# I wouldn't suggest such a plan unless I thought it was feasible.



## JungKim

Regarding the use of 'unless in a remote conditional, The Cambridge Grammar (p755) says:


> Unless occurs in open conditionals and, *less freely*, remote ones:
> [52]
> ...
> iv _I wouldn't suggest such a plan unless I thought it was feasible._
> ...
> The implicature of the remote version, as in [iv], is that not-P is false or probably false: [iv] conveys that I do think it is feasible.



Actually, this is the only example in the Cambridge Grammar of 'unless' being used in a remote conditional.

Since [iv] is possible English, it should mean both these: 
"I wouldn't suggest such a plan if I didn't think it was feasible." 
"I suggest such a plan because I think it is feasible."

Now, an earlier thread says _Unless he had tripped, he would have won _is impossible English, because:


> To use *unless*, the possibility of winning still has to be open.
> _Unless he trips, he will win_.  The possibility of winning is still open.



Could someone tell me how to distinguish the possible example above from the impossible example?


----------



## grassy

In


> _I wouldn't suggest such a plan unless I thought it was feasible._


the possibility is open (though remote), whereas in


> _Unless he had tripped, he would have won_


it's not.


----------



## JungKim

If the context in which the first sentence is spoken prevents the possibility from being open, then will the first sentence be impossible English?
_I wouldn't suggest such a plan unless I thought it was feasible. I really do think it is feasible._


----------



## grassy

I honestly don't know. You will have to wait for the forum grammarians to come along and answer this one.


----------



## elroy

JungKim said:


> _I wouldn't suggest such a plan unless I thought it was feasible. I really do think it is feasible._


 For me, these two statements are certainly compatible.

_I think this is plan is feasible; that's why I'm thinking of suggesting it to my boss.  I mean, I wouldn't suggest such a plan unless I thought it was feasible. _


----------



## JungKim

elroy said:


> For me, these two statements are certainly compatible.
> 
> _I think this is plan is feasible; that's why I'm thinking of suggesting it to my boss.  I mean, I wouldn't suggest such a plan unless I thought it was feasible. _


Then, being able to use 'unless' in a remote conditional doesn't necessarily depend on whether the possibility is open or not?


----------



## elroy

What is a remote conditional?


----------



## JungKim

A remote conditional construction, a term primarily used by The Cambridge Grammar, is a conditional construction hypothetically describing a situation, regardless of the time frame referred to by the situation, be it the present, the past, the future, or even a time-less thing. And it roughly corresponds to both second and third conditionals in traditional grammar.


----------



## siares

JungKim said:


> Could someone tell me how to distinguish the possible example above from the impossible example?


I think the difference between 'necessary' and 'sufficient' condition is applicable, unless I am overthinking it. See Thomas Tompion's posts:
condition that...
Conditional sentences with different tenses
Only if / Unless / If..

_1) Unless I thought it was feasible, I wouldn't suggest such a plan. (unless + 1 negative)
2) Unless he had tripped, he would have won. (unless + no negative)
3) If he hadn't tripped, he would have won. (if + 1 negative)

1) Because I think it is feasible, I would suggest such a plan . (remove (unless + 1 negative))
2) Because he had tripped, he wouldn't have won.  (remove (unless + no negative))
3) N/A

1) From my suggesting the plan it follows that I think it is feasible. (remove (unless + 1 negative))
2) From his not having won it follows he had tripped. (remove (unless + no negative))_
_3) From his not having won it does not necessarily follow that he had tripped. (if + 1 negative)_

(much edited back and forth....)


----------



## JungKim

Sorry, siares, but I'm not sure what you're trying to say.


----------



## siares

JungKim said:


> Sorry, siares, but I'm not sure what you're trying to say.


 PS for other readers the discussion continues here: Unless he had tripped
----------------
I think both threads should be moved to Culture Cafe and renamed ´statement logic´, or a new one started there.


			
				JungKim said:
			
		

> (And I realize that what siares has been doing all along is analyzing exactly that kind of *"*logic*"* based on contexts, rather than analyzing the logic of 'unless' itself!)


And I take offence to the quote marks.


