# if she <hadn't picked up> the phone



## Phoebe1200

NCIS
Having not heard anything from Ziva for several months, the team starts to get worried.


*Abby:* I mean, it's weird that Ziva hasn't contacted me.  It'd be one thing if she *hadn't picked up *the phone and called me, but I've tried to reach her.  Ziva is universally absent. It's freaking me out.



I can't make sense of the highlighted part. Is it part of a third conditional type or maybe should it be "if she *didn't pick up* the phone...."?


----------



## Franco-filly

It means "I could understand if she hadn't made the effort to pick up her phone to call me (because she's been ill/she's run out of credit, etc) but I would have expected her to answer when I called her.


----------



## Phoebe1200

I don't think I get the reasoning for the "if she* hadn't picked up *the phone" in the OP. 
Were you explaining the meaning of the sentence in your post above or is there something I'm missing?


----------



## VicNicSor

Phoebe1200 said:


> or is there something I'm missing?


You definitely missed, and didn't insert the end of the sentence in the OP, without which the phrase doesn't make much sense:
"It'd be one thing if she hadn't picked up the phone and called me, but I've tried to reach her *several different ways*."

Now, "It *would be* one thing if she *hadn't picked* up the phone and called me ..." is a mixed conditional (2nd and 3rd).

It means:
"Not only has she not  picked up the phone and called me, but I also have been unable to reach her several different ways."


----------



## Oddmania

Hi,

You need "_hadn't picked up_" because you're talking about a single event in the past. "_Didn't pick up_" is the past equivalent of "_doesn't pick up_". It would only work with a state verb or a verb describing a *habit*.

For instance: "_It would be one thing if she just *didn't like *Star Trek, but she actually hates the whole science fiction genre too!_"


----------



## mink-shin

Phoebe1200 said:


> *Abby:* I mean, it's weird that Ziva hasn't contacted me. It'd be one thing if she *hadn't picked up *the phone and called me, but I've tried to reach her. Ziva is universally absent. It's freaking me out.





VicNicSor said:


> You definitely missed, and didn't insert the end of the sentence in the OP, without which the phrase doesn't make much sense:
> "It'd be one thing if she hadn't picked up the phone and called me, but I've tried to reach her *several different ways*."


I agree to VicNicSor's guessing. Without her guessing, I can't imagine why Abby thinks that Ziva's _universally _missing.
Maybe the actor's delivery or gesture could make it sound better than it looks on the OP.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Thank you. 
But then does the "if she hadn't picked up the phone and called me" mean that she actually *did call* Abby?


----------



## JulianStuart

No. The sentence starts "It would be one thing ...".
If it were true that Ziva was simply sick and that was the reason why she had not called, there would be no cause for alarm, because Abby could just call and talk to her - she would answer.  However, that is not true because Abby has tried hard to reach her and has failed - so there is something more ominous than Ziva just being sick, she is out of contact, possibly kidnapped or worse, and that is what is upsetting Abby.


----------



## VicNicSor

Phoebe1200 said:


> Thank you.
> But then does the "if she hadn't picked up the phone and called me" mean that she actually *did call* Abby?


No. Even though "It'd be one thing if she hadn't picked up the phone and called me" is an unreal condition it doesn't mean Ziva picked up the phone and called. I means that Abby's calling Ziva was not the only way by which Abby tried to contact her.

x-posted with Julian


----------



## PaulQ

The sentence follows a very familiar style as far as tenses are concerned. If we consider only "... she *hadn't picked up *the phone and *had not* called me" you will see that this is "past perfect... past perfect." This follows the usual guidance for narration. In coordinate clauses, the tense remains the same. An event [if it had happened] that has ended in the past is emphasised by the past perfect.

Otherwise, the first event that occurs is in the past perfect and the second or subsequent ones are in the simple past.

"The alarm had gone off and I went into the garden."/"I went into the garden when the alarm had gone off and I went into the garden." First the alarm goes off, then I go into the garden.
"I had gone into the garden when the alarm went off."/"When the alarm went off, I had gone into the garden." I had already gone into the garden when the alarm went off.


----------



## VicNicSor

I don't understand Paul's and OM's points though. I still think the past perfect here is a thrid conditional. If it weren't for that, it would be the present perfect:
"I mean, it's weird that Ziva *hasn't contacted* me. She *hasn't picked up *the phone and *(has not) called* me, *and also I've tried *to reach her several different ways."
Because it's unlikely she's only made one attempt of calling Ziva.


----------



## Oddmania

I was answering Phoebe's question:


Phoebe1200 said:


> ...or maybe should it be "if she *didn't pick up* the phone...."?


"_It'd be one thing if she *didn't pick up* the phone_" would imply not picking up the phone is a systematic habit of hers.

"_It'd be one thing if she *didn't pick up* the phone_" → she nevers picks up the phone.
"_It'd be one thing if she *hadn't picked up* the phone_" → she hasn't picked up the phone.​The Simple Past tense would make sense if Abby discussed Ziva's usual, habitual behiavor: "_It'd be one thing if Ziva never picked up the phone to call me, but she actually does it all the time!_". But that's not what Abby is talking about. She is talking about a specific event (that never happened) in the past: "_If she had simply not picked up the phone and called me, it would be an entirely different situation and I wouldn't be worried_".


----------



## VicNicSor

Ah, I misunderstood you then, sorry.


----------



## Phoebe1200

PaulQ said:


> The sentence follows a very familiar style as far as tenses are concerned. If we consider only "... she *hadn't picked up *the phone and *had not* called me" you will see that this is "past perfect... past perfect." This follows the usual guidance for narration. In coordinate clauses, the tense remains the same. An event [if it had happened] that has ended in the past is emphasised by the past perfect.
> 
> Otherwise, the first event that occurs is in the past perfect and the second or subsequent ones are in the simple past.
> 
> "The alarm had gone off and I went into the garden."/"I went into the garden when the alarm had gone off and I went into the garden." First the alarm goes off, then I go into the garden.
> "I had gone into the garden when the alarm went off."/"When the alarm went off, I had gone into the garden." I had already gone into the garden when the alarm went off.





Oddmania said:


> Hi,
> 
> You need "_hadn't picked up_" because you're talking about a single event in the past. "_Didn't pick up_" is the past equivalent of "_doesn't pick up_". It would only work with a state verb or a verb describing a *habit*.
> 
> For instance: "_It would be one thing if she just *didn't like *Star Trek, but she actually hates the whole science fiction genre too!_"


Do you both agree that the OP is a mixed conditional?
Because I don't really get it from your answers.


----------



## JulianStuart

Phoebe1200 said:


> Do you both agree that the OP is a mixed conditional?
> Because I don't really get it from your answers.


I don't speak "conditional" terms (we are not taught them at school) - but I still don't know if you yet understand the dialogue. Is this clarification question needed to understand the words or the terminology"?


----------



## Phoebe1200

JulianStuart said:


> Is this clarification question needed to understand the words or the terminology"?


I'm not really sure myself. It's just, for instance, Oddmania uses this example 


Oddmania said:


> "_It'd be one thing if she *didn't pick up* the phone_" would imply not picking up the phone is a systematic habit of hers.


but is it actually a true second conditional type of sentence or is it something else?
Because a second conditional sentence is, for example: _If I won the lottery, I would buy a big house / I would be surprised if he didn't come._ and I don't think they imply any habits here.__


----------



## JulianStuart

JulianStuart said:


> . Is this clarification question needed to understand the words ?





Phoebe1200 said:


> I'm not really sure myself.


You are not sure if you understand what the dialogue means?


----------



## Phoebe1200

No, I understand what the dialogue means but Vic said that it's a mixed conditional type of sentence, like this one, for example: _If we *hadn't looked *at the map, we *would be* lost now. _(which suggests that they did look at the map).
And so, if the OP is a mixed one as well the part "_if she *hadn't picked up *the phone and *called* me_" has to suggest that Ziva *did pick up the phone and called Abby,* although I know that it's not true, because Ziva never called or contacted them in any way, so I'm totally confused.


----------



## VicNicSor

Phoebe's confusion has been caused by different opinions here. I think it's a mixed (2nd and 3rd) conditional (and OM seems to agree), Paul thinks it's the usual past perfect.
And it's not just a matter of terminology.

But again:


Phoebe1200 said:


> And so, if the OP is a mixed one as well the part "_if she *hadn't picked up *the phone and *called* me_" has to suggest that Ziva *did pick up the phone and called Abby,*


No, that doesn't suggest what you're saying, for the reasons mentioned in posts #8 and #9.
She has*n't* picked up the phone and has*n't* called Abby -- that's true. But a 3rd conditional is used because that is NOT the whole truth. The whole truth is that other ways to reach Ziva have failed too.
Ok, I see why it might be difficult to understand.


