# if it were possible



## HSS

Hi,

It looks like 'if it were possible' here is the second conditional clause, but 'Blue reached out ...' is a factual clause. Why is 'if it were possible' needed here? If Blue reached out to a greater lead, that's what happened, and 'if it were possible now' sounds so out of place.



> Blue just smiled back, Gavin got down, Mr. Tisdale and I and Miss Edna froze in our positions in the tableau, the full silence fell again, and Junie raised the little pistol and called them to their marks once more.
> 
> _Bang!_ And this time, *if it were possible*, Blue reached out to an even greater early lead. It was as if Gavin was so intimidated by what he knew was coming that he let himself be shamed all the more.
> ('Everybody's All-American' by Frank Deford)


----------



## owlman5

HSS said:


> Why is 'if it were possible' needed here?


I'm not sure that it is.  This seems to be Deford's way of saying that Blue's performance was surprising -- so surprising that it almost seemed impossible.


----------



## HSS

Hi, do you think this is almost like 'as if it were possible'? (He achieved it so this is illogical still)


----------



## owlman5

Hi, Hiro.  I think you have the right idea.  The use of that phrase in that sentence seems to be a Defordian oddity.


----------



## HSS

Hello, owlman.

Good to know I'm on the right track.

Hiro


----------



## wandle

> *if it were possible*, Blue reached out to an even greater early lead


This is an illogical and strictly ungrammatical expression, but it is one which is accepted in literary English.
The actual meaning is: Blue reached out to an extent which would have been even greater, if that were possible.
The shorter expression is used in order to avoid the clumsiness and inelegance of the full statement.


----------



## HSS

wandle said:


> Blue reached out to an extent which would have been even greater, if that were possible.


Hello, wandle. How are you? Fine I hope.

Thanks, but your paraphrase is still illogical, isn't it? 'If that were possible' is in other words 'that was impossible.' And that and 'Blue *reached out* to the extent' do not match.


----------



## wandle

wandle said:


> Blue reached out to an extent which would have been even greater, if that were possible.


This statement is logical. 
It says that he did reach out to a great extent: and his effort was such that if a greater extent were possible (in fact, it was not), he would have achieved a greater extent (in fact, he did not).


----------



## e2efour

_If that were possible_ is not the same as saying _that was impossible. _It might be impossible in the speaker's mind, but this does not follows automatically.

The use of _were_ makes the action tentative or unlikely, not impossible.
The use of _was_ (if it was possible) would be an open condition, where it could be either possible or impossible, or something in between.


----------



## wandle

The use of 'were' makes it part of an implied unreal (closed, hypothetical) conditional and since it refers to the past, that means the writer believes that the condition was not fulfilled: i.e (in this case) that it was not possible.


----------



## HSS

Thanks for your effort to get me to see it in-depth, both of you. Much appreciated.

wandle:
If it was not possible, wouldn't it have been 'Blue *would have* reached out to an extent which would have been even greater, if that were possible' because if it was not possible, then he could not have reached such an extent?

e2efour:
So could it be close to 'Blue reached out to an extent which would have been even so praised because it might have been very difficult' or something?


----------



## wandle

HSS said:


> wouldn't it have been 'Blue *would have* reached out to an extent which would have been even greater, if that were possible'


No, the hypothetical (unreal) element should only be expressed once, not twice.
To make it a logical statement, the choice is either: (a) 'did reach out to an extent which would have been even greater, if that were possible' or (b) 'would have reached out, if it were possible, to an extent which was even greater'.


----------



## e2efour

As you noted in #1, _Blue reached out _is a factual statement. It cannot be turned into _Blue would have reached out to an even greater early lead.
_
It's just a way of saying that what he did seemed extraordinary, as owlman suggested in #2. We could replace the phrase in question by _if possible_ or _if it makes sense to say this/if it is no exaggeration to say this._


----------



## SevenDays

HSS said:


> Hi,
> 
> It looks like 'if it were possible' here is the second conditional clause, but 'Blue reached out ...' is a factual clause. Why is 'if it were possible' needed here? If Blue reached out to a greater lead, that's what happened, and 'if it were possible now' sounds so out of place.



