# If your father were still alive, he should apologize to all of us



## jasonlu2000

Hello everyone

I would like to know if the following sentence is grammatically correct or logical.

"If your father were still alive, he should apologize to all of us." 

It's a hypothetical sentence and I would like to know if it expresses the idea: His father is dead now. Were he still alive, apologizing to all of us would be something he should do.


----------



## lingobingo

I don’t think this sort of sentence works at all. In the highly unlikely event that anyone ever wanted to say that, they’d find a way to make it grammatical. Such as:

If your father were still alive, we’d be asking him to apologize to all of us!​


----------



## Thomas Tompion

jasonlu2000 said:


> Hello everyone
> 
> I would like to know if the following sentence is grammatically correct or logical.
> 
> "If your father were still alive, he should apologize to all of us."
> 
> It's a hypothetical sentence and I would like to know if it expresses the idea: His father is dead now. Were he still alive, apologizing to all of us would be something he should do.


I don't see that it's very far from:

_Go and tell that to Ryan! I'm sure, if he were alive, he'd find that most reassuring! - _Battle for Love, Stephanie Richard.

_*He should *_can be a conditional form, so I don't see any problem.


----------



## tunaafi

Thomas Tompion said:


> I don't see that it's very far from:
> 
> _Go and tell that to Ryan! I'm sure, if he were alive, he'd find that most reassuring! _


I take that _'d_ to be a contraction of _would_, not _should_.


----------



## Dryan

We generally use would not should for conditional clauses like this.
"If your father were still alive, he should _would need to_ apologize to all of us."


----------



## tunaafi

Dryan said:


> We generally use would not should for conditional clauses like this.
> "If your father were still alive, he should _would need to_ apologize to all of us."


 

The only time 'should' is natural in such conditional sentences is when used by  that dying (literally!) minority of us who still observer the_ shall/will_ (and its backshifted relation, _should/would) _distinction: _If I were you, I should accept his offer_.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

tunaafi said:


> The only time 'should' is natural in such conditional sentences is when used by  that dying (literally!) minority of us who still observer the_ shall/will_ (and its backshifted relation, _should/would) _distinction: _If I were you, I should accept his offer_.


'The only time'! Why use such dangerous absolutes? What about the deontic use? - If he had any residual sense of honour, he should return that money immediately.

Here's an example from the British Corpus: _If the husband was exempt from liability for rape, he should equally be exempt from liability for indecent assault._ Principles of Criminal Law.  Andrew Ashworth, Oxford: OUP, 1991.


----------



## Dryan

Thomas Tompion said:


> If he had any residual sense of honour, he should return that money immediately.


Interestingly, I would never use this in AE. I'd tend towards one of these:

"If he had any residual sense of honor, he _would_ return that money immediately." (he doesn't have any)
"If he _has_ any residual sense of honor, he should return that money immediately." (lest he lose it)

That being said, the will/shall distinction is pretty much completely dead in my dialect outside of set phrases.


----------



## tunaafi

Thomas Tompion said:


> If he had any residual sense of honour, he should return that money immediately.



I try not to use 'never' or 'always' when talking about English grammar. I forgot 'only.

However, while I suspect that there are examples that prove my generalisation wrong, I don't think yours is one of them. I agree with Dryan.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Dryan said:


> [...]
> "If he had any residual sense of honor, he _would_ return that money immediately." (he doesn't have any)
> "If he _has_ any residual sense of honor, he should return that money immediately." (lest he lose it)


Both are possible in British English, Dryan, but they mean different things, and something different again from my example.

What about my legal example?  It's a perfectly standard use, in my book.


----------



## Uncle Jack

jasonlu2000 said:


> Hello everyone
> 
> I would like to know if the following sentence is grammatically correct or logical.
> 
> "If your father were still alive, he should apologize to all of us."
> 
> It's a hypothetical sentence and I would like to know if it expresses the idea: His father is dead now. Were he still alive, apologizing to all of us would be something he should do.