----------



## JulianStuart

Phoebe1200 said:


> No, I understand what the dialogue means .


Good.  You all can discuss how many nth conditionals fit on the head of a pin without me


----------



## VicNicSor

JulianStuart said:


> Good.  You all can discuss how many nth conditionals fit on the head of a pin without me


Why, you do know that English learners are taught and use those terms. They are really helpful. And I don't believe you don't have an opinion on whether the OP is a mixed conditional or not.


----------



## JulianStuart

VicNicSor said:


> Why, you do know that English learners are taught and use those terms. They are really helpful. And I don't believe you don't have an opinion on whether the OP is a mixed conditional or not.


I understand they are taught to learners and they can be complicated.  My concern was whether Phoebe understood the sentences.  I don't need to have an opinion on the terminology - I leave that to grammar technicians!


----------



## manfy

JulianStuart said:


> I understand they are taught to learners and they can be complicated.


 
No, not really. The only thing complicated is remembering which one is which!
And unfortunately, many learners think that these generalized and simplified learning aids are rules written in stone -- which they are not.

There are many valid and grammatical reasons why a speaker would want to or would have to deviate from those conditionals of the 1st/2nd/3rd kind.
This thread is a good example for that.
Phoebe suggests in #18


> And so, if the OP is a mixed one as well the part "_if she *hadn't picked up *the phone and *called* me_" *has to* suggest that Ziva *did pick up the phone and called Abby* ...


And this wrong assumption comes from the rigid belief in the generalized description of the third conditional: "past perfect describes an unreal situation in the past".
This is simply not true in this case and that's why Phoebe is wondering whether this is a conditional at all.

To be honest, I don't know what grammar says about that. It might not be a grammar conditional, but for me it's certainly a logical conditional, just like any other construction that contains an expressed or implied 'if-then' structure. Normal language logic makes this a clear and unambiguous sentence, but I agree that it is hard to explain in connection with those 1st/2nd/3rd conditionals -- so, I'd better not even try!


----------



## JulianStuart

manfy said:


> No, not really. The only thing complicated is remembering which one is which!
> And unfortunately, many learners think that these generalized and simplified learning aids are rules written in stone -- which they are not.





manfy said:


> I agree that it is hard to explain in connection with those 1st/2nd/3rd conditionals -- so, I'd better not even try!


That's the bit that is complicated


----------



## Oddmania

In my opinion, there's no point in thinking in 'conditional' terms, because this isn't a traditional textbook conditional sentence.

If someone says "_It would've been better if you hadn't done that_", it obviously implies that you _did_ do 'that'.

But if you say "_It would've been one thing if you had simply not sent me a Christmas card, but you actually haven't talked to me for years!_", the whole 'Christmas card' situation is purely hypothetical. Maybe you did send a card, or maybe you haven't because it's only July and the opportunity hasn't come your way yet.

Make the sentence positive and it becomes textbook-normal again: "_It would be one thing if you *had failed / forgotten* to send me a card (but you haven't; you've done something much worse)_".


----------



## mink-shin

Hi, Phoebe.

I agree with all of you on this thread. I've learnt that it's not a good way to stick the grammar ---It's not because other people taught me, I've learnt it myself---since I came to this forum. But when I was a beginner, English seemed as if it'd been an ancient script. Because there're a lot of different things from my language in English; such as word order, the way to make an word, which means we can make infinite words because our language is agglutinative language, etc, etc, etc. At that time, without grammar, I couldn't express anything.

I'd never heard 'nth conditional' before I came here, and I was taught, when I was junior-high school student, what you call '_conditional_' a different way which is so boring that I could make all of you sleep. But it is interesting to learn how many countries, whose mother tongues aren't English, teach English to their people. I think that's a merit of this forum, I guess native speakers don't think of it as any merit though.

In this forum, not only learning how many countries teach English to their people, but also I've been able to learn what native speakers really think when they're talking.

I think both of them are this forum's own merits.

Phoebe, I think you can have both merits. If you're interested in VicNicSor's opinion, you can find a lot of information on line about the different types of conditionals. I think there's a reason VicNicSor, who is Russian as you are, told you that it was mixed conditional. Of course natives' opinion's so important to understand what they think.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Oddmania said:


> But if you say "_It would've been one thing if you had simply not sent me a Christmas card, but you actually haven't talked to me for years!_", the whole 'Christmas card' situation is purely hypothetical. Maybe you did send a card, or maybe you haven't because it's only July and the opportunity hasn't come your way yet.


Then what do you call this kind of sentence? Maybe if I knew I could understand it better.


----------



## Loob

It might help to insert the word "simply", which is implied in the original sentence (several members have used "just" or "simply" in their explanations):
_It'd be one thing if she hadn't picked up the phone and called me, but I've tried to reach her.
=
It'd be one thing if she *simply* hadn't picked up the phone and called me, but I've tried to reach her.
=
It'd be one thing if *the only cause for concern was that* she hadn't picked up the phone and called me, but I've tried to reach her._​
The idea is that Ziva's failure to call Abby isn't the only cause for concern.
_

_


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Loob's explanation makes clear that this is an implied second conditional (_It would be _(conditional)_... if the only cause for concern was _(perfect)).

It's not a third conditional or a mixed III/II because in both those cases the_ if she hadn't _means that she has.


----------



## VicNicSor

I have a feeling, esp looking at Loob's post #28, that my post #3 was misunderstood. The "several different ways" part is not my explanation, it's a quote from the show.



Thomas Tompion said:


> Loob's explanation makes clear that this is an implied second conditional (_It would be _(conditional)_... if the only cause for concern was _(perfect)).


You agreed that the sentence is a conditional (you said "implied 2nd"). But Loob had to change the sentence significantly: "it would be ...... *if something was/were* ....".
You changed the past perfect to simple past, turning 3rd conditional into 2nd one. Because "_if she hadn't picked up the phone_" functions the same as your "_if the only cause for concern was"_, doesn't it?_ _They are the if-clauses of a conditional sentence"_. _Both are *unreal *conditionals, in the OP -- in the past, yours in the present.


Thomas Tompion said:


> It's not a third conditional or a mixed II/III because in both those cases the_ if she hadn't _means that she has.


As has been said we should consider the implied "just/simply" which changes the meaning:
"she *just/simply *hasn't picked up the phone and called me." this is *not true*. Hence:
"if she *just/simply *hadn't picked up the phone and called me" is an *unreal *conditional.


----------



## Loob

VicNicSor said:


> I have a feeling, esp looking at Loob's post #28, that my post #3 was misunderstood. The "several different ways" part is not my explanation, it's a quote from the show.


Sorry, Vic: I did realise that you were giving a more complete quote in your post, and I should have reflected the whole sentence in mine. That said, I don't think the words "*several different ways*" make a difference to how I interpret the sentence.


----------



## VicNicSor

Loob said:


> Sorry, Vic: I did realise that you were giving a more complete quote in your post, and I should have reflected the whole sentence in mine. That said, I don't think the words "*several different ways*" make a difference to how I interpret the sentence.


Ah, I see
It makes a difference, however, how someone else could interpret it. Because "... but I've tried to reach her." tells nothing about whether you've tried anything else than calling Ziva. I don't think it'd mean anything at all.


----------



## Phoebe1200

VicNicSor said:


> "she *just/simply *hasn't picked up the phone and called me." this is *not true*.


Could you tell me what you mean by "this is not true" here?


----------



## VicNicSor

Phoebe1200 said:


> Could you tell me what you mean by "this is not true" here?


"Ziva hasn't picked up the phone and called Abby."  Is this statement true? Yes, it is.
"Ziva *just/simply* hasn't picked up the phone and called Abby." Is this statement true? No, it is not. Because she has also been unreachable by other ways.


----------



## JulianStuart

VicNicSor said:


> "Ziva just/simply *hasn't* picked up the phone and* called* Abby." Is this statement true? No, it is not. Because she has also been unreachable by other ways.


Sorry Vic, but it is true - the "just/simply" does not alter the meaning that Ziva has not called. The person who calls is the person who initiates the communication.


----------



## VicNicSor

JulianStuart said:


> Sorry Vic, but it is true - the "just/simply" does not alter the meaning that Ziva has not called. The person who calls is the person who initiates the communication.


I never said it means that Ziva called. I said that the whole statement is not true. Because "_Ziva just/simply hasn't picked up the phone and called Abby._" in this context would mean that all Abby did was call Ziva. Which is not the case in the movie.

I've just come up with a similar case. The "to tease you" is similar to "simply" in our case, and changes the meaning of the phrase significantly:
1). I didn't say that. If* I'd said that*, I'd be a scoundrel. 

2). I didn't say that to tease you. *If I'd said *that to tease you, I'd be a scoundrel. 