Consider this: rather than being a conditional sentence, "if it were possible" is a _comment clause_. A "comment clause" is simply a _commentary_, by the narrator, on whatever is being described (in this case, Deford's opinion that Blue's performance is surprising, as has been noted). There's nothing unusual, illogical or ungrammatical about this. In fact, _comment clauses_ are rather common in narration and in speech. These comment clause are also known as _fillers_, because they are _optional_, which means they can be left out. There are lots of comment clauses/fillers that could be used in your example, depending on the type of comment intended:

And this time, _if it were possible_, Blue reached out to an ever greater lead.
And this time, _to be sure_, Blue reached out to an ever greater lead
And this time, _wouldn't you know_, Blue reached out to an even greater lead
And this time _it so happens that_ Blue reached out to an even greater lead
etc.

Such use is a stylistic/rhetorical device, which is how it should be analyzed.


----------



## wandle

Post 14 seems to be saying that the conditional construction of 'if it were possible' should not be taken into account.
The right approach in my view (as in post 6 and following) is one which conserves the construction and accounts for the meaning.
This does justice both to the language and to the student, rather than ignoring the syntax.


----------



## PaulQ

> _Bang!_ And this time, *if it were possible*, Blue reached out to an even greater early lead.


Is usually expressed as "if *that *were possible" and expresses astonishment by indicating that that, despite the evidence that can be seen, the event nevertheless occurred to that remarkable (unbelievable) extent.

John's dog chased the sheep. John saw this and he shouted so loudly that my ears hurt, and when the dog continued to chase the sheep, he shouted, *if it/that were possible*, even louder."


----------



## HSS

Thanks, all. I currently can't stay in this forum too long. I'll take a sleep on this. I need time to digest it. Meanwhile I thank you profusely.

Hiro


----------



## SevenDays

wandle said:


> Post 14 seems to be saying that the conditional construction of 'if it were possible' should not be taken into account.
> The right approach in my view (as in post 6 and following) is one which conserves the construction and accounts for the meaning.
> This does justice both to the language and to the student, rather than ignoring the syntax.



Of course the construction "if it were possible" should be taken into account, but (in my analysis) as a _comment clause_ and not as a conditional sentence.


----------



## wandle

SevenDays said:


> as a _comment clause_ and not as a conditional sentence.


Obviously the clause is a comment, because it expresses an opinion of the writer.

However, to say that it is a comment clause _and not_ a conditional means that we have to deny the grammatical significance of 'if' followed by the subjunctive 'were'. That construction is used to express a hypothetical (unreal, closed) condition and that is what the author has given us.

If we deny that, we deprive the words of their intended significance and role in the sentence, leaving the clause a shell, drained of meaning.


----------



## SevenDays

I call "if it were possible" a _comment clause_ simply because the statement expresses surprise, same as something like "wouldn't you know" (and I wouldn't call "wouldn't you know" a conditional sentence either). The _comment clause_ is what it is, a statement in and of itself, and isn't a reduced form of anything. By contrast, calling "if it were possible" a conditional sentence forces one to accept several assumptions: (1) that "if it were possible" is the reduced form of a larger conditional structure; (2) that, as written, "if it were possible" is _illogical _and _ungrammatical _(post #6); (3) that the comment clause needs to be rewritten so that it "fits" a conditional sentence pattern. I don't know if William of Ockham considered himself a linguist, but I follow _Ockham's razor_: of competing hypotheses, I go with the one that makes the _fewest _assumptions.

Of course, what to call "if it were possible" is irrelevant; what matters, in sentence structure, is that the phrasing works. To me, in the paragraph quoted, "if it were possible" works, both grammatically and stylistically.


----------



## e2efour

I agree with SevenDays.

It seems obvious to me that the phrase _if it were possible_ is a parenthetical remark which, although it appears in a conditional, does not in itself amount to a condition in the normal sense of the word.

This type of conditional sentence has been called by Declerck & Reed a _metalinguistic P-conditional_: "In this type of *commenting*-P *rhetorical* conditional, *the P-clause* *comments on the form of the Q-clause*, on the choice of words in it or on the pronunciation of a word." (my bolding)

Examples given by the authors:
1)_ "_She values her 'privesi', if that's the correct way of pronouncing the word."
_2) "_Mr Milner's animus towards Mr Stevens, if indeed it may be called that, was a recent development, brought on by their conflict over Miss Radovich." _(There is a downtoning connotation here: the implication is that calling the negative feelings of Mr Milner towards Mr Stevens 'animus ' may be too strong.)_​
However this phrase (whether or not an appropriate one) is classified, it cannot, _if I may say so,_ be subsumed under the "normal" type of remote conditional.