I cannot tell whether the problem is with the logic or the grammar. Like some other people who have replied, I really don't like "should", but I would not like "ought to" either, which has exactly the same meaning in this context.

There are two possible reasons for this:

As a type 2 conditional (hypothetical timeless or present), you should use the conditional present ("would") in the main clause. However, there are too many exceptions for me to be at all sure that this is the problem. I could argue much the same about TT's "sense of honour" sentence in post #7 (which is also a type 2 form), but this sounds fine to me.
His father being dead does not really affect his moral duty to apologise, which is the meaning of "should" in your sentence. What it affects is his ability to apologise, which probably needs a different form of expression.


----------



## tunaafi

Thomas Tompion said:


> Here's an example from the British Corpus: _If the husband was exempt from liability for rape, he should equally be exempt from liability for indecent assault._ Principles of Criminal Law.  Andrew Ashworth, Oxford: OUP, 1991.


We'd need more context to be sure, but it seems to me that that is not a hypothetical conditional. Context might well show that it has been established that the husband was exempt from liability for rape. This idea is given some validity by the use of indicative 'was'.


----------



## Dryan

Thomas Tompion said:


> If the husband was exempt from liability for rape, he should equally be exempt from liability for indecent assault.


I don't read this as being counter-factual like the example provided. I interpret that as preterite and not subjunctive.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Dryan said:


> I don't read this as being counter-factual like the example provided. I interpret that as preterite and not subjunctive.


The moment people use the word 'counter-factual', I reach for my gun.

I realise that I've put you guys into full counter-intuitive mode, but remember that 'He should apologise to use all' can mean 'It's very probably that he will'.

_If he were writing in code, he should have become muddled_.


----------



## Dryan

Thomas Tompion said:


> The moment people use the word 'counter-factual', I reach for my gun.
> 
> I realise that I've put you guys into full counter-intuitive mode, but remember that 'He should apologise to use all' can mean 'It's very probably that he will'.
> 
> _If he were writing in code, he should have become muddled_.


He's dead. Speaking about him as though he's alive and able to apologize is the subjunctive, counter-factual supposition one must make for the original example to make any sense at all.

That is not true for the example you provided.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Dryan said:


> He's dead. Speaking about him as though he's alive and able to apologize is the subjunctive, counter-factual supposition one must make for the original example to make any sense at all.


You didn't answer my implied question.

In your world wouldn't it be possible to say: _If he were writing in code, he should have become muddled_? ie. it's very likely that he will have become muddled; that's pretty normal in British English.

We can deal later with whether the analogy is fair.  If you don't accept my sentence, such considerations are premature.


----------



## Dryan

Thomas Tompion said:


> You didn't answer my implied question.
> 
> In your world wouldn't it be possible to say: _If he were writing in code, he should have become muddled_?
> 
> We can deal later with whether the analogy is fair.  If you don't accept my sentence, such considerations are premature.



Personally I wouldn't accept this in my dialect, no. It might be an AE feature but I would get confirmation.

If he *was* writing in code, it *should* have been muddled. (He supposedly _was_ writing in code. The question is whether it was cracked or not)

If he *were* writing in code, it *would* have been muddled. (This is counter-factual. He was _not_ writing in code. It was not muddled.)

In the originally provided answer we're dealing with the latter.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Dryan said:


> Personally I wouldn't accept this in my dialect, no. It might be an AE feature but I would get confirmation.
> 
> If he *was* writing in code, it *should* have been muddled. (This is not subjunctive. He _was_ writing in code. The question is whether it was cracked or not)
> 
> If he *were* writing in code, it *would* have been muddled. (This is counter-factual. He was _not_ writing in code. It was not muddled.)
> 
> In the originally provided answer we're dealing with the latter.


You've altered my example.

I've warned you that I am used to people meaning different things by the adjective 'counter-factual'.  It would help me if you'd find a more precise and less abused expression.  I'm keen to know what you are saying.