Now, in "1",  the "if I'd said" part means "I didn't say", while in "2"  it means "I said".


----------



## JulianStuart

VicNicSor said:


> . Because "_Ziva just/simply hasn't picked up the phone and called Abby._" in this context would mean that all Abby did was call Ziva.
> .


If you want it to have the meaning that Ziva has done more than just call, you need to put the "just/simply" after the verb "hasn't". When the adverb goes before the "hasn't" it functions as an intensifier/emphatic for the negation.


----------



## VicNicSor

JulianStuart said:


> If you want it to have the meaning that Ziva has done more than just call, you need to put the "just/simply" after the verb "hasn't". When the adverb goes before the "hasn't" it functions as an intensifier/emphatic for the negation.


Sorry, I'm not sure I understand you. Did you want to say "Abby", not Ziva?
I thought I put the adverb before the "hasn't" for the same reason as Loob did in #28


----------



## JulianStuart

VicNicSor said:


> . Because "_Ziva just/simply hasn't picked up the phone and called Abby._" in this context would mean that all Abby did was call Ziva.
> .


If you want it to have the meaning that Ziva has done more than just call, you need to put the "just/simply" after the verb "hasn't". When the adverb goes before the "hasn't" it functions as an intensifier/emphatic for the negation.

This sentence tells us nothing about what Abby did or did not do, whether in this context or not.


----------



## VicNicSor

Ah, I see, thank you.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Thomas Tompion said:


> Loob's explanation makes clear that this is an implied second conditional (_It would be _(conditional)_... if the only cause for concern was _(perfect)).


Let's imagine that this implied clause actually is said in the OP, _"It'd be one thing* if the only cause for concern was that* she *hadn't picked up *the phone and called me, but I've tried to reach her several different ways.", _why isn't it present perfect "_she *hasn't *picked up the phone"?_


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Phoebe1200 said:


> Let's imagine that this implied clause actually is said in the OP, _"It'd be one thing* if the only cause for concern was that* she *hadn't picked up *the phone and called me, but I've tried to reach her several different ways.", _why isn't it present perfect "_she *hasn't *picked up the phone"?_


Because the determining clause is in the past (was), so the present perfect would shift to the past perfect (had).

_The concern is that she hasn't...

The concern was that she hadn't..._


----------



## Phoebe1200

Thomas Tompion said:


> Because the determining clause is in the past (was), so the present perfect would shift to the past perfect (had).
> 
> _The concern is that she hasn't...
> 
> The concern was that she hadn't..._


Thank you for the reply. Then I have another question. What the reason for past perfect "hadn't picked" in the OP, without the implied clause?

_"It'd be one thing if she *hadn't picked up *the phone and called me, but I've tried to reach her several different ways."_


----------



## JulianStuart

Phoebe1200 said:


> Thank you for the reply. Then I have another question. What the reason for past perfect "hadn't picked" in the OP, without the implied clause?
> 
> _"It'd be one thing if she *hadn't picked up *the phone and called me, but I've tried to reach her several different ways."_


Combine #42 　_the concern was that she hadn't　_with the original
_"It'd be one thing if ...the concern was that she hadn't ... picked up the phone and called me, but I've tried to reach her several different ways" _


----------



## mink-shin

By expressed as 'past perfect' instead of 'present perfect', 'to pick up' is referred to as "unreal past".

I think Oddmania's #12 post's better than me for you to understand.



Oddmania said:


> The Simple Past tense would make sense if Abby discussed Ziva's usual, habitual behiavor: "_It'd be one thing if Ziva never picked up the phone to call me, but she actually does it all the time!_". But that's not what Abby is talking about. She is talking about a specific event (that never happened) in the past: "_If she had simply not picked up the phone and called me, it would be an entirely different situation and I wouldn't be worried_".


----------



## Thomas Tompion

mink-shin said:


> By expressed as 'past perfect' instead of 'present perfect', 'to pick up' is referred to as "unreal past".[...]


I'm not sure you've nailed this, Mink-Shin.

This point is that this is a real past - she hadn't picked up the phone.


----------



## mink-shin

Thomas Tompion said:


> I'm not sure you've nailed this, Mink-Shin.
> 
> This point is that this is a real past - she hadn't picked up the phone.


Yes, you're right. I've misunderstood the point. 
But I think it would be unreal past with the implied meaning.

Plus) Unless my source is mistaken, what we've regarded as implied meaning seems like explicit to me.



> I've been doing the same thing.
> I mean, it's weird that Ziva hasn't contacted me. It'd be one thing if she _just_ hadn't picked up the phone and called me, but I've tried to reach her several different ways.
> Psychics, crystals or telepathy?
> 
> Source : http://transcripts.foreverdreaming.org/viewtopic.php?f=193&t=11897


----------



## Phoebe1200

Oddmania said:


> "_It'd be one thing if she *didn't pick up* the phone_"→ she nevers picks up the phone.


Could you tell what this kind of sentence is called in grammar?


Oddmania said:


> "_Didn't pick up_" is the past equivalent of "_doesn't pick up_". It would only work with a state verb or a verb describing a *habit*.


So is the verb "pick up" is a verb describing a habit here?


----------



## Oddmania

I suppose that would be a regular conditional statement. "_If X *was *true, this *would be* the result_".

If I heard "_It would one thing if she didn't pick up the phone_", I would interpret the second part as describing a habit, i.e. _It would be one thing if she never picked up the phone _/_ if she was used to never picking up the phone._ I guess it could refer to a future event as well. Context usually helps a lot.

Someone else might have a different view.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Oddmania said:


> I suppose that would be a regular conditional statement. "_If X *was *true, this *would be* the result_".
> 
> If I heard "_It would one thing if she didn't pick up the phone_", I would interpret the second part as describing a habit, i.e. _It would be one thing if she never picked up the phone _/_ if she was used to never picking up the phone._ I guess it could refer to a future event as well. Context usually helps a lot.
> 
> Someone else might have a different view.


The sentence we were talking about was  _*It'd be one thing if she hadn't picked up the phone and called me, etc.*_  There's an important difference between that and  _*It'd be one thing if she didn't pick up the phone, etc.*_ 

I don't know why you've changed the tense, Oddmania.


----------



## Oddmania

To answer Phoebe's original question.





Phoebe1200 said:


> ...should it be "if she *didn't pick up* the phone...."?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Oddmania said:


> To answer Phoebe's original question.


Fine.  Thanks for answering my question.

 I think we shouldn't overlook the matter of anteriority:

*If she hadn't* in the context means that she never has.

*If she didn't* would suggest rather than she failed to do so on one occasion.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Oddmania said:


> For instance: "_It would be one thing if she just *didn't like *Star Trek, but she actually hates the whole science fiction genre too!_"





Oddmania said:


> "_It'd be one thing if she *didn't pick up* the phone_" → she never picks up the phone.


Have you heard these kinds of sentences used a lot?

And why not just say?

_*It's *one thing if she just *doesn't like *Star Trek, but she actually hates the whole science fiction genre too!"
*It's *one thing that she *doesn't pick up* the phone whenever I call but.....
*It's *one thing that she *hasn't picked up* the phone.....
_
Are the above OK?


----------



## Oddmania

I don't need to have ever heard any of these sentences. This is basic grammar. "_It would be one thing if_..." must be followed by something 'unreal' / fake (hence the past tense). It means "_It* would be* different if the situation *was *like this, but it is not_". 

"_It's one thing if she does..._" hardly makes any sense. You're using the present tense. You're basically saying "_It is different if she does..._".

My _Star Trek_ example didn't seem to register, so I suggest you just Google "_It'd be one thing if_" to get plenty of other examples:

"_What bad can happen, pumpkin? It'd be one thing if yer man was hearty, but as it is, he only looks alive._" – Tolstoy.
"_It'd be one thing if Mr. Scalia sold pizza for a living, but this is a man we go to to interpret our laws._"
"_It'd be one thing if_ _these static ads functioned as intended, but they don't_."​If you want to convey the idea that something is actually *true*, but different from something else, you might use a different construction. For instance:

_Her not picking up when I call is one thing, but shouting and swearing at me when I knock at the door is another _(= she doesn't pick up when I call her, and I'm relatively okay with that, but insulting me when I come knocking at her door is unacceptable).​


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Oddmania said:


> "_It would be one thing if_..." must be followed by something 'unreal' / fake (hence the past tense). It means "_It* would be* different if the situation *was *like this, but it is not_".


You say it must be, Oddmania - must is a dangerous word to use when talking about English grammar.  Yet here it is not followed by something unreal - she had not, really had not, picked up the phone.

We are not concerned with a III conditional, or a III/II conditional here - this is not a hypothetical.