----------



## wandle

SevenDays said:


> what to call "if it were possible" is irrelevant; what matters, in sentence structure, is that the phrasing works.


 It does matter what we call the clause: the grammatical analysis and the teaching of language both depend upon reasonably consistent terminology.


SevenDays said:


> as a _comment clause_ and not as a conditional sentence


Correct me if I have misunderstood that quote, but saying that 'if it were possible' is not a conditional does seem to be saying that in this case 'if' does not mean 'if' (that is, it does not set up a condition) and 'were' is not the subjunctive 'were' (that is, it does not make the condition an unreal or hypothetical one).





SevenDays said:


> I follow _Ockham's razor_: of competing hypotheses, I go with the one that makes the _fewest _assumptions.


The principle of economy (Ockham's razor) is not that the simplest hypothesis, or the one making fewest assumptions, is preferable: it is that the simplest hypothesis that explains the facts is preferable. Saying that 'if' and 'were' do not have their true meaning is not explaining the facts: it is denying them. These are the very terms that *HSS *is enquiring about:


HSS said:


> It looks like 'if it were possible' here is the second conditional clause





SevenDays said:


> To me, in the paragraph quoted, "if it were possible" works, both grammatically and stylistically.


If the words do not carry their true meaning, how can the clause work and what does it mean? How can it express surprise (or indeed anything) in that case?


e2efour said:


> This type of conditional sentence has been called by Declerck & Reed a _metalinguistic P-conditional_: "In this type of *commenting*-P *rhetorical* conditional, *the P-clause* *comments on the form of the Q-clause*, on the choice of words in it or on the pronunciation of a word."


But the clause 'if it were possible' is not a meta-linguistic comment. It is part of the narrative discourse (it addresses a factual issue in the story).
The examples given in post 21 are different. They are really meta-linguistic (the speaker comments on his own language).
They are also real (open) conditions, unlike the topic clause, which is an unreal (closed, hypothetical) condition.

The examples of comment clauses given for comparison in post 14 do not seem to me to be relevant either. 
They are not conditions at all (this does at least seem to confirm my understanding that posts 14 and 18 are saying that the topic clause is not a conditional).

In short, with respect, neither of the above approaches seems to me to address the issue of explaining the unreal (closed) condition 'if it were possible'.


----------



## e2efour

We read in a description of Central Park and a movie about a dentist:

In "Marathon Man," Dustin Hoffman confronts Lawrence Olivier, whose villainy gave a worse name to dentistry, *if that were possible*, and to the park.” (comma added after “possible”)
(Soul of the City)

Here the phrase stresses that one can hardly give a worse name to dentistry. It is a comment on the difficulty of doing this and can hardly be analysed as a condition. It is similar to saying that _A did something better than B, if that were possible_. This is a subjective statement and only makes sense because the use of _better _is largely a matter of opinion. If we wrote about two runners in a race _X ran faster than Y, if that were possible_, this would make no sense taken literally as a remote conditional since it is an objective statement. We could replace the phrase with another rhetorical phrase such as _difficult as it is to believe_.

Here is an example where the condition makes sense:
“Our aim is not to establish a realistic model of the early Venus atmosphere, *if that were possible*, but rather to establish that these effects do exist, and eventually to show how they might be relevant to Venus.” (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469(1969)026<1191:TRGAHO>2.0.CO;2)

Here _if that were possible_ expresses tentativeness, i.e. in the unlikely event that we would be able to establish such a model. The author may unsure about whether or not it is possible or may, in fact, regard it as impossible.


----------



## Loob

In context, it seems to mean something like "incredibly".  Like SevenDays, I see it as a comment clause; like owlman, I see it as an ill-chosen one.


----------



## wandle

e2efour said:


> In "Marathon Man," Dustin Hoffman confronts Lawrence Olivier, whose villainy gave a worse name to dentistry, *if that were possible*, and to the park.”


That is comparable to the topic sentence and it too is a good example of the same conventional usage. That is, it is a departure from the normal rules of grammar and logic, but is accepted by established practice.