----------



## entangledbank

I think the problem is that that earlier thread is contrasting open and impossible, whereas the _CGEL_ is contrasting open and remote, and using them as technical terms. In 'unless he had tripped', we know he didn't, so the condition is impossible, and consequently so is using 'unless'. In the _CGEL_ example, it is still possible, but expresses a remote possibility. The implicature perhaps is that the plan is unlikely to work, but there is a possibility that it will, enough for me to say I think it is feasible.


----------



## Edinburgher

The thing is that "unless" is generally explained simply as equivalent to "if not".  That's why "unless I thought it was feasible" means "if I didn't think it was feasible" and the two are equivalent.  We can write one or the other, it doesn't matter.
In the other thread, going by the simple rule, "unless he had tripped" should mean "if he had not tripped".  These ought to be equivalent, but they aren't.  Or maybe they are, but only the if-version is idiomatic.
_Unless he had tripped, he would have won. 
If he had not tripped, he would have won. _

What are the differences between the tripping and thinking examples?  One is that the thinking one is a 2nd conditional and the tripping one is a 3rd conditional, but I don't think that's the key here.
Observe, though, that in one case the apodosis (the consequence part of the conditional) is positive (he would have won) while in the other it is negative (I would *not* suggest the plan).
I suspect that is what makes "unless" unpalatable.  Let's try it:

_If he had not tripped, he would not have lost. 
Unless he had tripped, he would not have lost. _

I think it works like that.


----------



## DonnyB

Please remember that in this thread, we're discussing the topic sentence "I wouldn't suggest such a plan unless I thought it was feasible".  Thanks!  DonnyB - moderator.


----------



## JungKim

entangledbank said:


> I think the problem is that that earlier thread is contrasting open and impossible, whereas the _CGEL_ is contrasting open and remote, and using them as technical terms. In 'unless he had tripped', we know he didn't, so the condition is impossible, and consequently so is using 'unless'. In the _CGEL_ example, it is still possible, but expresses a remote possibility. The implicature perhaps is that the plan is unlikely to work, but there is a possibility that it will, enough for me to say I think it is feasible.



Then, how about this one?
_I *wouldn't have suggested* such a plan unless I *had thought* it was feasible._
Here, we know "I didn't think it was feasible", so the condition is impossible, and consequently so is using 'unless'. <-- Am I on the right track?


----------



## Edinburgher

JungKim said:


> Here, we know "I didn't think it was feasible",


 That is incorrect.  We know "I *did* think it was feasible".
"Unless I had thought" means "if I had not thought".  This is a straightforward 3rd conditional, albeit one in which both protasis and apodosis are negated.
In a 3rd conditional, the protasis is presumed false and the apodosis is asserted to be false.

The sentence in effect means "I suggested it because I thought it was feasible".
The use of "unless" is perfectly good.


----------



## JungKim

Thanks, Edinburgher.
So, in order for the remote conditional (either Type II or III conditionals in traditional grammar) to use 'unless', the apodosis should be in the negative. Is that what you're saying?

Then, these sentences shouldn't work, right?
_I would suggest such a plan unless I thought it was unfeasible. 
I would suggest such a plan unless I didn't think it was feasible. 
I would have suggested such a plan unless I had thought it was unfeasible. 
I would have suggested such a plan unless I hadn't thought it was feasible. _


----------



## Edinburgher

Well, it's true that all those four examples don't work, but they don't work with "if not" either, because the logic is wrong, so they don't really illustrate the point I was making.
Incidentally, it's best to avoid "unless not".  It creates a confusing double negative.


----------



## JungKim

Edinburgher said:


> Well, it's true that all those four examples don't work, but they don't work with "if not" either, because the logic is wrong, so they don't really illustrate the point I was making.


I don't understand why the logic is wrong.
If 'unless' is replaced with 'if not' as you have said, the four are as follows:
_I would suggest such a plan if I didn't think it was unfeasible. 
I would suggest such a plan if I thought it was feasible. 
I would have suggested such a plan if I hadn't thought it was unfeasible.
I would have suggested such a plan if I had thought it was feasible._

The first and third are semantically 'double negative', but syntactically, they're not.
Besides, I don't think 'double negative' is wrong per se, especially if the two negations are cancelled out as in the first and third examples.
And even if the first and third are not terribly natural, what's wrong with the logic of the second and fourth examples?


----------



## Edinburgher

JungKim said:


> I don't understand why the logic is wrong.