----------



## mink-shin

I think this thread shows something obviously bigger than I can ever express(biggest_er_?).


Thomas Tompion said:


> I'm not sure you've nailed this, Mink-Shin.
> 
> This point is that this is a real past - she hadn't picked up the phone.


After reading TT's post, I have studied about this to figure it out until now. ( of course I had sleep...)
Because I didn't understand why it wasn't unreal past.
Studying and mulling it over and over and over again, I can understand it as same way as you natives do.
Anyway, Thank you, Thomas, for making me suspicious and figure it out. 

------_Finally I've just known what's problem. There're a lot of differences between our country's English education and how you really use English_.------



Phoebe1200 said:


> It'd be one thing if she *hadn't picked up *the phone and called me, but I've tried to reach her.


After studying, the structure of OP, "It would be one thing if X, but Y." doesn't seems 'X is not true, Y is true' anymore.
It seems 'It isn’t only X, it is Y(including X)!' or 'I would be okay with X. But but it's Y!!! it's bigger than X!!!.'
Am I correct? Please tell me if I'm mistaken.

_Please say me, "you're correct" or I will spend much time again._

p.s) If there's anyone confused by my post, I want to apologize. 


mink-shin said:


> By expressed as 'past perfect' instead of 'present perfect', 'to pick up' is referred to as "unreal past".


----------



## Oddmania

Thomas Tompion said:


> You say it must be, Oddmania - must is a dangerous word to use when talking about English grammar.  Yet here it is not followed by something unreal - she had not, really had not, picked up the phone.


I beg to differ. I don't agree at all.

When you say "_It'd be one thing if she simply hadn't picked up the phone and called me_", the action consisting of 'not picking up the phone and not calling' *never *happened. It doesn't mean that the reverse action ('picking up the phone and calling') ever occured, though. The whole situation is unreal. You cannot say "she did not, really not, pick up the phone". That's just not true. Just imagine how the conversation would go:

— It'd be one thing if she hadn't picked up the phone and called me, but I've tried to reach her several diff--
— Wait a minute. She didn't even bother to pick up the phone and call you? What a shrew! I'll tell her what I think of her bad attitude!
— Err... No, I was just speculating, you know...
— Oh. So she _did _call you! How is she?
— Err, no, I didn't say that. Look, would you mind leaving us alone for a little while? We have very important work to do.​If you change "_had not picked up_" into a non-negative sentence (such as "_had failed _OR _forgotten to pick up_"), I think it becomes even more obvious: "_It would be one thing if she had forgotten to pick up the phone and call me, but..._" → the part following the word _if _never actually happened. She hasn't actually forgotten to pick up the phone, but that doesn't mean she ever 'remembered' to pick it up either. It means precisely "_She has _not _forgotten, but if she had, the situation would be different_".

Likewise, "_It'd be one thing if she simply had not picked up the phone_" means precisely "she has not « not picked up the phone », but if she simply had _not _picked it up, that would be a totally different ball game" (i.e. she has not « failed to pick up the phone », but if she had, that would be different).


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Oddmania said:


> You cannot say "she did not, really not, pick up the phone". That's just not true.


So you are saying that she did pick up the phone, Oddmania?

If you are, then I think you must have misunderstood the sentence.

Abby says: _I mean, it's weird that Ziva hasn't contacted me. It'd be one thing if she hadn't picked up the phone and called me, but I've tried to reach her. Ziva is universally absent. It's freaking me out_.

Several people have pointed out that this means that she hasn't picked up the phone.

Abby is saying that by itself Ziva's not having picked up the phone to call her would not be unduly worrying, but the fact that she doesn't answer when you ring her gives real grounds for alarm.

_It'd be one thing if she hadn't picked up the phone_ means that she hasn't picked up the phone.  Clearly if Ziva had picked up the phone and called Abby - you say it's not true that she didn't, Oddmania? can that really mean that you think she did? - then Abby would not say this; they would have heard from her and she would not be 'universally absent'.

I regard this talk of hypotheticals as very misleading.

Maybe we are at cross-purposes somewhere.  I don't regard the English as in any way ambiguous, though it does use a sequence of words in what some might think an unconventional way.


----------



## Oddmania

I think you've misunderstood my message. I would have thought it would be unambiguous:


Oddmania said:


> When you say "_It'd be one thing if she simply hadn't picked up the phone and called me_", the action consisting of 'not picking up the phone and not calling' *never *happened. * It doesn't mean that the reverse action ('picking up the phone and calling') ever occured, though.* The whole situation is unreal. You cannot say "she did not, really not, pick up the phone". That's just not true.



"_It'd be one thing if she simply hadn't picked up the phone and called me_" = It would be different *if we were in a (fictional) situation where she had simply not picked up the phone and called me.* But the actual, current situation is: I've actually tried to reach her myself.

Her not picking up the phone is part of an unreal, imaginary scenario. So we can't say "it happened" or "it didn't". But of course, the context *(not the grammar!)* allows us to say that she can't have called, otherwise she wouldn't be considered missing.

Imagine a different context: Mary has skipped dinner and has gone straight to bed. I'm worried she's not eating enough. I say _"It'd be one thing if she simply *had not had her afternoon tea.* But she's actually skipped dinner!"._ Going by your logic, that would mean "she had not, really not, had her afternoon tea". But that's not true. Maybe she did miss it. Or maybe she did not. It's an unreal situation, so we can't say.

Now, if I change the end of the sentence to "_...but she actually hasn't eaten or drunk anything for two days!_", the context makes it clear that she can't have had her five o'clock tea, since she hasn't eaten or drunk anything for the past two days.

My point was that "_It would be one thing if..._" is always followed by a hypothesis / unreal situation. But sometimes, according to the context, the hypothesis cannot be untrue. Of course Ziva can't have called, since she's been missing.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Thank you for the clarification, Oddmania.

We were not so far apart as I thought we might be.

One of the problems lies in the use of the words _*unreal*_ and _*hypothetical*_.  Some of our members, and even some quite sophisticated grammarians, often use these words without specifying whether they are talking about things which did not happen, or are not happening, and things which could never happen.

English grammar often treats the two very differently.

_*It would be one thing if X*_ doesn't necessarily, as in this case, mean that not-X holds.  The fact that X does hold means that we have the one thing.  Usually when we are told _*if Y then X*_, we are invited to see if we have Y, so that we can know if we may conclude that we have X.  Here were are being invited to put the logic in the other direction: if Y is a necessary condition of X, then the fact that we have X means that we have Y.


----------



## Forero

Phoebe1200 said:


> NCIS
> Having not heard anything from Ziva for several months, the team starts to get worried.
> 
> 
> *Abby:* I mean, it's weird that Ziva hasn't contacted me.  It'd be one thing if she *hadn't picked up *the phone and called me, but I've tried to reach her.  Ziva is universally absent. It's freaking me out.
> 
> I can't make sense of the highlighted part. Is it part of a third conditional type or maybe should it be "if she *didn't pick up* the phone...."?


I remember watching this episode, and I had a little trouble understanding it too. Abby, you see, is "freaked out" and unable to bring all her language skills "online".

The idea that Abby is trying to convey is: Ziva not only hasn't picked up the phone and called me, which by itself would be one thing, but she has also failed to answer every time I have tried to reach her, which is weird and is freaking me out.

Note that my "not only didn't" does not mean "only did" or "did only". Think of something like "I didn't say that for my health." On the face of it, it says I did not say whatever "that" was, but the intended meaning is probably "I said that not (just) for my health but for some obvious reason I expect you to know."

And note that Abby means to contrast "by itself" with "also", but that even my version of what Abby means does not require those adverbs to be understood.

Unfortuately, Abby begins with "It'd be one thing if" and the relationship between Ziva's not calling and Ziva's not answering any calls is unclear until we reach the word "universally", by which Abby means "every time"/"continuously".

In Abby's sentence, "hadn't" has to be in past tense to agree with "would be". A more logically sentence might be:

_I might not be so worried if it were just that she hasn't_/_hadn't picked up the phone and called me, but ...._

This works fine with either the logical _hasn't_ or the tense-matched _hadn't_. But without the _were_ to express the "subjunctivity" intended, Abby's sentence requires _hadn't_, not _hasn't_.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Oddmania said:


> "_It would be one thing if she just *didn't like *Star Trek, but she actually hates the whole science fiction genre too!_"



I just want to clarify. Does "didn't like" here mean that she actually* doesn't* *like *Star Trek?


----------



## Loob

The verb in itself doesn't tell us.

Oddmania's sentence, taken as a whole, does.


----------



## Forero

Phoebe1200 said:


> I just want to clarify. Does "didn't like" here mean that she actually* doesn't* *like *Star Trek?