It can be rendered grammatical in the same way: Olivier's villainy gave dentistry a name that would have been worse if that were possible.
Again, the conventional form is used because it is shorter and less clumsy and also because the grammatically correct form exposes the illogicality of the statement, whereas the conventional form disguises it.


e2efour said:


> “Our aim is not to establish a realistic model of the early Venus atmosphere, *if that were possible*,


A similar analysis applies here. It is based on the same illogical suggestion that human action might somehow do the impossible (the 'were' subjunctive shows that it is not possible). I see no tentativeness here, though. That would be seen in a sentence such as:
'Our aim is to establish a realistic model of the early Venus atmosphere, if that be possible'.


----------



## HSS

Hi, it's me again.

I finally had time to look through your discussion. Just to confirm, or to get your feel on the connotation of the sentence, *in actuality*, did Blue reach out to '_*an even greater early lead*_,' or to a great extent but not greater than that, which would have been called '*an even greater early lead*'?



> Blue just smiled back, Gavin got down, Mr. Tisdale and I and Miss Edna froze in our positions in the tableau, the full silence fell again, and Junie raised the little pistol and called them to their marks once more.
> 
> _Bang!_ And this time, *if it were possible*, Blue reached out to an even greater early lead. It was as if Gavin was so intimidated by what he knew was coming that he let himself be shamed all the more.
> ('Everybody's All-American' by Frank Deford)


----------



## Loob

I'm not sure I fully understand your question, Hiro.
But yes, it's clear from the context that Blue did actually achieve that even greater early lead.


----------



## HSS

Hi, Loob.

I was looking at #6. _Blue reached out to an extent which would have been even greater, if that were possible.
_
If this is the interpretation of the sentence, then Blue did not reach out to an even greater early lead, although he did to a certain great extent.


----------



## wandle

HSS said:


> Blue did not reach out to an even greater early lead, although he did to a certain great extent.


I agree to a certain extent:

Blue did not reach out to an even greater early lead, although he did *reach out* to a *very* great extent.

(We have to repeat the words 'reach out', in order to show what 'did' refers to.)

What should we understand the factual meaning to be? I read it as:

This time, Blue made a greater effort than before, and gained at least as great a lead as before.


----------



## Loob

As I said, it's clear from the context that Blue did achieve an even greater early lead. See the next two sentences:
By the time he reached his full stride, out about where he had fallen before, Blue was full heels ahead and pouring it on. The noise changed from a roar for the race to a cheer for their man, and by the time Blue went by the hole - which I had estimated was about forty yards out - he was yet another step in front, a good three yards or so on top, I would say.​


----------



## wandle

Loob said:


> By the time he reached his full stride, out about where he had fallen before, Blue was full heels ahead and pouring it on. The noise changed from a roar for the race to a cheer for their man, and by the time Blue went by the hole - which I had estimated was about forty yards out - he was yet another step in front, a good three yards or so on top, I would say.


That is describing what happened after the early lead had been established.
'If it were  possible' means it was not possible, because it makes that idea hypothetical (unreal).


----------



## Loob

To repeat


Loob said:


> In context, it seems to mean something like "incredibly".  Like SevenDays, I see it as a comment clause; like owlman, I see it as an ill-chosen one.


----------



## wandle

Loob said:


> Like SevenDays, I see it as a comment clause;


I asked *SevenDays* to explain how that could work.


wandle said:


> If the words do not carry their true meaning, how can the clause work and what does it mean? How can it express surprise (or indeed anything) in that case?


Can anyone offer a suggestion? The point is that calling it a 'comment clause' is not an explanation of the grammar.

To judge from the examples of 'comment clauses' given by *SevenDays* in post 14, he means that it is not a conditional: in other words, he seems to be saying 'if' does not mean 'if' and 'were' does not mean 'were'.


----------



## Loob

What I'm saying is that the writer chose the wrong words.

It happens.


----------



## wandle

What I am saying is that he used a conventional mode of expression which is not strictly grammatical, but is well established in literature (post 6).

If I may give a little background, when I was taught English conditionals at school, after the standard forms had been covered, we were introduced explicitly to this type of structure. It was explained that it was illogical when closely examined, but it was nevertheless an accepted form used by good writers.

Since then, I have met it repeatedly in English literature and indeed in other languages. It has a very respectable pedigree, going back at least to the Classics.