The logic is wrong because it doesn't make sense to suggest a plan that you know isn't feasible.


----------



## JungKim

Edinburgher said:


> The logic is wrong because it doesn't make sense to suggest a plan that you know isn't feasible.


Sorry about being stupid on my part, but I just don't get it.
Which of the four do you think suggest(s) a plan that you know isn't feasible?

For example, the second one (_I would suggest such a plan if I thought it was feasible_) can mean that, in the actual world, I won't suggest a plan that I don't think is feasible.


----------



## Edinburgher

JungKim said:


> Which of the four do you think suggest(s) a plan that you know isn't feasible?


I'm sorry, I didn't read the examples properly.  The logic is only wrong in 1 and 3.
In 2 and 4 the double negative confuses matters.  If  "unless not" is decoded, it becomes first "if not not" and then "if".
Then the logic is right, and you are right: those two examples do illustrate my point, but they are unrealistic examples because "unless not" is not a combination we would naturally make.
Instead we would choose an antonym to give the negative effect:

"If he doesn't come" is equivalent to "unless he comes".
"If he comes" is equivalent to "unless he doesn't come", but we would not say that.  We'd perhaps say "unless he stays away".


----------



## siares

In my opinion, all those work, if we change I/I for John and Sarah.
1) Sarah values John's opinion. If he thinks her plan is unfeasible, it would make her less certain to suggest it to the boss.
*Sarah would suggest such a plan - unless John thought it was unfeasible.* 
2) Sarah has low opinion of John and usually does the opposite to him. If he thinks her plan is feasible, it would make her less certain to suggest it to the boss.
*Sarah would suggest such a plan - unless John thought it was feasible.*

(I couldn't have picked a worse example to analyse 'unless' with if I tried.)


----------



## Forero

Part of the issue here is the use of past perfect for concurrence rather than priority:

_She would have acted cautiously had the man not been her friend._ [at that time]
_She would have acted cautiously unless the man were her friend._ [at that time]
_She would have acted cautiously unless the man *had* been her friend._ [before that]

OK: _I would have steered clear of such a plan had it not been obvious to me_ _that it was feasible._
OK: _I would have steered clear of such a plan unless it were obvious to me_ _that it was feasible._
Confusing: _I would have steered clear of such a plan unless it *had* been obvious to me that it was feasible.
_
OK: _I would have steered clear of such a plan unless I thought it was feasible._
Confusing: _I would have steered clear of such a plan unless I *had* thought it was feasible._

OK: _I wouldn't have suggested such a plan unless I thought it was feasible._
Confusing: _I wouldn't have suggested such a plan unless I *had* thought it was feasible.

OK: Had he not tripped, he would have won.
OK: Unless he tripped, he would have won.
Confusing: Unless he *had* tripped, he would have won.
_


----------



## siares

Forero said:


> Part of the issue here is the use of past perfect for concurrence rather than priority:


Can you think of a sentence you would use with non-concurrent events? Would you say this?:
_Sarah wouldn't have suggested such a plan unless John *had* proclaimed it feasible._


----------



## Forero

siares said:


> Can you think of a sentence you would use with non-concurrent events?


My "had been her friend" sentence was supposed to be an example.





> Would you say this?:
> _Sarah wouldn't have suggested such a plan unless John *had* proclaimed it feasible._


That makes sense to me.


----------



## JungKim

Edinburgher said:


> I'm sorry, I didn't read the examples properly.  The logic is only wrong in 1 and 3.
> In 2 and 4 the double negative confuses matters.  If  "unless not" is decoded, it becomes first "if not not" and then "if".
> Then the logic is right, and you are right: those two examples do illustrate my point, but they are unrealistic examples because "unless not" is not a combination we would naturally make.
> Instead we would choose an antonym to give the negative effect:
> 
> "If he doesn't come" is equivalent to "unless he comes".
> "If he comes" is equivalent to "unless he doesn't come", but we would not say that.  We'd perhaps say "unless he stays away".



Let me get this straight.
When you said, "The logic is only wrong in 1 and 3" and "In 2 and 4 the double negative confuses matters", you're talking about the sentences with _unless_, right?

If so, does this mean that your theory that the apodosis should be in the negative in an remote conditional using _unless_ is now untenable?