Think of it as a conditional version of:
_
*Not* only *does* she *not* like Star Trek, but she actually hates the whole science fiction genre too!

It is *not* just that she just *doesn't* like Star Trek, but that she actually hates the whole science fiction genre too!_

Notice that, although each of these sentences has two _not_s, the two negatives do not make a positive. Her *not* liking Star Trek is *not* "the whole story" (but only part of it). The rest of the story is her hating the whole science fiction genre.

Here are some other statements with similar meanings but only one _not_:

_It's *one* thing just to *not* like Star Trek but quite *another* to actually hate the whole science fiction genre too!

It is *one* thing if she just *doesn't* like Star Trek, but quite *another* if she actually hates the whole science fiction genre too!
_
Here the "one thing" is not all of what the speaker is trying to say is the case, but the "other" thing is the rest of it. It is another thing because it is not the same thing.

I hope these examples can lead you into thinking about Oddmania's sentence the way he meant it:
_
It would be *one* thing if she just *didn't like *Star Trek, but she actually hates the whole science fiction genre too!_

The word _another_ is not needed because "one" followed by "but" already indicates the speaker is expressing a contrast.

Does that help?


----------



## Oddmania

Phoebe1200 said:


> I just want to clarify. Does "didn't like" here mean that she actually* doesn't* *like *Star Trek?


In addition to what Loob and Forero have already pointed out, I can see two pieces of evidence suggesting she doesn't:

*1.* The word "_too_": it implies there are two things she dislikes. She dislikes science fiction, but also Star Trek. It was rather clumsy of me to use "_too_" to connect a pure fact ("she hates science fiction") with an uncertain, conditional-ish kind of statement ("it'd be one thing if she just didn't like Star Trek"). That's not very 'rigorous' semantically, but it would be understood.

*2.* The context: Star Trek belongs to the science fiction genre, so if she hates sci-fi, she's very likely to dislike Star Trek as well. This relates back to what I was saying in my post #59: "_It would be one thing if_" is pretty much always followed by some kind of hypothesis, but sometimes, depending on the context, the hypothesis cannot but be correct. It doesn't always have to be so, though. If you drop the word "_too_" and simply say "_It'd be one thing if she just didn't like Star Trek, but she actually hates the whole science fiction genre!_", nothing is saying that she specifically hates Star Trek. Maybe she hasn't even ever heard of that TV show. You're simply saying "_I would consider it alright if she simply happened to not like Star Trek _(but do I really know her exact, personal opinion about it? Maybe. Maybe not)_, but hating the whole science fiction genre is unacceptable_".​


----------



## Phoebe1200

Forero said:


> I remember watching this episode, and I had a little trouble understanding it too.


Could you tell me what you would have used instead of "*hadn't picked*"?


----------



## Phoebe1200

Oddmania said:


> "_It'd be one thing if she just didn't like Star Trek, but she actually hates the whole science fiction genre!_", nothing is saying that she specifically hates Star Trek. Maybe she hasn't even ever heard of that TV show. You're simply saying "_I would consider it alright if she simply happened to not like Star Trek _(but do I really know her exact, personal opinion about it? Maybe. Maybe not)_, but hating the whole science fiction genre is unacceptable_".


Please tell me if I understand it correctly.
The "_It'd be one thing if she just didn't like Star Trek, but she actually hates the whole science fiction genre!"_ can have two meanings:

1) I know for a fact that she doesn't like Star Trek and I'm sort of OK with that, so it'd be fine if it was just that, but I can't accept the fact that she hates the whole science fiction genre.
2) I don't know if she hates Star Trek but I just learned that she hates the whole science fiction genre, so I'm thinking that it would be OK if she just didn't like Star Trek but it's unacceptable that she hates the whole science fiction genre.


----------



## JulianStuart

Phoebe1200 said:


> Please tell me if I understand it correctly.
> The "_It'd be one thing if she just didn't like Star Trek, but she actually hates the whole science fiction genre!"_ can have two meanings:
> 
> 1) I know for a fact that she doesn't like Star Trek and I'm sort of OK with that, so it'd be fine if it was just that, but I can't accept the fact that she hates the whole science fiction genre.
> 2) I don't know if she hates Star Trek but I just learned that she hates the whole science fiction genre, so I'm thinking that it would be OK if she just didn't like Star Trek but it's unacceptable that she hates the whole science fiction genre.


2) is not internally consistent because Star Trek IS science fiction so if she hates the whole genre she must hate Start Trek too - so you DO know it.


----------



## sunyaer

Forero said:


> I remember watching this episode, and I had a little trouble understanding it too.
> ...



The OP sentence is very clumsy wording. Interested in knowing why native speakers of English would say something like this. Is there any other alternative that would be a better expression in this context?

*"Abby:* _I mean, it's weird that Ziva hasn't contacted me_. _It'd be one thing if she hadn't picked up the phone and called me, but I've tried to reach her. Ziva is universally absent. It's freaking me out_."

The part _"Ziva hasn't contacted me" _gives information about the real situation, which makes "_if she hadn't picked up the phone and called me" _a real conditional. Is this a simple explanation?


----------



## Forero

sunyaer said:


> The OP sentence is very clumsy wording. Interested in knowing why native speakers of English would say something like this. Is there any other alternative that would be a better expression in this context?


Yes, there are lots of better ways to express this. Abby is very worried and in quite a hurry to explain why. She is having problems explaining what she means in her current mental state.





> *"Abby:* _I mean, it's weird that Ziva hasn't contacted me_. _It'd be one thing if she hadn't picked up the phone and called me, but I've tried to reach her. Ziva is universally absent. It's freaking me out_."
> 
> The part _"Ziva hasn't contacted me" _gives information about the real situation, which makes "_if she hadn't picked up the phone and called me" _a real conditional. Is this a simple explanation?


That explanation would not work for me. This "hadn't" really is meant as a subjunctive: "If she hadn't" = "had she simply not". The unreal part is the "simply", which Abby has inadvertently left out.

The meaning is (I hope it helps to rephrase it again): "It would be one thing if her not contacting us were just an oversight on her part and nothing more, but she also has not answered any of my attempts to reach her. Ziva is not calling and not answering at all, and this is seriously worrying me."

There are several clues in Abby's statement that steer us toward the idea that she means to contrast "only"/"simply" with "also" (or "either" after the negative): (1) the phrase "picked up the phone and called" = "just/simply taken the trouble to call", (2) "I've tried" = "I have made multiple unsuccessful attempts", (3) "universally absent" = out of contact all the time.


----------



## JulianStuart

Forero said:


> There are several clues in Abby's statement that steer us toward the idea that she means to contrast "only"/"simply" with "also" (or "either" after the negative): (1) the phrase "picked up the phone and called" = "just/simply taken the trouble to call", (2) "I've tried" = "I have made multiple unsuccessful attempts", (3) "universally absent" = out of contact all the time.


I think you are saying the same thing as I did in #8, are you not? I didn't analyse the structure but tried to explain in simpler terms
"_If it were true_ that Ziva was simply sick and that was the reason why she had not called, there would be no cause for alarm, because Abby could just call and talk to her - she would answer.  However, [we know] _that is not true _because Abby has tried hard to reach her and has failed - so there is something more ominous than Ziva just being sick: she is out of contact, possibly kidnapped or worse, and that is what is upsetting Abby."


----------



## Phoebe1200

Hi, Forero. 
Would you mind replying to my post 66?


----------



## Forero

JulianStuart said:


> I think you are saying the same thing as I did in #8, are you not? I didn't analyse the structure but tried to explain in simpler terms
> "_If it were true_ that Ziva was simply sick and that was the reason why she had not called, there would be no cause for alarm, because Abby could just call and talk to her - she would answer.  However, [we know] _that is not true _because Abby has tried hard to reach her and has failed - so there is something more ominous than Ziva just being sick: she is out of contact, possibly kidnapped or worse, and that is what is upsetting Abby."


Yes. I believe you and I agree on all this, and neither of us has any use for classifying conditionals into extraneous "types".

My understanding of "type 2 conditional" and similar terms is that they separate forms by tense (e.g. past) and aspect (e.g. perfect), but make a muddle of the difference between indicative (e.g. "if I am/was there") and subjunctive (e.g. "if I were you") mood.

I think of "if" statements as being of two types only, based on both form and meaning: (1) "if" statements like "If it was red, it was ripe" (= "Either it was ripe or it was not red"), and (2) "if" statements like "If I were you, I would ..." (= "Regardless of what may actually be the case, and regardless of how dubious the idea might be, suppose, for the sake of argument, that I am you. Under that assumption, ..."), which are often described using the term "unreal".