----------



## SevenDays

wandle said:


> I asked *SevenDays* to explain how that could work.
> 
> Can anyone offer a suggestion? The point is that calling it a 'comment clause' is not an explanation of the grammar.
> 
> To judge from the examples of 'comment clauses' given by *SevenDays* in post 14, he means that it is not a conditional: in other words, he seems to be saying 'if' does not mean 'if' and 'were' does not mean 'were'.



As I said before, to me, the "if" in "if it were possible" is not a conditional "if." There are lots of structures that _look _like conditionals but _aren't_. Some use the term "pseudo-conditionals," others speak of "cookie/biscuit conditionals." In a typical conditional sentence, there's a "condition" that leads to an expected result._ *If water reaches 32 C, it freezes*_ means that water "freezes" provided that the condition is met. However, in _*There are cookies/biscuits on the counter, if you want some*_, am I to understand that the cookies/biscuits "being on the counter" is only true provided that "you want some"? Of course not; the two statements are independent of each other (there's no _condition ~ result_ involved). Similarly, saying _*If you need something, I'm here *_doesn't mean that my "being here" depends on your "needing something." There's no _condition_, and therefore there's no _conditional sentence_.

_*If it were possible*_ is simply a comment clause, a comment on a chain of events that's independent of my participation ("blue reaching out to an earlier lead"). I'm an _outsider_, an _observer_, and I'm commenting on what I see. If you wanted to explain the grammar, you can say (using traditional terminology) that this "if' is a _subordinating conjunction_, marking the clause subordinate (after all, it appears between commas). Or, using syntax terminology, this "if" is a _complementizer_, a word used to introduce the comment clause in sentence structure.


----------



## HSS

For the sake of my practical use, I'm now tentatively taking it to mean 'to the extreme,' and I've taken a shot at coming up with my own examples. What do you think of them?

[1] It has been raining so hard for the last week, and now it's raining at 100mm/hour, *if that were possible*.
[2] Karen was dancing rather quietly about an hour ago when I went to the park. I went back there again about ten minutes ago. Boy, she was dancing like crazy, *if that were possible*.
[3] I started seeing the computer shutting down a few times a day. So I tried to fix it but I failed; it started acting up more crazily, *if that were possible*.


----------



## Loob

I'm sorry, Hiro, I don't think you can deduce anything about the way "if it were possible" is correctly used from its use in the original context.

I also see that you've changed "if it were possible" to "if that were possible" in your examples. I'd say that "if that were possible" works in your [3], but not in the other two. And that "if it were possible" wouldn't work in any of them.


----------



## Loob

In case they're useful, here are some examples that I've found.

From Google Books:
This felt . . . crude, forced, even more unnatural, *if such a thing were possible*.
The Return of the Sword​
From the British National Corpus:
- Meryl gulped down her orange juice in an effort to subdue the mental image of Norman Pinder avidly turning the pages of his favourite Sunday newspaper, his eyes popping out even further, *if* *that* *were* *possible*.
Kate said nothing, just cuddled a little closer to his bare chest, *if* *that* *were possible*, listening to the rapid beat of his heart.
'the current investment review has been even more fantastic than its predecessors *if* *that* *were* *possible'*
Erlich thought that the Chief Inspector looked,* if it were possible, *more tired*. *​


----------



## HSS

Thanks very much, Loob. I'll look into your examples, but did you say my [3] works (but not with 'if it were possible')? It has a comparative (more crazily) ....


----------



## Loob

Yes, the comparative is, I think, essential. The idea in your [3] is something like "I know it's not really possible for the computer to have been acting even more crazily than it had before - but that's exactly how I'd have described things if it _had_ been possible".

As to the choice in [3] between "if that were possible" and "if it were possible", I'm not sure why I find "that" more natural.  I suspect it's something to do with positioning and stress.  I have the feeling that *if it were possible* works in the BNC "Chief Inspector" sentence because the "it" refers to something that follows; if the phrase had come after "more tired", I think I'd have wanted *if that were possible.*


----------



## siares

Can I check that the phrase may be used in other tense/mood?
It started acting up more crazily, *if that is possible*.
It started acting up more crazily, *if that was possible*.


----------



## PaulQ

My apologies, I started to edit as you replied. This is the final draft of #42:

No, it cannot. It is a set phrase in the subjunctive.

It started acting up more crazily, *if that is possible*. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





"started" is in the *past *tense this means that *if that <be> possible* must also be in the past...
It started acting up more crazily, *if that was possible*. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




The verb *to be* is in the subjunctive.