----------



## JungKim

Forero said:


> Part of the issue here is the use of past perfect for concurrence rather than priority:
> 
> _She would have acted cautiously had the man not been her friend._ [at that time]
> _She would have acted cautiously unless the man were her friend._ [at that time]
> _She would have acted cautiously unless the man *had* been her friend._ [before that]
> ...



In your "[before that] example" (_She would have acted cautiously unless the man *had* been her friend_), what does the past perfect (_had been_) express? Does it express a prior past event in a potentially hypothetical world or a prior past event in the actual world?


----------



## Forero

JungKim said:


> In your "[before that] example" (_She would have acted cautiously unless the man *had* been her friend_), what does the past perfect (_had been_) express? Does it express a prior past event in a potentially hypothetical world or a prior past event in the actual world?


I see it as prior to the imaginary time expressed by "unless the man were her friend".


----------



## JungKim

Forero said:


> I see it as prior to the imaginary time expressed by "unless the man were her friend".


Do you find that sentence "confusing" or not?
_She would have acted cautiously unless the man *had* been her friend._ [before that]

Also, it's not clear to me when you say 'before that', what does 'that' refer to?
Her acting cautiously?


----------



## Edinburgher

JungKim said:


> Let me get this straight.
> When you said, "The logic is only wrong in 1 and 3" and "In 2 and 4 the double negative confuses matters", you're talking about the sentences with _unless_, right?


 I'm talking about the four sentences in your posts #17 (with _unless_) and #19 (with _if not_).  Since the sentences in #17 and #19 are equivalent, the logic is wrong in the first and third sentences in both posts.
I'm talking  about the double negative "unless not" in the second and fourth sentences.  There is also a  double negative "unless unfeasible" (it should be _*in*feasible_, by the way), in sentences 1 and 3, but I'm ignoring those because of the logic problem.


> If so, does this mean that your theory that the apodosis should be in the negative in an remote conditional using _unless_ is now untenable?


On the contrary.  I meant that because 2 and 4 work in #19, but not in #17, this agrees with my theory (that _unless_ doesn't combine well with a positive apodosis).


----------



## PaulQ

JungKim said:


> Now, an earlier thread says _Unless he had tripped, he would have won _is impossible English,


I am not convinced that this is so.

A: “I hear that John ran in yesterday’s marathon – do you know how he did?”
B: “He probably won. He’s the best in the UK.”
A: “Really? Is he that good?”
B: “Yes, _Unless he had tripped, or something bad had happened, he would have won.”_


----------



## Edinburgher

PaulQ said:


> B: “Yes, _Unless he had tripped, or something bad had happened, he would have won.”_


That doesn't feel right as a third conditional.  "He would have won" (where "would" isn't used in the sense of past habit) implies that he did not win, and states that he would have won, were it not for the fact that he did actually trip.

What would work in your context is "Unless he tripped, or something bad happened {i.e. without the "had"s}, he *will* have won."  You are expressing your confident supposition that he did win.
.


----------



## PaulQ

The certainty in the belief of John's winning is reduced by the use of "would" to reflect "probably won" in the second line.


----------



## Forero

JungKim said:


> Do you find that sentence "confusing" or not?
> _She would have acted cautiously unless the man *had* been her friend._ [before that]


No. I think the meaning is clear.





> Also, it's not clear to me when you say 'before that', what does 'that' refer to?
> Her acting cautiously?


Yes.


----------



## siares

Thank you, Forero.


PaulQ said:


> A: “I hear that John ran in yesterday’s marathon – do you know how he did?”
> B: “He probably won. He’s the best in the UK.”
> A: “Really? Is he that good?”
> B: “Yes, _Unless he had tripped, or something bad had happened, he would have won.”_


This is speculation about an unknown outcome.
Is it equally possible as a speculation about the known outcome? In fiction as part of a narrative? Especially in reversed word order. See sentences in b in past perfect) below:
_
*a)*
Sarah will not suggest the plan unless John proclaims it feasible.
We will not make it on time unless the petrol holds - but I don't think it will._
a in past perfect)
_Sarah wouldn't have suggested such a plan unless John had proclaimed it feasible - which he did, so she suggested the plan.
 Unless the petrol lasted, we would not have made it on time - but it did, so we were on time.