Abby's "if" statement is of the latter type, and not recognizing that fact leads to confusion:





mink-shin said:


> I think this thread shows something obviously bigger than I can ever express(biggest_er_?).
> 
> After reading TT's post, I have studied about this to figure it out until now. ( of course I had sleep...)
> Because I didn't understand why it wasn't unreal past.


It is not about real past. If "hadn't" here weren't meant to be subjunctive, it would be "hasn't".

The sentence is confusing because "had she not picked up the phone and called me" does not fit the context. It needs to be something like "had she simply not called me" or "had she simply neglected to call me". ("Pick up the phone and call" is a well-used way to suggest "just call, as it takes little effort".)





> Studying and mulling it over and over and over again, I can understand it as same way as you natives do.
> Anyway, Thank you, Thomas, for making me suspicious and figure it out.
> 
> ------_Finally I've just known what's problem. There're a lot of differences between our country's English education and how you really use English_.------
> 
> 
> After studying, the structure of OP, "It would be one thing if X, but Y." doesn't seems 'X is not true, Y is true' anymore.
> It seems 'It isn’t only X, it is Y(including X)!' or 'I would be okay with X. But but it's Y!!! it's bigger than X!!!.'
> Am I correct? Please tell me if I'm mistaken.
> 
> _Please say me, "you're correct" or I will spend much time again._
> 
> p.s) If there's anyone confused by my post, I want to apologize.


You are correct. It would be one thing if X alone, but Y (and X).





Phoebe1200 said:


> Hi, Forero.
> Would you mind replying to my post 66?


I think I just did. In fact, there are already several versions of the same idea in this thread.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Forero said:


> It is not about real past.


So you are saying it's not true that she hasn't picked up the phone?  I don't think you can be, yet that is really what happened, in the past - she hasn't once picked it up.


----------



## Forero

Thomas Tompion said:


> So you are saying it's not true that she hasn't picked up the phone?  I don't think you can be, yet that is really what happened, in the past - she hasn't once picked it up.


I am saying that Abby's "if" clause, "if she hadn't picked up the phone and called me", is missing a piece, namely something like "simply". Abby means it as "had she simply not picked up the phone and called me".

So I am saying it's not true that Ziva simply hasn't picked up the phone and called. Abby's sentence is not meant to be about whether Ziva has picked up the phone: it is about something more serious, something bigger than simply not telephoning Abby.

From the rest of the context, we surmise that Ziva probably has not phoned Abby, but not simply that.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Forero said:


> I am saying that Abby's "if" clause, "if she hadn't picked up the phone and called me", is missing a piece, namely something like "simply". Abby means it as "had she simply not picked up the phone and called me".


Good.  Thank you.  This was a point made by Loob, summarising what some others had said, back at post #28.  We seem to be in agreement over this.

So the 'unreal' part (indicated by this sentence alone - up to the but-clause) is that Ziva has not given them further cause for concern, other than not telephoning.  The further cause for concern is that she hasn't answered when Abby has called her.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Forero said:


> This "hadn't" really is meant as a subjunctive


I thought it was simply backshifting as Thomas said in post 42.


----------



## Forero

Thomas Tompion said:


> Phoebe1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's imagine that this implied clause actually is said in the OP, _"It'd be one thing* if the only cause for concern was that* she *hadn't picked up *the phone and called me, but I've tried to reach her several different ways.", _why isn't it present perfect "_she *hasn't *picked up the phone"?_
> 
> 
> 
> Because the determining clause is in the past (was), so the present perfect would shift to the past perfect (had).
> 
> _The concern is that she hasn't...
> 
> The concern was that she hadn't..._
Click to expand...

The "only cause for concern was" version of the sentence sounds wrong to me because it uses "was" where I would use "were": "It would be one thing if the only cause for concern *were* that she hasn't/hadn't picked up the phone and called me, but I've tried to reach her several different ways."





Phoebe1200 said:


> I thought it was simply backshifting as Thomas said in post 42.


In this sentence, with an extra clause, "hadn't" is just an optionally backshifted version of "hasn't" and no change in meaning is intended in the context of the "only cause for concern" sentence.

In the original sentence, "hasn't" is backshifted obligatorily because it is subjunctive, like "if the only cause for concern were" in my version of the sentence with the exta clause. Loob's other version, "_It'd be one thing if she *simply* hadn't picked up the phone and called me, but I've tried to reach her._", uses subjunctive "hadn't" as is obvious to me if I put "had" first in its clause (indicative "had" cannot go there): "It would be one thing had she simply not ...."


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Forero said:


> Loob's third version sounds wrong to me because she uses "was" where I would use "were"


I think this may be because you speak American English.

Loob's version sounds fine to me, a BE speaker.


----------



## Forero

Thomas Tompion said:


> I think this may be because you speak American English.
> 
> Loob's version sounds fine to me, a BE speaker.


Would you use _was_ in the following version?

_It'd be one thing were the only cause for concern that she hasn't picked up the phone and called me, but I've tried to reach her several different ways._

I hope you can see that I have not changed the meaning by expressing Abby's "if" clause with "were", and that this means Abby's "if" clause, which is intended to have this meaning, is in past tense to reflect not past time but hypothetical "time", just like "if I were you" or "if I were to die tonight".

It is the use of a form of "have" plus a past participle that tells us Abby is talking about a time interval in the past, and the past tense of "hadn't" in the form with "simply" is obligatory because it represents hypothetical "time", although, since my "were" and Loob's "was" are in past tense for the same reason, the past tense of "hadn't" in our "cause for concern" sentences merely "agrees" with "were"/"was" and can optionally be "hasn't".


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Forero said:


> Would you use _was_ in the following version?
> 
> _It'd be one thing were the only cause for concern that she hasn't picked up the phone and called me, but I've tried to reach her several different ways._


No, I couldn't use it there.  That form closes the possibility of that's being the only cause for concern.


----------



## Forero

Thomas Tompion said:


> Forero said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you use _was_ in the following version?
> 
> _It'd be one thing were the only cause for concern that she hasn't picked up the phone and called me, but I've tried to reach her several different ways._
> 
> 
> 
> No, I couldn't use it there.  That form closes the possibility of that's being the only cause for concern.
Click to expand...

So do you also reject Julian Stuart's "If it were true" in #8?

"Closes" = "eliminates"?

Isn't the whole idea of all our paraphrases of Abby's statement, the idea we believe she means to express, that what worries her is not just the one thing? She is worried because there are other causes for concern, right?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Forero said:


> She is worried because there are other causes for concern, right?


I think most of us are agreed that this is the case.


Forero said:


> So do you also reject Julian Stuart's "If it were true" in #8?


I'm not clear about that 'also'.  I said that Loob's third version didn't sound wrong to me, neither would Julian's, had he said 'if it was true that'.  I'm not clear that to say these things is to reject anything.  I'm certainly not rejecting Julian's sentence in the form he chose for it.


----------



## JulianStuart

Thomas Tompion said:


> I'm not clear about that 'also'.  I said that Loob's third version didn't sound wrong to me, neither would Julian's, had he said 'if it was true that'.  I'm not clear that to say these things is to reject anything.  I'm certainly not rejecting Julian's sentence in the form he chose for it.


I said "If it were true ..." - do you interpret that as different from "If it was true ..."?  I went on to say that we know it is not true, so it is unreal (I think that's the right term) but perhaps we were tangled in AE/BE subjunctive forms?


----------



## JulianStuart

Forero said:


> Isn't the whole idea of all our paraphrases of Abby's statement, the idea we believe she means to express, that what worries her is not just the one thing? She is worried because there are other causes for concern, right?



Long before this conversation there have been occasions where Abby has not heard from Ziva for a while (i.e., Ziva hadn't picked up the phone and called in a while). On those occasions Abby was able to call Ziva and ascertain her condition/location because she answered (let's call those occasions "Xiva at home"). Abby called this time and there was no answer, so she knows that Ziva is not at home sick (or whatever) so

"It would be one thing if it were/was simply a "Ziva at home" situation (which would not be a worry) but I called and now know that's not the case. I tried other methods of communication and they all failed, too. So I'm worried."


----------



## Thomas Tompion

JulianStuart said:


> I said "If it were true ..." - do you interpret that as different from "If it was true ..."?  I went on to say that we know it is not true, so it is unreal (I think that's the right term) but perhaps we were tangled in AE/BE subjunctive forms?


Yes, I do see them as different, and I've already hinted at my piece about 'unreality' in this thread.  For me, use of the subjunctive suggests that it would be impossible for there to be no other cause for concern, as opposed to its not being true that there are none.

We've been told often over the years that the indicative, in such cases, sounds illiterate and a savage abomination to American ears, and I don't doubt that it does.  But to my BE ears it seems entirely normal and idiomatic - except where we are dealing with an impossibility.