In any other tense/mood - it has the literal meaning -> (i) "Is that possible?" / "if it is convenient." / "if you are willing." or (ii) does not work.

(i)
"Can you built the wall a little higher, if that is possible?"
"I would like to inspect your house on Tuesday, if that will be possible."

(ii)
"He laughs louder if that is possible." 
"We should end the walk in 2 miles but, as we will be early for the meal, we will walk more slowly, if that will be possible." - literal meaning.


----------



## wandle

SevenDays said:


> to me, the "if" in "if it were possible" is not a conditional "if."


The trouble with this approach is that it is a universal solvent. It can be applied equally well to any term, rendering everything equally meaningless. You could put an end to any discussion this way without having explained anything.


> There are lots of structures that _look _like conditionals but _aren't_. Some use the term "pseudo-conditionals," others speak of "cookie/biscuit conditionals."


They are still conditionals if they have that grammatical structure. We need to distinguish three elements of a conditional sentence: (a) the grammatical construction, (b) the logical deduction of the conclusion from the premise and (c) the semantic content (i.e. the factual message). A conditional may be correct or incorrect in any or all of these elements.

The examples in post 36 ('There are cookies/biscuits on the counter, if you want some' and 'If you need something, I'm here') do not have the same structure as the topic sentence, but let us see how they measure up. In factual terms (c), the message is clear enough in each case: no problem there. In logical terms (b), they are both, strictly speaking, fallacious: the conclusion does not follow from the premise (though we can rescue the logic easily enough by treating the sentences as elliptical). In grammatical terms (a), there is no doubt that they are conditionals, and correctly formed at that.

Each is a valid open conditional which may be present or future in reference. It follows the rules of conditionals. We can test the point by running each sentence through the different types of conditional: 'If you needed anything, I was there' (past open; the basic factual message is the same); 'If you had needed anything, I would have been there' (past closed, or hypothetical; here the factual message is different, and the logic may be questioned, but the construction is still conditional), and so on.


> _*If it were possible*_ is simply a comment clause, a comment on a chain of events that's independent of my participation


Of course it is a comment, but that takes us no further in explaining the grammar. This one is a general solvent for conditionals.  Every condition is an idea in the mind of the speaker or writer and thus every conditional can be called a comment. In this case, the comment is on a factual matter: it adds a point to the narrative. It is part of the story.


> If you wanted to explain the grammar


What else is the topic question about?


> "if' is a _subordinating conjunction_, marking the clause subordinate


This is a grammatical point, but it only takes us one step forward: it immediately raises the question, what type of subordinate clause? (Answer: conditional, what else?).

Let us apply the threefold analysis to the topic sentence.


HSS said:


> And this time, *if it were possible*, Blue reached out to an even greater early lead.


In grammatical terms (a) it is strictly speaking a faulty conditional, because it combines a closed, or hypothetical, clause with an open, or factual, one. In logical terms (b), it is also faulty, because the 'if' clause, being a closed (hypothetical) one, means the condition was not fulfilled, which means the action presented as fact in the main clause was not possible. In factual terms (c), what message do we take from it? We should understand it as in post 6:


wandle said:


> Blue reached out to an extent which would have been even greater, if that were possible.


Thus the factual message is that the runner now exerted himself even more, so that his performance this time was even more certainly than before the utmost he could do.
Thus although the sentence is faulty in structure and logic, it conveys an emphatic point. It is for that reason that this structure has long been accepted in literary English as a conventional mode of expression.


Loob said:


> In case they're useful, here are some examples that I've found.


Those examples all employ the same structure as the topic sentence and should be understood in the same way. They confirm the accepted status of this type of sentence.


----------



## Loob

We may have been at cross-purposes, wandle. I agree that "if it were possible" is a perfectly acceptable construction - indeed, I don't see anyone in this thread who's dissented from that view.

What you and I disagree about is the use of that construction in the original sentence. You see it as valid; I see it as erroneous.


----------



## wandle

I see it as grammatically and logically incorrect, but because it is accepted in literary practice as a conventional form of expression it still counts as good English.


wandle said:


> when I was taught English conditionals at school, after the standard forms had been covered, we were introduced explicitly to this type of structure. It was explained that it was illogical when closely examined, but it was nevertheless an accepted form used by good writers.


