へ行けば日本語が上手になった。

However, this one it states is incorrect for a different reason.  It is because the event occured in the past and is only a single factual event (as opposed to a habitual event.  For example, it also lists as correct:

O 雨が降ればよく家で本を読んだものだ。

The only difference between the O and the X being that the O sentence is a habitual action whereas the X sentence is a single factual event, even though both occured in the past.  

A few other random correct examples from the book are:

これは松本先生に聴けば分かります。
その町は車で行けば三重分で行ける。
時間があれば京都も行きたい。
見たければ見なさい。

But unfortunately none of these are related to the reason why it says that the example was wrong (i.e. because S2 was a command and S1 was an action).  

You can check the book to see the rest of the discussion about ～ば if you have access to it.



> I think they are almost the same so that you don't have to care about the difference.
> 
> Me too. At least, the "If" part would definitely be the same. And I don't think your translation misses the nuance.



Thanks, I will try not to worry about it too much (but I'm sure it will still nag at me until someday I get it )


----------



## divisortheory

Yoshiee said:


> However if you would like to see the subtle, probalbly I could say the following, but these are just my feelings, because it depends on contexts:
> 
> 1) 山本さんが来れば、知らせてください。=> There is still a chance that Mr. Yamamoto will not show up.
> 2) 山本さんが来たなら、知らせてください。=> There is still a chance that Mr. Yamamoto will not show up.
> 3) 山本さんが来たら、知らせてください。=> The speaker is not expecting that Mr. Yamamoto will not show up



This certainly confirms my feeling about ～たら, which is that the speaker must have a very high level of certainty about the event occuring in order to use it.   I guess basically like English "once" or "when".


----------



## Yoshiee

Hello, all

I agree with you, in particular the following commnets:



> I think they are almost the same so that you don't have to care about the difference.


 


> And I don't think your translation misses the nuance.


 


> [This certainly confirms my feeling about ～たら, which is that the speaker must have a very high level of certainty about the event occuring in order to use it. I guess basically like English "once" or "when". /QUOTE]
> 
> Yoshiee


----------



## Strutter

Thanks for the information!



divisortheory said:


> O 日本へ行ったら日本語が上手になった。
> X 日本へ行けば日本語が上手になった。
> 
> However, this one it states is incorrect for a different reason.  It is because the event occured in the past and is only a single factual event (as opposed to a habitual event. ・・・)



I wonder how you feel about this sentence: "僕が思うに、日本へ行けば僕の日本語はもっと上手になっていた。"　 What do you call 日本語はもっと上手になっていた。 as a grammatical term or something?　Isn't it a single factual event? Anyway, I agree "日本へ行けば日本語が上手になった。" is incorrect, but if it is "日本へ行けば日本語が上手に*なっていたかもしれない*。" then it completely makes sense and I believe is correct.



> For example, it also lists as correct:
> 
> O 雨が降ればよく家で本を読んだものだ。
> 
> The only difference between the O and the X being that the O sentence is a habitual action whereas the X sentence is a single factual event, even though both occured in the past.


(I would say at least "*雨の日には*、よく家で本を読んだものだ"  though.)  So, according to the explanation, it means that "雨が降れば、*家で本を読んだ*" is incorrect, huh? Whether do you think "雨が降れば、*家で本を読んだ*" is correct or not?


----------



## divisortheory

Strutter said:


> Thanks for the information!
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder how you feel about this sentence: "僕が思うに、日本へ行けば僕の日本語はもっと上手になっていた。"　 What do you call 日本語はもっと上手になっていた。 as a grammatical term or something?　Isn't it a single factual event? Anyway, I agree "日本へ行けば日本語が上手になった。" is incorrect, but if it is "日本へ行けば日本語が上手に*なっていたかもしれない*。" then it completely makes sense and I believe is correct.


That's a bit tricky, but if you asked me to translate each of those 3 sentences, I would probably translate them as:

僕が思うに、日本へ行けば僕の日本語はもっと上手になっていた
I think that if I had gone to Japan, my Japanese would have gotten better.

However, the clause you asked about, if translated in isolation:

日本語はもっと上手になっていた。
My Japanese got better.

So here, with no extra context it does sound like a single factual event.  But in the first case, with the additional clause in front, it sounds to me like a hypothetical, and thus not something that actually happened (i.e. nobody _actually_ went to Japan).

Of course, these could be wrong.  I'm actually a little confused here about the difference between 上手になった and 上手になっていた.  Does using the latter make it "I _would have become_ better" as opposed to "I _became_ better"?




