# Conditional: "would" in a protasis



## intolerandus

Hello everyone,

 While reading Burnett's "The Secret Garden", I stumbled upon a curious usage of "would" in a protasis of the 2nd conditional. Here it is - Mistress Mary finds a family of mice:


> Mary crept softly across the room to look. The bright eyes belonged to a little gray mouse, and the mouse had eaten a hole into the cushion and made a comfortable nest there. Six baby mice were cuddled up asleep near her. If there was no one else alive in the hundred rooms there were seven mice who did not look lonely at all. *"If they wouldn't be so frightened *I would take them back with me," said Mary.


I cannot really fathom the reason why that "would" is being used here. I believe we should not consider this as a form of "be willing to", because *"If they were not willing to be frightened"* doesn't make any sense, since no one to my mind is capable of becoming frightened at their own discretion.

Could someone please make it clear for me?

Thank you.


----------



## Florentia52

I would rephrase this as "I would take them back with me, if doing so wouldn't frighten them so much."


----------



## bennymix

*"If they wouldn't be so frightened"  *_means _* "If they were not, likely, going to be (so) frightened.*"


----------



## se16teddy

For what it is worth, this use of_ would_ sounds odd to me too, and I am not sure what it is intended to mean. Clearly the mice are not frightened now, because they are asleep, so I suppose_ would_ is intended to refer to some kind of future or potential risk. The rather convoluted logic may be:
- If I were to take them with me, they would be very frightened
- If that (i.e. that they would be frightened) were not the case, I would take them with me. 
I think that is what posts #2 and #3 say.


----------



## intolerandus

Thanks to all of you. Very interesting. So what we have here is "would" used to express the (relatival? can't think of a better word now) _future_ in the protasis of a conditional. Live and learn.


----------



## intolerandus

I suspect what Burnett might have emphasised here is that ten year old girls aren't always discoursing in plain terms.


----------



## bennymix

There are several senses of 'would' that don't connect to willingness.    My friend is deathly afraid of crocodiles.   I say 
to him, "If you wouldn't be scared out of your wits by the crocodiles, I'd take you to the reptile exhibit."


----------



## Keith Bradford

This is _would _as the conditional of _will_. (_Will _in this case being the future auxiliary, not the verb meaning _be determined_.)

The sentence as it stands is a little unfamiliar, dating as it does from 1911, but in a different context it's commonplace. E.g: _"If it wouldn't be any trouble, would you open the window, please?"_


----------



## intolerandus

I thought there was a common rule that we can't use _will_ as the future auxiliary in the protasis of the conditional sentences.


----------



## Keith Bradford

You thought wrong.

(Mind you, I have no idea what a protasis is.)


----------



## london calling

bennymix said:


> There are several senses of 'would' that don't connect to willingness.    My friend is deathly afraid of crocodiles.   I say
> to him, "If you wouldn't be scared out of your wits by the crocodiles, I'd take you to the reptile exhibit."


That is  North American usage, Benny. A BE conditional 2 sentence goes like this:

_If you weren't scared out of your wits by crocodiles, I'd take you to the reptile exhibit._

Just a note, as everybody has already explained what the sentence (_If they wouldn't be so frightened I would take them back with me.) _means. If I were to re-write it as a conditional 2 sentence, the  meaning would change:

_If they weren't so frightened I would take them back with me.

_PS. I think protasis is the if-clause.


----------



## bennymix

London Calling, just above, said in part,



> If I were to re-write it as a conditional 2 sentence, the  meaning would change:
> 
> _If they weren't so frightened I would take them back with me._



Exactly.  By contrast, to preserve the meaning, with 'weren't,' you need

"If they weren't (likely) to become so frightened, I would take them back with me."

##ADDED: More exactly, "If they weren't of such disposition at to become quite frightened, I would...."

==
Thanks for your earlier clarification:

London said in part,


> [Benny] "If you wouldn't be scared out of your wits by the crocodiles, I'd take you to the reptile exhibit."
> [London] That is  North
> American usage, Benny. A BE conditional 2 sentence goes like this:
> 
> _[BE1] If you weren't scared out of your wits by crocodiles, I'd take you to the reptile exhibit._



Let this be noted, as a similar issue to what I've just mentioned:   Your "BE conditional 2" sentence has altered the meaning of my sentence.

I'd suggest, as above, the correct BE translation would be

_[BE2] If you weren't (likely) to become scared out of your wits by crocodiles, I'd take you to the reptile exhibit._

More exactly, see above at ##ADDED.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

intolerandus said:


> I thought there was a common rule that we can't use _will_ as the future auxiliary in the protasis of the conditional sentences.


It's a very handy rule to give to beginners and will see them through to quite advanced English, but like many rules, it doesn't cover every eventuality.

*"If they wouldn't be so frightened, *I would take them back with me."  That apparent conditional actually means something like_ If they were not so inclined to be frightened etc._ ie. a perfectly normal protasis for a type II conditional.


----------



## intolerandus

First of all, thanks to all of you for clarification.