To take it a little further: language has its limits. It cannot function without rules, but the rules may sometimes impose arbitrary restrictions on expression. This does happen in English with conditionals, among other cases. Consequently, we may sometimes have things to say for which the equipment does not exist in correct grammar. As a result, various forms of expression arise which break the rules but are accepted by convention.

Does this mean we can break the rules at will? No: that would mean the end of rules, followed by the end of effective communication. The basic principle in my view should be to follow the rules as far as we can, and only depart from them when it is approved by established convention. And among other points, we ought to accept that the degree of latitude in correct written English is distinctly less than in colloquial language.


----------



## e2efour

siares said:


> Can I check that the phrase may be used in other tense/mood?
> It started acting up more crazily, *if that is possible*.
> It started acting up more crazily, *if that was possible*.



"If that was possible" is an open past conditional, i.e. if it was possible at the time, not the closed non-past conditional of "If it was/were possible".
"If that is possible" simply means if it makes sense to say that.

What you cannot do is to change _was_ (with a past time reference) to _were_ with the same meaning.

The example in #1 seems to have been wrongly used. It makes no sense to me.


----------



## Loob

wandle said:


> I see it as grammatically and logically incorrect, but because it is accepted in literary English as a conventional form of expression it still counts as good English.


We're still at cross-purposes, I think.  I'm quite happy with the general statement that the construction is "accepted in literary English" and "counts as good English".

In the context of the OP, however, I find its use neither acceptable nor good English.


e2efour said:


> The example in #1 seems to have been wrongly used. It makes no sense to me.


----------



## PaulQ

I agree with Loob: in _"Bang!_ And this time, *if it were possible*, Blue reached out to an even greater early lead"  the "*it*" seem  to refer to "this time" and mean _"if it were possible at this time",_ whereas, the "greater early lead" is what is unbelievable. 

I could suggest:
_And Blue, this time, reached out to an, *if it were possible, *even greater early lead", _but even that is awkward.


----------



## wandle

Loob said:


> In the context of the OP, however, I find its use neither acceptable nor good English.


In the original context, I see it as good English and as a sign of an educated writer who may be expected to produce other good things as well.


----------



## Loob

What stops me seeing it that way is that the "even greater early lead" was not only achievable but actually achieved.


----------



## wandle

The greater lead was achieved subsequently, according to the story. In post 30, you quote the 'next two sentences'.
They are just that: the next stage of the story. They move the narrative on.
They are telling us what happened next, after the early lead was established.


----------



## Loob

Yes, that's the point: it was possible for Blue to achieve an even greater early lead than in the previous race (when Gavin had fallen). And achieve that even greater early lead he did.

Edit.
Either I misread your post, or you've added the phrase "after the early lead was established". No, that's not correct: those sentences describe the establishing of the early lead.


----------



## wandle

The clause 'if it were possible' means a greater early lead was not possible. That means the actual greater lead came after the early lead.
This means the writer is not contradicting himself.


----------



## Loob

No, the greater lead came early.... That's why "if it were possible" is wrong.


----------



## wandle

The fact that the sentences describing a greater lead come after the sentence referring to the early lead means that they can refer to the next stage of the race.
The fact that we are told that a greater early lead was not possible shows that they do refer to the next stage.
In a race, events move swiftly on. It is natural for the narrative to move on too.


----------



## Loob

This is turning into "Oh no it isn't!" "Oh yes it is!" Definitely time to stop


----------



## Enquiring Mind

Without wishing to detract from the comments of m'learned friends, who clearly have a much greater theoretical knowledge of the conditional than I do, I would posit, m'lud, that the original "if it were possible" is not really a conditional at all, but - as previous posters have said - better understood idiomatically as an expression of surprise of the "lawks-a-mussy!"/"blow me down (with a feather)!"/"well I never!" ilk.

If I were translating it, I would go for something like an "as impossible as it may seem" subjunctive construction in the target language.


----------



## siares

Thank you,


PaulQ said:


> It is a set phrase in the subjunctive.
> It started acting up more crazily, *if that is possible*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "started" is in the *past *tense this means that *if that <be> possible* must also be in the past...





e2efour said:


> "If that is possible" simply means if it makes sense to say that.


Are these two statements contradictory? PS: PaulQ, the crosses don't show in your post.