----------



## Dryan

Thomas Tompion said:


> You've altered my example.


Identical logic applies.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Dryan said:


> Identical logic applies.


Then why bother altering it?  I'm still not sure whether my sentence has the same meaning in your language as it has in mine.


----------



## Dryan

Thomas Tompion said:


> Then why bother altering it?  I'm still not sure whether my sentence has the same meaning in your language as it has in mine.


It’s not idiomatic in AE to me at all. I understand what it means but I would never produce it. That is distinctly foreign to my ears.

I’d rather not provide examples in a dialect I do not speak.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Dryan said:


> It’s not idiomatic in AE to me at all.


Many thanks.

I'd regard it as quite normal in British English, so it's not surprising we've been at odds about the sentence in the OP.


----------



## tunaafi

Are we still talking about _If he were writing in code, he should have become muddled_? 

If so, then I, a speaker of BrE, have to say that I do not find it natural.


----------



## Dryan

Thomas Tompion said:


> You've altered my example.
> 
> I've warned you that I am used to people meaning different things by the adjective 'counter-factual'.  It would help me if you'd find a more precise and less abused expression.  I'm keen to know what you are saying.


Counterfactual conditional - Wikipedia
“If your father were still alive...” is counter-factual and subjunctive. As a matter of fact, he’s dead.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Dryan said:


> Counterfactual conditional - Wikipedia
> “If your father were still alive...” is counter-factual and subjunctive. As a matter of fact, he’s dead.


I never said the expression was not in use, just that many people who use it are imprecise about what they want it to mean.

That's why I ask them to rephrase.  If they don't, I remain in the dark.

I'm interested to know what you feel about the OP.  If you could do so without talking about things being 'counter-factual', I'd find it easier to understand you.


----------



## Dryan

Thomas Tompion said:


> I never said the expression was not in use, just that many people who use it are imprecise about what they want it to mean.
> 
> That's why I ask them to rephrase.  If they don't, I remain in the dark.
> 
> I'm interested to know what you feel about the OP.  If you could do so without talking about things being 'counter-factual', I'd find it easier to understand you.


The only other way I can think to describe it would be to call it the second conditional. This is by definition counter-factual/unreal insomuch as we are meant to assume the contingent if clause is negative or the sentence doesn’t work.

*There is an unreal possibility that the condition will happen*. This specifically calls for the subjunctive mood to express a statement _contrary to fact. _This pattern (in my dialect at least) prescribes _would_ in the dependent clause. I can’t think of any other alternative verb that doesn’t sound non-native to me.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

tunaafi said:


> I take that _'d_ to be a contraction of _would_, not _should_.


Yes, so would I.  My point was that the conditional (would) is acceptable in this construction, and _He should_ can be conditional - _he should apologise_ (he would be obliged to apologise).

_If he told you a lie, he should apologise_ -ordinary 2nd conditional, conditional tense of _ought _(he would be obliged to).

I'm not sure it works, but I didn't feel that it should be dismissed without consideration.

_*Should*_ has so many  modal meanings, that I felt it would be surprising if none could be made to fit in the OP.  It was a matter of finding the appropriate context; after all we haven't even considered a descent into the Underworld yet.

My current position is that I'm not sure that the sentence can have a clear meaning, and I'm not sure it cannot. 

As I've explained I'm not prepared, for the reasons I repeated, to read a post that uses the expression _counter-factual_.


----------



## lingobingo

Thomas Tompion said:


> In your world wouldn't it be possible to say: _If he were writing in code, he should have become muddled_? ie. it's very likely that he will have become muddled; that's pretty normal in British English.


If he were writing in code, he should have become muddled  
It is understandable that he should have become muddled if he was writing in code  

If he *were* writing in code, he *would/could/might* become muddled 
If he *had been* writing in code, he *would/could/might/must have become* muddled


----------



## Dryan

Thomas Tompion said:


> _If he told you a lie, he should apologise_ -ordinary 2nd conditional, conditional tense of _ought _(he would be obliged to).