*b)*
Sarah will suggest the plan - unless John proclaims it infeasible.
We will definitely be on time / not be late - unless we run out of petrol._
    (This a level of abstraction up turns into nonsense: _A car will never stop unless petrol runs out.)
_
*b in past perfect)*
_Sarah would have suggested the plan, unless John had proclaimed it infeasible -  but he did, so she didn't suggest the plan._
_Unless we had run out of petrol, we would have been on time- but we had run out, so we weren't on time._


----------



## PaulQ

*a)*
I assume that you mean:

_Sarah would not have suggested the plan at the meeting unless John had agreed, in advance, that it is/was/would be, etc., feasible. _

_Unless the petrol lasted, we would not have made it on time - but it did, so we were on time. _

_Unless the petrol had lasted, we would not have made it on time - but it did, so we were on time. _


*b)*
_Sarah will suggest the plan at the meeting - unless John proclaims it, in advance, to be infeasible.

We will definitely be on time / not be late - unless we run out of petrol. _


> (This a level of abstraction up turns into nonsense: _A car will never stop unless petrol runs out.)_


 In England we have traffic jams, punctures, electrical faults in cars, accidents, and other woes, all of which would prevent us from getting there on time. I would describe the statement as shallow and optimistic speculation.


----------



## siares

Thank you, PaulQ.


PaulQ said:


> *a)*
> I assume that you mean:


Yes.


PaulQ said:


> *b)*
> _Sarah will suggest the plan at the meeting - unless John proclaims it, in advance, to be infeasible.
> We will definitely be on time / not be late - unless we run out of petrol. _


Would you have a look also at these:
*b in past perfect)*
_- Sarah would have suggested the plan at the meeting, unless John had proclaimed it, in advance, to be infeasible - but he did proclaim it infeasible, so she didn't suggest the plan.*?*
- Unless we had run out of petrol, we would have been on time- but we had run out, so we weren't on time.*?*_
- _Unless he had tripped, he would have won - but he had tripped, so he didn't win.* ?
*_


PaulQ said:


> I would describe the statement as shallow and optimistic speculation.


So can we have that optimism in past perfect?
(In Hansard, I only found examples of a) in past perfect so far - I think! Most of them from 19th century.)


----------



## JungKim

Edinburgher said:


> I'm talking about the four sentences in your posts #17 (with _unless_) and #19 (with _if not_).  Since the sentences in #17 and #19 are equivalent, the logic is wrong in the first and third sentences in both posts.


For the sake of argument, let's assume that 'unless' is equivalent in logic to 'if not', which technically I don't think it is.

You say that, although the second and fourth sentences in both posts do not have any logic problem, the first and third sentences in both posts have got the logic wrong.

But I don't understand why that is so, because, for example, the first and second sentences have the same logic except that the former has a semantic double negative issue, which isn't a logic problem per se.

Here're the first and second sentences in post #19:
_I would suggest such a plan if I didn't think it was unfeasible. 
I would suggest such a plan if I thought it was feasible. _

If the second one doesn't have a logic problem, neither should the first one, because in both sentences "I" am saying that, in the real world, the plan is not feasible, and that "I" will not suggest it. No??



Edinburgher said:


> I'm talking  about the double negative "unless not" in the second and fourth sentences.  There is also a  double negative "unless unfeasible" (it should be _*in*feasible_, by the way), in sentences 1 and 3, but I'm ignoring those because of the logic problem.


I think that, when a double negative leads to a positive statement by cancelling out the negatives, such a double negative is legit when there's appropriate context that allows such a double negative. (On a side note, I believe both _*un*feasible_ and _*in*feasible_ are correct, per this thread "unfeasible vs infeasible".)



Edinburgher said:


> If so, does this mean that your theory that the apodosis should be in the negative in an remote conditional using _unless_ is now untenable?
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary.  I meant that because 2 and 4 work in #19, but not in #17, this agrees with my theory (that _unless_ doesn't combine well with a positive apodosis).
Click to expand...