> (I would say at least "*雨の日には*、よく家で本を読んだものだ"  though.)  So, according to the explanation, it means that "雨が降れば、*家で本を読んだ*" is incorrect, huh? Whether do you think "雨が降れば、*家で本を読んだ*" is correct or not?



I guess I'm not sure, but that question did make me realize something.  If you think about it, when speaking in past tense (even in English) and using a conditional, how can you meaningfully state a fact as the "then" part of an if-then.  There's no fact to state, because by definition it's a conditional.  The "if" part of the sentence never even happened.  A fact, by definition, DID happen.  So I think that explains why a single factual event that happened in the past cannot come in the "then" part of the sentence.  

But now the question is : how to translate your sentence (even if it turns out being wrong)?  If I say 雨が降れば、*家で本を読んだ, does it mean "When it rained outside, I would read books", or does it mean "When it rained outside, I read (past tense) a book"*


----------



## Strutter

divisortheory said:


> That's a bit tricky, but if you asked me to translate each of those 3 sentences, I would probably translate them as:
> 
> 僕が思うに、日本へ行けば僕の日本語はもっと上手になっていた
> I think that if I had gone to Japan, my Japanese would have gotten better.
> 
> However, the clause you asked about, if translated in isolation:
> 
> 日本語はもっと上手になっていた。
> My Japanese got better.



Sorry, I was too curious. Well, I think so too. I would write kind of the same translation. I mean, I can't make any English sentences greater than yours.



> So here, with no extra context it does sound like a single factual event.  But in the first case, with the additional clause in front, it sounds to me like a hypothetical, and thus not something that actually happened (i.e. nobody _actually_ went to Japan).


If you say it is a hypothetical one, I guess almost all sentences after ～ば are hypothetical ones when you are speaking in past tenses.

晴れれば買い物にいった。　The speaker didn't go shopping.
もっと勉強すれば試験に合格できた。 The speaker did fail the exam.
お金があれば新しい車を買った。　The speaker still drives their old car.



> Of course, these could be wrong.  I'm actually a little confused here about the difference between 上手になった and 上手になっていた.  Does using the latter make it "I _would have become_ better" as opposed to "I _became_ better"?


Hmmmmm....  I think, for 僕が思うに、日本へ行けば僕の日本語はもっと上手になっていた, both are almost the same, in other words, interchangeable.  However,

そこに着いた時、試合が始まった。　
The game started as I got there.

そこに着いた時、試合は始まっていた。
The game had started when I got there.

like in those, they are basically different.



> But now the question is : how to translate your sentence (even if it turns out being wrong)?  If I say 雨が降れば、*家で本を読んだ, does it mean "When it rained outside, I would read books", or does it mean "When it rained outside, I read (past tense) a book"*


*Hmmm... it is actually can be interpreted in a few ways.

・I usually read books when it rained outside.
・I would read  a book at home if it rained.
Maybe there is another way.*


----------



## divisortheory

So i guess it depends on context.  In the case of V-past ば S2, if it is possible to interpret S2 in such a way that it describes a habitual action (e.g. When it rained, I _would often read_ books) then it is ok.  But if it is not possible to do that (for example, S2 such as 「２５歳になった」) then the sentence is ungrammatical.  

I'm glad at least that aspect of ば has clicked in my head now (I think ).  I'm still a little confused about what makes the sentence 「シカゴへ行けばバスへ行ったらどうですか。」 sound unnatural, but maybe it'll click soon also.


----------



## Strutter

divisortheory said:


> I'm glad at least that aspect of ば has clicked in my head now (I think ).  I'm still a little confused about what makes the sentence 「シカゴへ行けばバスへ行ったらどうですか。」 sound unnatural, but maybe it'll click soon also.



Now I think of it, I want to discover the logic or at least give you something.   

Firstly,
シカゴへ行けばバスへ行ったらどうですか。 Unnatural or broken.
シカゴへ行くならば、バスへ行ったらどうですか。　Natural.

Now, I have a feeling that if you say "verb+ば", then the after sentence HAS TO happen according to the sentence you have just mentioned　or you strongly believe it will definitely happen!  I mean, for example, 

本を読めば、頭が良くなる。 
Still clearly remember I would often hear things like that especially when I was a kid!  They, teachers or parents or,  said me again and again and again and again. Still now I don't think 頭が良くなる has to happen as a result of 本を読む, but when someone says 本を読めば、頭が良くなる, that always means the speaker has no doubt that  頭が良くなる always happens!

This might be just one aspect of the usage of verb+ば, and I know it doesn't directly answer the reason シカゴへ行けばバスへ行ったらどうですか。 is not natural. But I guess it could give you some help , for example, to understand affirmative sentences with verb+ば.


----------