Here I can, like Loob (in post #28) say _It'd be one thing if *the only cause for concern was that* she hadn't picked up the phone etc. _because it is not impossible for there to be no other causes for concern.  Where I am confronted with an impossible hypothesis (_if I were you_) I share the American reaction:_ If I was you _sounds very uneducated.

The use of the subjunctive in such cases as Abby's sentence thus isn't mandatory for a BE speaker (in my view) but it adds an extra layer of improbability to the sentence.

We have a choice, Julian, where you have none, I've been led over the years to believe.


----------



## JulianStuart

Sorry, TT, way too many nots, ifs, woulds, impossible unreals etc to digest at once. Let's dispense with any confusion over was/were

"It would be one thing if the "current situation" = a "Ziva at home" situation but I called and now know that's not the case. I tried other methods of communication and they all failed, too. So I'm worried."


----------



## Thomas Tompion

JulianStuart said:


> Sorry, TT, way too many nots, ifs, woulds, impossible unreals etc to digest at once. Let's dispense with any confusion over was/were


Yes, the double negations are a problem in explaining Abby's sentence.

Try this one: your English boss calls you in to discuss a mistake you have made.

He says to you 'If I was to sack you' - an American might conclude him to be illiterate; an Englishman would be worried, because 'If I were to sack you' would have suggested that your job was in much less danger.


----------



## JulianStuart

Thomas Tompion said:


> Try this one: your English boss calls you in to discuss a mistake you have made.
> 
> He says to you 'If I was to sack you' - an American might conclude him to be illiterate; an Englishman would be worried, because 'If I were to sack you' would have suggested that your job was in much less danger.


OK, thanks - I'm not sure (I don't recal) if I would have distinguished those likelihoods of losing my job based on that was/were situation before I left the UK at age 25. Perhaps, but now I don't see it the way you describe, but that's probably covered in other threads


----------



## Forero

Thomas Tompion said:


> Yes, the double negations are a problem in explaining Abby's sentence.
> 
> Try this one: your English boss calls you in to discuss a mistake you have made.
> 
> He says to you 'If I was to sack you' - an American might conclude him to be illiterate; an Englishman would be worried, because 'If I were to sack you' would have suggested that your job was in much less danger.


I think I understand this, though it still seems just a little bizarre. But I don't see how it fits with Abby's predicament.

Abby knows it is impossible that Ziva has merely neglected to call (she later explains how she has come to know this), so as I see it Abby, even if she were British and distinguished what is impossible from what is false but possible, would still say "if it were true that Ziva has merely neglected to call", not "if it was true that Ziva has merely neglected to call".

Or does "if it was true" work for you even in situations that are impossible, provided they used to be possible?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Forero said:


> Abby knows it is impossible that Ziva has merely neglected to call


This may be where we disagree.  It's not impossible; it's highly unlikely.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Forero said:


> In the original sentence, "hasn't" is backshifted obligatorily because it is subjunctive,


Do you mean that it's only backshifted because Abby doesn't utter this part of the sentence _"if the only cause for concern was that"_ and, so the "*hadn't*" is backshifted because it's used in its place?


----------



## Forero

Thomas Tompion said:


> This may be where we disagree.  It's not impossible; it's highly unlikely.


So could "it's weird that Ziva hasn't contacted me" really mean "it's weird that Ziva has most likely not contacted me"? Or does "universally absent" mean "absent except for the slim chance that she has merely neglected to call me"?

Or are you saying that having neglected to call before the moment Abby starts talking does not necessarily imply having neglected to call by the time she gets to "freaking me out"?

You would never say "if I were to die tonight" unless you were absolutely certain you are not to die tonight (instead saying "if I was to die tonight")?





Phoebe1200 said:


> Do you mean that it's only backshifted because Abby doesn't utter this part of the sentence _"if the only cause for concern was that"_ and, so the "*hadn't*" is backshifted because it's used in its place?


To me, this (after "It would be one thing") is a place for past subjunctive, so I could say either "were the only cause for concern that she ..." or "had she merely not picked up the phone and called me". This "were" and this "had" do not represent a time in the past but a hypothetical time, when "it would be one thing".

But after "It would be one thing were the only cause for concern that", we have the option to consider the issue of whether Ziva has or has not picked up the phone and called either as part of what is meant to be considered hypothetical or as a situtation in the real "now". In the former case, we would use "hadn't", agreeing in tense with "were"; and in the latter case, we would use "hasn't" to express the real present.

In other words, if we put the hypothetical "only", "simply", or "merely" in a separate clause with its own tense, aspect, and mood, we are free to use present tense for what we believe is the present situation, i.e. that Ziva has not picked up the phone and called.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Forero said:


> You would never say "if I were to die tonight" unless you were absolutely certain you are not to die tonight (instead saying "if I was to die tonight")?


This suggests I haven't made myself clear.

In British English we could say* If I was to die tonight*, or *If I were to die tonight* - the second would suggest that I thought the event less likely than the first.  I'd have though this was analogous to my example about possible dismissal, where I did not suggest that *If I were to sack you* was something a BE speaker would never say unless he was absolutely certain he was not going to sack the person.

The sort of impossibility where the subjunctive is mandatory in BE, in my view, is logical impossibility - _If I were youIf I was you_.

It's not mandatory in cases of empirical impossibility - _If I was in Paris_ (said when I am sitting in my garden in Bedford), _If I were in Paris_.

It's not mandatory in cases of technical impossibility - _If I was able to fly to New York in half an hourIf I were able to fly to New York in half an hour_.

The higher the degree of improbability the more likely it becomes that the speaker would choose the subjunctive, but I wouldn't regard the subjunctive as mandatory save in the first case (logical impossibility).  The indicative maybe sounds increasingly strange the greater the  degree of apparent technical impossibility expressed, but, as my example above illustrates, extremes of apparent empirical impossibility can be, and often are, expressed by the indicative.

Clearly Abby's not having another cause for concern is not logically impossible, though it may appear to be empirically highly unlikely.

Please NOTE that I am speaking for BRITISH ENGLISH only.  I would not pretend to speak for other forms of the language.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Just to clarify. Is the "_if the only cause for concern was_" clause definetely implied in the original sentence? 
I mean, without that implication the sentence could never exist, right?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Phoebe1200 said:


> Just to clarify. Is the "_if the only cause for concern was_" clause definetely implied in the original sentence?
> I mean, without that implication the sentence could never exist, right?


The sentence might be expanded, as some have suggested, to _It'd be one thing if she simply hadn't picked up the phone and called me, but I've tried to reach her. Ziva is universally absent. It's freaking me out._

I'd say it was clearly implied that there are other causes for concern than her failure to pick up the phone.  I suspect that this has been said several times.


----------



## Forero

Phoebe1200 said:


> Just to clarify. Is the "_if the only cause for concern was_" clause defin*i*tely implied in the original sentence?
> I mean, without that implication the sentence could never exist, right?


The original sentence in #1 is confusing because, taken at face value, it is at odds with the previous sentence.

We have to surmise from the context that Abby really means "had she simply not" (= "were my only cause for concern that she hadn't").

But what Abby actually says is something quite different.

The combination "pick up the phone and call" as opposed to "call" by itself is well used to suggest that making a call is easy (since the hardest part, physically, is picking up the phone), so that, by innuendo, not doing it is neglectful indeed.

Thus, Abby's "picked up the phone and called" can be understood as "simply made the effort to telephone", but with that substitution we get "It'd be one thing if she hadn't simply made the effort to telephone me", which has "simply" but not quite in the right place. "Not simply" does not mean "simply not".

Abby has thus inadvertently almost accused Ziva of being neglectful when her intent was to explain that she, Abby, has left no stone unturned.

This confused, and confusing, way of saying things does a good job of making Abby seem really "freaked out". Abby is a computer wiz, a person who thinks logically, but here she has made an error in logic when composing her sentence.

In fact, I daresay we have all made similar errors and had to correct one another in this long thread.

I hope it makes sense to you now.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Forero said:


> To me, this (after "It would be one thing") is a place for past subjunctind,ve, so I could say either "were the only cause for concern that she ..." or "had she merely not picked up the phone and called me". This "were" and this "had" do not represent a time in the past but a hypothetical time, when "it would be one thing".



So the original sentence _It'd be one thing if she *hadn't *picked up the phone and called me, but I've tried to reach her several different ways._ uses "hadn't" for a hypothetical time_. _
But the problem for me is that I don't know what kind of sentence this is then, I mean, I know that Ziva never picked up the phone and called Abby, but my confusion is because it looks like a mixed type conditional and usually _the if-clause_ refers to an unreal past condition, for example,_ We would be lost now, if we* hadn't *looked at the map_, which clearly tells us that they did look at the map. 
But which is not the case in the OP, since the "hadn't" is used here meaning that she actually didn't pick up the phone and call.