Here're sentences 2 and 4 in post #17:
2. _I would suggest such a plan unless I didn't think it was feasible. _
4. _I would have suggested such a plan unless I hadn't thought it was feasible. _

The only reasoning by which you rejected sentences 2 and 4 in post #17 was this:


Edinburgher said:


> In 2 and 4 the double negative confuses matters.  If  "unless not" is decoded, it becomes first "if not not" and then "if".
> Then the logic is right, and you are right: those two examples do illustrate my point, but they are unrealistic examples because "unless not" is not a combination we would naturally make.
> Instead we would choose an antonym to give the negative effect:
> 
> "If he doesn't come" is equivalent to "unless he comes".
> "If he comes" is equivalent to "unless he doesn't come", but we would not say that.  We'd perhaps say "unless he stays away".



In a nutshell, you're saying above that 2 and 4 in #17 don't work, just because of the negative within the unless-clause (i.e., protasis). That is, your rejection of 2 and 4 in #17 is only based on the polarity of the protasis and is never based on that of the apodosis.

But now, you concludes that the rejection of 2 and 4 in #17 goes to show that


> ...because 2 and 4 work in #19, but not in #17, this agrees with my theory (that _unless_ doesn't combine well with a positive apodosis).


I'm afraid I don't think you can do that.

And that's why I can come up with sentences with basically the same logic with an opposite polarity in the apodosis:
2a. _I would not scrap such a plan unless I didn't think it was feasible. _
4a. _I would not have scrapped such a plan unless I hadn't thought it was feasible. _
Here, I've simply switched 'suggest' into 'not scrap' in the apodosis, so the entire logic remains virtually intact, albeit more convoluted.

But now that you have a negative polarity apodosis, sentences 2a and 4a should work, but they don't, as your rejection of them can still be based on the double negative in the protasis (unless + not).


----------



## Edinburgher

JungKim said:


> You say that, although the second and fourth sentences in both posts do not have any logic problem, the first and third sentences in both posts have got the logic wrong.
> But I don't understand why that is so, because, for example, the first and second sentences have the same logic except that the former has a semantic double negative issue, which isn't a logic problem per se.
> If the second one doesn't have a logic problem, neither should the first one, because in both sentences "I" am saying that, in the real world, the plan is not feasible, and that "I" will not suggest it. No??


You're right, of course.  All these double negatives, in combination with my having the negative apodosis at the back of my mind ("I wouldn't suggest such a plan"), had muddled up my thinking.  I'm terribly sorry, and thank you for your kind patience.


> I think that, when a double negative leads to a positive statement by cancelling out the negatives, such a double negative is legit when there's appropriate context that allows such a double negative.


Agreed.


> (On a side note, I believe both _*un*feasible_ and _*in*feasible_ are correct, per this thread "unfeasible vs infeasible".)


Fair enough.  I'm more familiar with _infeasible_, and subjectively _unfeasible_ just "looks wrong" to me.  But Ngrams shows that the former is only twice as popular as the latter, which isn't enough to call the latter wrong.


> In a nutshell, you're saying above *(A)* that 2 and 4 in #17 don't work, just because the negative within the unless-clause (i.e., protasis). That is, your rejection of 2 and 4 in #17 is only based on the protasis containing "not", and is never based on the polarity of the apodosis.
> But now, you conclude *(B)* that the rejection of 2 and 4 in #17 goes to show that "because 2 and 4 work in #19, but not in #17, this agrees with my theory (that _unless_ doesn't combine well with a positive apodosis)". I'm afraid I don't think you can do that.


Well, yes, (A) and (B) seem to contradict each other.  I meant (B).  That you thought I meant (A) is probably due to my not expressing myself very well.
My "theory", which I proposed in #13, was that the absence of an explicit negative in the apodosis might be a possible explanation for why one would intuitively reject
_Unless he had tripped, he would have won. _
but not reject the logically equivalent
_ If he had not tripped, he would have won. _
They both have positive apodoses, but one uses _unless_ while the other uses _if not_.  But, in contrast, the other two examples,
_If he had not tripped, he would not have lost. 
Unless he had tripped, he would not have lost. _
both work, and use an explicit "not" in their apodoses.

In #17, you gave four examples that you said should not work if my theory is correct.  And indeed it is true that those examples don't work.  My criticism was just that they are not good evidence in favour of my theory, because their positive apodoses are not the only reason they don't work.  They don't work, I said incorrectly, because the logic is wrong, and/or, correctly, because they sound confusing.


> But now that you have a negative polarity apodosis, sentences 2a and 4a should work, but they don't, as your rejection of them can still be based on the double negative in the protasis (unless + not).