That is a Zero Conditional. We’re meant to assume he _did_ _lie_ and _should apologize._ That’s not the same construction as the OP.

The second conditional flavor is “If he told you a lie, he would apologize.” (He didn’t lie (Him lying is contrary to fact) so he won’t.)

Your example is a _factual implication, _not a statement contrary to fact. The verb is also the indicative preterite and not subjunctive.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Dryan said:


> That is a Zero Conditional. We’re meant to assume he _did_ _lie_ and _should apologize._ That’s not the same construction as the OP.
> 
> The second conditional flavor is “If he told you a lie, he would apologize.” (He didn’t lie (Him lying is contrary to fact) so he won’t.)
> 
> Your example is a _factual implication, _not a statement contrary to fact.


In British English it could easily have a deontic meaning, which would make it a second conditional.

I did my best to convey that sense, without sounding dogmatic, maybe without success.


----------



## Dryan

Thomas Tompion said:


> In British English it could easily have a deontic meaning, which would make it a second conditional.
> 
> I did my best to convey that sense, without sounding dogmatic, maybe without success.


That may be true in BE. It’s not allowed in my dialect or else I’ve never experienced it.


“If he was lying, we should not trust him.”
(Zero conditional: assume he is lying)
“If he were lying, we would not trust him.”
(Second conditional: assume he isn’t lying)
“If he were lying, we should not trust him.”
(Ungrammatical/ambiguous for me)


----------



## Thomas Tompion

lingobingo said:


> If he were writing in code, he should have become muddled
> It is understandable that he should have become muddled if he was writing in code
> 
> If he *were* writing in code, he *would/could/might* become muddled
> If he *had been* writing in code, he *would/could/might/must have become* muddled


Thanks for helping me with this.

I'm sorry you won't accept_* If he were writing in code, he should have become muddled *_as reasonable English.  I was exploring a particular sense of 'should' in the sense of 'ought to' - I wouldn't object to my first sentence but I suspect that my interpretation makes it a false conditional - *Given that he was writing in code, he will very probably have become muddled*. 

People trying to interpret a jumbled set of symbols might easily say that, I think, hoping that he will not have failed to become muddled: _*If he were writing in code, he should have become muddled. *_


----------



## lingobingo

I get where you’re coming from. But to me, “if he *were* writing” only makes sense in a present-tense text. I think your construction is viable as a clause, but not as a sentence in its own right.


----------



## Dryan

Thomas Tompion said:


> If he were writing in code, he should have become muddled.


Honestly, my only hangup is _were_.

“If he was writing in code, he should have become muddled.” makes perfect sense to me as a zero conditional.

As soon as it becomes subjunctive (were) I’m confused. That mood doesn’t make sense for statements of fact. I automatically assume the if clause is false and then I have to invent my own context.

I.e.
“Even though he wasn’t writing in code, if he were, he should have become muddled.”

(_He_ _didn’t_ use code. _If he would have, he ought to have been_ muddled)

This might be natural in BrE but I don’t use this construction and I don’t hear it. It just works out to be an extra confusing zero/second conditional combo expression for me.


----------



## jasonlu2000

lingobingo said:


> I don’t think this sort of sentence works at all. In the highly unlikely event that anyone ever wanted to say that, they’d find a way to make it grammatical. Such as:
> 
> If your father were still alive, we’d be asking him to apologize to all of us!​



I think the original sentence sounds weird because when we use "should" to mean obligation, we mean that someone ought to do something under the current situation. "If he has given us his permission, we should perform the surgery right away." Under this situation, "should" means obligation instead of a unreal result, and he did already give his permission. On the other hand, in "If he had given us his permission, we would have performed the surgery right away.", using "would" means the hypothetical result in the past.

The same rule applies to "should have".

"If Hitler had not killed himself, he should have run away before the red army captured Berlin">> should have or could have are used to give comment or suggestion on a situation where something already happened or didn't happen, so giving advice or comments on a situation that you knew was not real makes it make no sense.