==========
There were 3 questions from speakers of 3 different languages recently, which showed that we perceive 'it' differently to native speakers; maybe as being interchangeable with 'that'.
Example from one thread:
_If there were a sweetened wine, would you like it? _
non-native speakers: 'It' refers to the whole statement = to the idea of such wine existing.
Native speakers: 'it' refers to just 'wine' - the noun from the statement; not to the whole statement.


----------



## wandle

Loob said:


> This is turning into "Oh no it isn't!" "Oh yes it is!"


There is a bit more to it than that. One interpretation has the author writing nonsense and contradicting himself. 
The other has the author using a recognised convention to produce good literary English with a definite meaning.


----------



## HSS

HSS said:
			
		

> [1] It has been raining so hard for the last week, and now it's raining at 100mm/hour, *if that were possible*.
> [2] Karen was dancing rather quietly about an hour ago when I went to the park. I went back there again about ten minutes ago. Boy, she was dancing like crazy, *if that were possible*.
> [3] I started seeing the computer shutting down a few times a day. So I tried to fix it but I failed; it started acting up more crazily, *if that were possible*.





			
				Loob said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, Hiro, I don't think you can deduce anything about the way "if it were possible" is correctly used from its use in the original context.
> 
> I also see that you've changed "if it were possible" to "if that were possible" in your examples. I'd say that "if that were possible" works in your [3], but not in the other two. And that "if it were possible" wouldn't work in any of them.



I revised [1] to see if there's any improvement as to the use of 'if that were possible'??? Could anyone please see about this?

_It has been raining so hard for the last week, and now it's raining territorially, if that were possible._


----------



## wandle

HSS said:


> It has been raining so hard for the last week, and now it's raining territorially, if that were possible


The meaning of 'territorially' is unclear (all rain falls on some territory or other).
The structure is still wrong, though. It needs a comparison, such as 'more than before' or 'even more'.


----------



## HSS

> _It has been raining so hard for the last week, and now it's raining territorially, if that were possible._





wandle said:


> The meaning of 'territorially' is unclear (all rain falls on some territory or other).
> The structure is still wrong, though. It needs a comparison, such as 'more than before' or 'even more'.


Ooops! I must have been so tired. I thought I put 'torrentially.' Does it still need a comparison? It looks like we need a big leap from the first statement to the second, don't we?

Hiro


----------



## wandle

HSS said:


> Does it still need a comparison?


Yes, this idiom does need a comparison.


HSS said:


> It looks like we need a big leap from the first statement to the second, don't we?


A big leap is not needed. In fact, the implied difference is usually very slight.
What is needed is a first term expressing the limit of possibility, followed by a second term which means going _further than_ that.
The result must be by implication an impossibility (torrential rain is not an impossibility).


----------



## HSS

Hi, wandle.

So if it went from 'torrentially' to even 'harder' than that, do you think it would work?


> It has been raining torrentially for the last week, and now it's raining even harder, if that were possible.



A query has come to mind: '*that*' in '*if that were possible*,' does it refer to the state or action of near-impossibility, or the change to that? (I thought it was the former, but I just realized it could be the latter)


----------



## wandle

HSS said:


> does it refer to the state or action of near-impossibility, or the change to that?


The initial state or action has to be at the limit of possibility already, so that in reality there is no scope to go further.
Then the second element is stated to go further, 'if that were possible'. 'If that were possible' means 'if going beyond the limit were possible'.

Remember that 'if that were possible' is a closed (unreal, hypothetical) condition: in other words, it is saying that what it refers to is not real, is not true in fact.


> It has been raining torrentially for the last week, and now it's raining even harder, if that were possible.


This one is better, but it only works provided we understand it to mean that 'torrentially' expresses the heaviest possible degree of rain.


----------



## kentix

HSS said:


> _"It has been raining torrentially for the last week, and now it's raining even harder, if that were possible."_
> 
> A query has come to mind: '*that*' in '*if that were possible*,' does it refer to the state or action of near-impossibility, or the change to that? (I thought it was the former, but I just realized it could be the latter)


To me, "that" refers to "even harder".

To me, in the whole, the sentence doesn't work because there is no definable limit to "torrentially". So "even harder" does not give the impression of being impossible.

_She had the biggest smile I'd ever seen on her face when her boyfriend surprised her at her birthday party but her smile got even bigger, if that were possible, when he dropped to one knee to propose to her._


----------