I'd say that, purely in terms of the acceptability of _unless_, 2a and 4a do work.  However, they don't work well because they still sound confusing, mainly because of the _unless+not_ combination.
An improvement might be:
2b. _I would not scrap such a plan unless I thought it was infeasible. _
and a corresponding 4b.  It seems somehow easier to digest if the explicit "not" is replaced by "in-" (or "un-").


> For the sake of argument, let's assume that 'unless' is equivalent in logic to 'if not', which technically I don't think it is.


Right.  "Unless" does, in certain contexts, mean exactly "if not", but more generally and more often, I guess it means "except if" or "except when".  This subtle but significant difference may stand a better chance of leading to an explanation of why "unless" sometimes doesn't fit well, than my "theory", which is clearly not very watertight.


----------



## JungKim

Thank you, Edinburgher, for taking the time to read my rather long posts and respond point by point, and eventually getting on the same page with me. I really appreciate it.



Edinburgher said:


> "Unless" does, in certain contexts, mean exactly "if not", but more generally and more often, I guess it means "except if" or "except when".  This subtle but significant difference may stand a better chance of leading to an explanation of why "unless" sometimes doesn't fit well, than my "theory", which is clearly not very watertight.


I think this is a very important point, although I'm not sure how this exact meaning of 'unless' translates into the varied acceptability of 'unless' being used in different remote condtional constructions, which is exactly where I started.


----------



## siares

To keep on with the OP sentence:
_Unless he had thought it feasible, he would not have suggested the plan._
parallel to


Edinburgher said:


> Unless he had tripped, he would not have lost.


I instintively read this as: Without tripping, he would not have had any chance of losing.
What's your instinctive reading, JungKim?

(I think different remote conditionals are dependent on where the negation is put in the sentence, where 'unless' itself isn't, and my theory is this:
1) In the absence of X, Y definitely *will* happen. (Not acceptable in past conditionals.)
2) In the absence of X, Y definitely *will not* happen (Acceptable))


----------



## JungKim

siares said:


> (I think different remote conditionals are dependent on where the negation is put in the sentence, where 'unless' itself isn't, and my theory is this:
> 1) In the absence of X, Y definitely *will* happen. (Not acceptable in past conditionals.)
> 2) In the absence of X, Y definitely *will not* happen (Acceptable))


I think that the more usual construction is putting the protasis starting with _unless_ after the apodosis.

So if your theory is to be any useful, the following sentences should be treated as follows:
_He would not have suggested the plan unless he had thought it was feasible.
He would not have agreed to the plan unless he had thought it was feasible.
He would have objected to the plan unless he had thought it was feasible.
He would have rejected the plan unless he had thought it was feasible._

But is this treatment that depends solely on the polarity really justified?
Even if it is, how about this example approved by Forero in post #35?
_She would have acted cautiously unless the man had been her friend._
Where the apodosis is in the positive.


----------



## siares

JungKim said:


> But is this treatment depending solely on the polarity really justified?


Polarity of apodosis/protasis is irrelevant. I meant different thing with notX and notY. It is hard with verbs which are never true antonyms; and impossible with OP scrap-suggest the plan.
1a) Your relative will die - unless we give him transfusion. (If the patient dies even after being given a transfusion, you can't sue the doctor.)
1b) Your relative will not survive - unless we give him transfusion.
2a) Your relative will survive - unless we fail to give him transfusion. (If the patient dies even after being given a transfusion, you can sue.)
2b) Your relative will not die - unless we fail to give him transfusion.

I say 1) and 2) cannot be put equally into past conditionals - If they are, I will read them differently, just as I read this one differently to how it was meant:
Unless he had tripped, he would not have lost.  (my read: Without tripping, he would not have had any chance of losing.)
(How did you read it?)


JungKim said:


> She would have acted cautiously unless the man had been her friend.


Thank you, I will think about this!


----------



## JungKim

siares said:


> Polarity of apodosis/protasis is irrelevant. I meant different thing with notX and notY.