"If you knew I was coming, you should have baked a cake.">> I believe you knew I was coming, but you didn't make a cake. 

"If you had known I was coming, you should have baked a cake.">> In a hypothetical situation where you knew I was coming, you should have baked a cake.


----------



## lentulax

Thomas Tompion said:


> _If he were writing in code, he should have become muddled_? ie. it's very likely that he will have become muddled; that's pretty normal in British English.


No , it's not. 'If he were writing in code, it's very likely that he will have become muddled' is not sense; either 'If he was writing in code,...' (as in your legal example) , or 'If he were writing in code, it would be very likely that he became muddled' (or maybe 'If he were writing in code, it's very likely that he would have become muddled.'



Dryan said:


> This might be natural in BrE


It isn't. I'm not going to argue about grammatical terminology, but I agree with you, Dryan.


----------



## Dryan

jasonlu2000 said:


> "If Hitler had not killed himself, he should have run away before the red army captured Berlin"


This doesn’t work for me either for the same reasons. This kind of conditional (II) expression _requires_ the auxiliary *would*.
_Hitler not killing himself_ is an unreal possibility.

“If Hitler had not killed himself, he would have had to run away before the Red Army captured Berlin.”

The main issue is the usage of should: an auxiliary verb, to express a conditional or contingent act or state, or *as a supposition of an actual fact;*

You are deliberately presenting a _counter-factual _scenario here. Hitler _did_ kill himself and you know that. Using _should_ in this case makes that sound ambiguous in a grammatically unexpected way.


----------



## jasonlu2000

Dryan said:


> You are deliberately presenting a _counter-factual _scenario here. Hitler _did_ kill himself and you know that. Using _should_ in this case makes that sound ambiguous in a grammatically unexpected way.



Yes that's the purpose of that sentence. We use "should have" and "could have" to mean that someone didn't do something that was a proper thing to do at that time. Should and Could not only mean deduction, but also obligation or suggestion, which cannot be shown in a hypothetical situation.

*"If Hitler had not killed himself, he should have run away before the Red Army captured Berlin"*---> Here although I deliberately used "should have" to mean a suggestion, as in the sentence "You should have told me that!", the if clause is a unreal situation, so the suggestion makes no sense. It doesn't apply to a hypothetical condition in the past.

By contrast,

*A: Hi we have been waiting for you.
B: You knew I was coming?
A: Of course! Everyone is inside.
B: Well, if you already knew I was coming, you should have baked a cake. *

Here I believe that the other person knew I was coming, and I assume that if that was true, he didn't bake a cake for me before I arrived. The if clause is a real condition. Should have or could have are themselves hypothetical because they refer to things that were not done.

In other words, "should"or "could" with the meaning of obligation or advice can only be used when we believe the preset of the situation is real. If you advise someone to do something in a situation that didn't even take place, it makes the whole sentence wrong.


----------



## Dryan

jasonlu2000 said:


> Well, if you already knew I was coming, you should have baked a cake.





jasonlu2000 said:


> The the if clause is a real condition.




Correct. We’re supposed to assume that they did know you were coming. This is the zero conditional again.


----------



## tunaafi

Thomas Tompion said:


> In British English it could easily have a deontic meaning, which would make it a second conditional.


I don't agree.


----------



## jasonlu2000

Dryan said:


> Correct. We’re supposed to assume that they did know you were coming. This is the zero conditional again.



And there also other examples:


A: I broke my right leg last night and I didn't know what to do.
B: You could have called me!
A: I didn't have my phone on me at that time.
B: You did. You were just too shocked to remember anything. Even if you* had not *had your cellphone around you at that time, you *could have* used a phone booth. (Here this sentence makes no sense because I used a hypothetical if clause, which means that I don't believe he didn't have his cellphone on him last night, but I still give him a suggestion that he could have done in a situation where he really didn't have his cellphone at that time.)