----------



## mink-shin

Phoebe1200 said:


> So the original sentence _It'd be one thing if she *hadn't *picked up the phone and called me, but I've tried to reach her several different ways._ uses "hadn't" for a hypothetical time_. _
> But the problem for me is that I don't know what kind of sentence this is then, I mean, I know that Ziva never picked up the phone and called Abby, but my confusion is because it looks like a mixed type conditional and usually _the if-clause_ refers to an unreal past condition, for example,_ We would be lost now, if we* hadn't *looked at the map_, which clearly tells us that they did look at the map.





> *Conditional sentence type/* *Usage* /*If clause verb tense* /*Main clause verb tense*
> [..........]
> Type 2 /A hypothetical condition and its probable result /Simple past / Present conditional or Present continuous conditional
> Type 3 /An unreal past condition and its probable result in the past /Past perfect /Perfect conditional
> Mixed type /An unreal past condition and its probable result in the present /Past perfect /Present contditional
> (Source : Conditional | English Grammar Guide | EF )


Hi, Phoebe.
Unless my source's mistaken, I don't see any type able to be applied to the OP sentence.
According to my source, 'Mixed type' is used meaning 'An unreal past condition and its probable result in the present'.
But I think *'Hadn't ...... ,'* is used meaning that 'An unreal condition _between the past and the present_' and that she actually _not only_ _hasn't picked up_ _the phone_ since Abby started searching for her.
I don't think we can regard it as 'Mixed type conditional' for the reason of its tense.


Phoebe1200 said:


> But which is not the case in the OP, since the "hadn't" is used here meaning that she actually didn't pick up the phone and call.


I think Forero already gave us some hints about this problem.


Forero said:


> Note that my "not only didn't" does not mean "only did" or "did only". Think of something like "I didn't say that for my health." On the face of it, it says I did not say whatever "that" was, but the intended meaning is probably "I said that not (just) for my health but for some obvious reason I expect you to know."


Tell me if I'm wrong. Thanks in advance.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

What it effectively means is _If all she had done was fail to telephone me, that would be one thing_ - that's a standard type II conditional.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

mink-shin said:


> I don't think we can regard it as 'Mixed type conditional' for the reason of its tense.


I hope you are clear, Mink-shin, that there is more than one type of mixed conditional; you write as though there was only one.


----------



## Forero

Phoebe1200 said:


> So the original sentence _It'd be one thing if she *hadn't *picked up the phone and called me, but I've tried to reach her several different ways._ uses "hadn't" for a hypothetical time.
> But the problem for me is that I don't know what kind of sentence this is


The original sentence is a mistake. It does not make sense in the context given. Abby made the mistake because she is upset.





> then, I mean, I know that Ziva never picked up the phone and called Abby, but my confusion is because it looks like a mixed type conditional and usually _the if-clause_ refers to an unreal past condition, for example,_ We would be lost now, if we* hadn't *looked at the map_, which clearly tells us that they did look at the map.
> But which is not the case in the OP,


But it is the case in the OP, and this is why the OP is a mistake.





> since the "hadn't" is used here meaning that she actually didn't pick up the phone and call.


No, we need to add something to the sentence for it to have the correct meaning.

The "hadn't" in the OP does not mean she actually didn't pick up the phone and call, but if we qualify "not" with "simply" or "merely" by inserting such an adverb between "she" and "hadn't", the result is a correct sentence representing what Abby means to say.

It is true that Ziva has not called, but it is false that Ziva has merely not called.

It is true that Ziva's not calling is worrying Abby, but it is false that Ziva's not calling is all that is worrying Abby.


----------



## JulianStuart

I don't consider Abby's sentence a mistake. Paraphrasing yet again:  It would be one (situation, i.e.,) thing if she had failed to call, but (the situation is not that simple because) she is not reachable by _any_ means.  If you feel it _requires_ a "simply" before "failed" to achieve correctness, I'm happy to consider it implied or elided


----------



## Phoebe1200

In the original sentence _It'd be one thing if she *hadn't *picked up the phone and called me, but I've tried to reach her several different ways._ we know that "hadn't" means here that she really *had not* picked up the phone and called only because we're watching the show and know for sure that Ziva never actually picked up the phone and called Abby, because we get it from the context, right?

But if you were unfamiliar with the context and the show itself, would you take "_if she hadn't picked up the phone and called_" part to mean that she actually didn't do that or would you take it to mean that she *did*?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Phoebe1200 said:


> But if you were unfamiliar with the context and the show itself, would you take "_if she hadn't picked up the phone and called_" part to mean that she actually didn't do that or would you take it to mean that she *did*?


You'd take it to mean that she did pick up the phone in type III conditionals - _*If she hadn't picked up the phone, she wouldn't have heard about the accident.*_

And also in III/II mixed conditionals: _*If she hadn't picked up the phone, she wouldn't know about the accident.*_


----------



## Forero

Phoebe1200 said:


> In the original sentence _It'd be one thing if she *hadn't *picked up the phone and called me, but I've tried to reach her several different ways._ we know that "hadn't" means here that she really *had not* picked up the phone and called only because we're watching the show and know for sure that Ziva never actually picked up the phone and called Abby, because we get it from the context, right?
> 
> But if you were unfamiliar with the context and the show itself, would you take "_if she hadn't picked up the phone and called_" part to mean that she actually didn't do that or would you take it to mean that she *did*?


Actually, an "if" clause expresses a condition. It does not really state anything.

The matter is really quite complicated. For example, if I start with "if I were you", I am not saying I am not you: you presumably already know that. If I start with "if I were to die before tomorrow morning", I am not saying I won't die before tomorrow morning, but I am suggesting I am really not comfortable with the idea. And if I know you believe there are fairies in the garden but want to offer proof that there are not, I could say something like "if there were no fairies in the garden, then ... would ..., but if there actually were fairies there, then we should see ...", comparing two hypotheticals, only one of which represents reality.

But I see Abby's sentence as an "if I were you" type, not an "if I were to die" (i.e. "I shudder to think ...") type or an "if there were no fairies" (i.e. "I'll humor you, for the sake of argument") type. If I heard Abby say, with no further context, "It would be one thing if Ziva hadn't picked up the phone and called me", I would suspect that Ziva has both picked up the phone and called Abby".

For me it is the fact that Abby has just said "I mean, it's weird that Ziva hasn't contacted me" that tells me Abby must mean something different. Then when she says "but I've tried to reach her", I suspect she means tried unsuccessfully, and then I can see what Abby really means.

It is evident to me that Abby knows her sentence was misleading, and that is why she comes out with the "universally absent" sentence.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Thomas Tompion said:


> You'd take it to mean that she did pick up the phone in type III conditionals - _*If she hadn't picked up the phone, she wouldn't have heard about the accident.*_
> 
> And also in III/II mixed conditionals: _*If she hadn't picked up the phone, she wouldn't know about the accident.*_





Forero said:


> If I heard Abby say, with no further context, "It would be one thing if Ziva hadn't picked up the phone and called me", I would suspect that Ziva has both picked up the phone and called Abby".


So when you said in your previous posts that the sentence was a mistake, by mistake you meant exactly this, right? ( That if you weren't aware of the context the sentence would suggest that Ziva in fact did pick up the phone and called)
Because in conditional sentences it's usually implied the opposite of what is stated, right?


----------



## Oddmania

The thing is, this is not a standard conditional sentence, Phoebe. The sentence starts with the phrase "*It would be one thing if...*", not simply "*If*"! It's totally different.

"_It would be one thing if..._" is always followed by something 'false'. The phrase means "_It would be different if..._", so the following part _has _to be false / fake / unreal. It _cannot _reflect reality. At this point, you're probably thinking "_Wait, if it doesn't reflect reality, does that mean she actually did pick up her phone?_", but we've already been over this.

*1)* "_*It would be different if she had picked up the phone* and insulted me over the phone, but she's actually sent me a death threat letter! She's crossed the line._" → she *did not* pick up the phone to insult you. She's done something much more frightening (she's sent a death threat).

*2)* "_*It would be different if she had *_*not *_*picked up the phone* and called me, but she actually didn't answer all the times I tried to call her._" → she *did not* simply fail to pick up the phone and call you. She's done done something much more worrying (she failed to _answer _her phone).


----------



## Cagey

This thread needs to take a rest. 
Everyone has agreed that words have been omitted from the original sentence.  It is not useful as a model to followed. 

People have done their best to explain the underlying grammar. All the explanations require hypothetical insertions of words that are not actually in the original sentence, which is not something we want to encourage.    

 Anyone who is interested is welcome to look over the explanations and choose the one that seems most likely to them. 

Thank you to everyone who has contributed to this thread.  

It is now closed.  

Cagey,  moderator.


----------