As far as I know you've been talking about polarity all along, and now you say it's "irrelevant"?? [...]
[Edited for tone.  DonnyB - moderator]
Just to remind you what you've said:


siares said:


> I think different remote conditionals are dependent on *where the negation is put in the sentence, where 'unless' itself isn't*


If the boldfaced portion doesn't refer to the polarity of the apodosis/protasis, I don't know what does.



siares said:


> It is hard with verbs which are never true antonyms; and impossible with OP scrap-suggest the plan.


None of the four examples in post #43 is meant to be a "true antonym" of anything.
And none has to be a "true antonym" of anything, as long as each example is logically sound in its own right.



siares said:


> Unless he had tripped, he would not have lost.  (my read: Without tripping, he would not have had any chance of losing.)
> (How did you read it?)


If my reading were anything I could rely on, I wouldn't have had to post the question here, would I?
I would have just asked myself, and saved myself and others a whole lot of trouble. 

That said, if I could ever use that sentence, it'd not be because it had the negative apodosis but because I could use it not necessarily as a counterfactual situation but as a hypothetical situation potentially different from the real world, the hypothetical situation possibly proving to be happening in the real world depending on context.

And since the polarity of the apodosis doesn't matter in this view -- or that of the protasis for that matter -- I don't see why you can't say _Unless he had tripped, he would have won_, as long as you don't presume a counterfactual situation, which apparently isn't in accordance with the judgment of most native speakers here (possibly except for PaulQ?). Thus, I'm back to square one.


----------



## siares

JungKim said:


> If my reading were anything I could rely on,


But I feel curious about your reading nonetheless... 


JungKim said:


> If the boldfaced portion doesn't refer to the polarity of the apodosis/protasis, I don't know what does.


Yes of course it does. Sorry I wasn't clear before.
Statements can be divided into n groups using different criteria.
Criterium 1) how their logic ties with 'unless' 
Criterium 2) how the polarity of apodosis/protasis affects their past conditionals.

It is like in an example I read about a planet where all objects are either round or rectangular; and all objects are either red or green - but those groups don't overlap.
There are colourblind people living on the planet and they ask the non-colour blind people: Why are you talking about differences between these two objects? They are both round!!!

Where causality does not get it the way, we can talk about pure logic of'unless', like in logical puzzles :
C will be in place A, unless D is in place B. / Z will not be in place A, unless W is not in place B. 
C would have been in A, unless D had been in B. etc.

And in the absence of causality, I think your Cambridge definition is correct. They just chose a poor example (printer) to illustrate it. In real life, there will only be bad examples for _except if_ usage. Only in abstrations in exact sciences, in nature laws / formulas, can we say 'Under such and such conditions, Y will definitely happen'.
Since in both your threads causality does get in the way, (trip - win; think feasible - propose), I think it is impossible to separate criteria 1) and 2); and speak about pure logic of 'unless' - because EO requires context.

In real life, these two statements are not possible to pack into one sentence:
Under certain condition, Y will definitely happen.
Under opposite of that condition, Y definitely will not happen.


----------



## JungKim

siares said:


> And in the absence of causality, I think your Cambridge definition is correct. They just chose a poor example (printer) to illustrate it. In real life, there will only be bad examples for _except if_ usage. Only in abstrations in exact sciences, in nature laws / formulas, can we say 'Under such and such conditions, Y will definitely happen'.


I respectfully disagree with your opinion that the 'printer' example of CGEL is a poor choice, or that CGEL's reading of 'unless' is somehow not applicable to the real-world examples. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "causality" getting in the way, but CGEL shows quite a lot of real-world "unless" examples taken from a real-world corpus. 

If you're saying that CGEL's analysis of 'unless' -- or of any other expression for that matter -- is somehow out of touch with real aspects of English, that's far too bold a statement to make.


----------



## siares

JungKim said:


> If you're saying that CGEL's analysis of 'unless' -- or of any other expression for that matter -- is somehow out of touch with real aspects of English,


Out of touch with logic - as Myridon explained. And native speakers often are not strictly logical; and not all uses of 'unless' are strictly logical. The printer example (_except if_ use) isn't. 

You haven't quoted 'rule' or example for if...not use (for sentence like TT's unless study hard - not pass), it would be interesting to have!!


----------



## Dreambliss

Regarding the sentence--"he would have win unless he had tripped", I don't think it's impossible.

Consider: He didn't participate he race, and if he had participated, he would have win unless he had tripped.

In the above context, the sentence makes perfect sense.


----------