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I wonder what people who dismiss the form in the OP out of hand would make of these examples from the British Corpus.  I think the language is more flexible that some people are prepared to recognise:

_If he were to come all that way, he ought to see something of the country._ T S Eliot: a friendship. Frederick Tomlin, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul plc, 1988.

_An enlightened person ought by no consideration to be prevailed upon to settle in Portugal; and, if he were there already, ought to quit the country with all convenient speed._  A Preface to Wordsworth. John Purkis, Harlow: Longman Group UK Ltd, 1986


----------



## tunaafi

What I think of those two is hardly relevant in this thread. We are talking about 'should', not 'ought to'.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

tunaafi said:


> What I think of those two is hardly relevant in this thread. We are talking about 'should', not 'ought to'.


So you see a semantic difference between 'He should do that' and 'He ought to do that', in this context?

I feel that what applies to the second applies to the first _a fortiori_.

I had my reasons for the change and I've now reached my limit for applications to the Corpus for the day.

Examples with 'should' will have to wait until tomorrow; there will be plenty, of course.


----------



## tunaafi

Thomas Tompion said:


> So you see a semantic difference between 'He should do that' and 'He ought to do that', in this context?


I am not going to discuss 'ought to' in this thread.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Well then, let's not wait until tomorrow.  I expect you have objections to these two sentences, which strike me as unexceptionable.

_If he were to come all this way, he should see something of the country -_ ie. It's probable that he would._

An enlightened person should not be prevailed upon to settle in Portugal; and, if he were there already, should quit the country with all convenient speed - _ie. He ought to leave as quickly as he could.

Conveniently, the two sentences show, in my view, how the formula might work in two ways.


----------



## lingobingo

Thomas Tompion said:


> _If he were to come all this way, he should see something of the country -_ ie. It's probable that he would.
> _…_
> Conveniently, the two sentences show, in my view, how the formula might work in two ways.


But the first sentence is in fact a clause taken from a longer sentence:

I had hoped that if he were to come all this way, he ought to see something of the country, as it was then still of an unspoilt rural character and in autumn especially beautiful.​
which uses *ought to* in a non-standard (archaic?) way, _implying_ obligation but not meant that way. The intended meaning is: 

I had hoped that if he _did_ come all this way, he would see something of the country…​
And this is indeed what’s implied when you replace *ought to* with *should*, as you have done. Your *should* reads as an archaic/literary alternative to *would*, making the clause a standard 2nd conditional (in the event of A, B would be the case).


----------



## Thomas Tompion

lingobingo said:


> But the first sentence is in fact a clause taken from a longer sentence:
> 
> I had hoped that if he were to come all this way, he ought to see something of the country, as it was then still of an unspoilt rural character and in autumn especially beautiful.​
> which uses *ought to* in a non-standard (archaic?) way, _implying_ obligation but not meant that way. The intended meaning is:
> 
> I had hoped that if he _did_ come all this way, he would see something of the country…​
> And this is indeed what’s implied when you replace *ought to* with *should*, as you have done. Your *should* reads as an archaic/literary alternative to *would*, making the clause a standard 2nd conditional (in the event of A, B would be the case).


Let's consider the sentences as I presented them in #46, rather than altering them in any way.  Where I found them is not germane.

There are two questions:

1.  Are they both viable?
2.  Are they analogous to the sentence in the OP?

I don't think that _he should see something of the country_ is the least archaic in the sense of 'It's likely that he would see something of the country'.  

_If you worked at your fingering, you should get better at playing tricky passages_ - It's likely that you would get better at playing tricky passages. I hear that sort of thing every day.


----------



## lentulax

Thomas Tompion said:


> . Are they both viable?
> 2. Are they analogous to the sentence in the OP?


First one not analogous, second not viable.


----------



## DonnyB

Unfortunately, this thread, with its multiplicity of different examples presented for discussion, has long ago lost the clear focus on a single sentence which we rely on in our forum to yield fruitful answers to the questions we're asked.

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


----------