 I would like to show how exactly I reason on such things when I happen to come across them. I am sure that from the point of view of pure grammar the verb "will" ("would") can either be a modal, or an auxiliary. (I am not really into all that "modal-auxiliary" thing, because I am strongly convinced that such things show up only when the grammarians do not know how to cope with the knotty questions of real grammar and fail at the creation of the comprehensive (i.e. self-consistent) theory of it.)

When I face such thing as "would" in a protasis of a conditional sentence, I know that it can only be a modal. I maintain that "would" here cannot be an auxiliary, as the auxiliary serves for two things: it expresses future in the subordinate clause in the indirect speech (so-called Future-in-the-past) and it forms a subjunctive (with indefinite and perfect infinitives) in the apodoses of the 2nd and 3rd conditional respectively. 

 Actually, the usage of "would" in a protasis of a conditional is a very illustrative example, because by that I can learn all the meanings this modal could have. 


Thomas Tompion said:


> It's a very handy rule to give to beginners and will see them through to quite advanced English, but like many rules, it doesn't cover every eventuality.


May I ask you to provide at least one example where "would" is used in a protasis of a conditional as an auxiliary, i.e. to express future?


Thomas Tompion said:


> *"If they wouldn't be so frightened, *I would take them back with me."  That apparent conditional actually means something like_ If they were not so inclined to be frightened etc._ ie. a perfectly normal protasis for a type II conditional.


This is the modal meaning, of course. You see, nine times out of ten I can guess what "would" means myself, but I am not happy with guesses. I would like to _understand_ what any particular example of "would" means, and to have a steadfast theoretical grounds for that understanding. Next time I may have little opportunity to ask a native speaker, and what can I do then?

Can someone share a link where all the possible meanings of modal "would" are described?

Of course, any comments on the topic are welcome.


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Hullo, intolerandus.

I sympathize with anyone who wants to _understand_ the facts of language. (I wish I could _understand_ the secret of the _vidy glogolov_  ).

Going back to the use of _would_ in the sentence above, have you tried going by steps?

Take this mini-exchange:

A. Be careful or they will be scared.
B. If (, as you say,) they will be scared, I won't take them with me. (= If it's true that they will be scared ...)

B's line is _not_ a conditional sentence.

C. Hullo, B, what did you tell A?
B: I said that if (, as he said,) they would be scared, I wouldn't take them with me.

Any better?

GS


----------



## Einstein

Probably restating what others have said,

_If they were not so frightened_ suggests that they are frightened now. From the text it's clear that they are _not _frightened at the moment.

_If they wouldn't be so frightened_ means _If I didn't think it would frighten them..._


----------



## Wordnip

Giorgio Spizzi said:


> Hullo, intolerandus.
> 
> ...
> 
> B. If (, as you say,) they will be scared, I won't take them with me. (= If it's true that they will be scared ...)
> 
> B's line is _not_ a conditional sentence.
> 
> ...
> GS



Interesting but can you explain why B. is not a conditional sentence? Isn't it equal to: 'If (, as you say,) they will be scared, _then _I won't take them with me'.? Isn't that a conditional sentence?


----------



## Einstein

Wordnip said:


> Interesting but can you explain why B. is not a conditional sentence? Isn't it equal to: 'If (, as you say,) they will be scared, _then _I won't take them with me'.? Isn't that a conditional sentence?


It is a conditional sentence, in the sense that the subordinate clause states a condition and the main clause states the result. It's just not one of the standard conditional sequences (Type I, II and III) that we study because they are common. However, we shouldn't imagine our thoughts are dominated 100% by the standard forms.


----------



## Wordnip

Einstein said:


> It is a conditional sentence, in the sense that the subordinate clause states a condition and the main clause states the result. It's just not one of the standard conditional sequences (Type I, II and III) that we study because they are common. However, we shouldn't imagine our thoughts are dominated 100% by the standard forms.



Thanks. When I studied logic we certainly would have treated it as a straightforward conditional sentence but I haven't come across Types I - III.


----------



## intolerandus

Giorgio Spizzi said:


> If (, as you say,) they will be scared, I won't take them with me. (= If it's true that they will be scared ...)


Hello, Giorgio.

I just want to briefly notice that what you're doing here is an imposture. We have to cope with the modal "will" here, and we have to do that boldly, without any attempts of self-deception.  Just have a closer look at your example: you make another subordinate clause within the protasis, kicking out the "will" verb in question: *"If it's true* that they will be scared, *I won't take them with me."* The conditional Type I as it is.


----------



## intolerandus

Einstein said:


> Probably restating what others have said,
> 
> _If they were not so frightened_ suggests that they are frightened now. From the text it's clear that they are _not _frightened at the moment.
> 
> _If they wouldn't be so frightened_ means _If I didn't think it would frighten them..._


Thank you, Einstein. 
I have already been explained the meaning, though...


----------



## bennymix

I was surprised to see an extensive survey of this construction in Merriam Webster unabridged, unfortunately available only be subscription.   But here are the main points, with all but two examples deleted:



> Would have is sometimes substituted for the past subjunctive had in the subordinate clause of a conditional sentence.
> _
> <If you would have stayed, we could have talked about it.>_
> Most of the evidence for this construction comes from speech. [...][But] It is also occasionally found in edited writing. [...] The origin and development of this construction are imperfectly known, but it has been found as far back as the late 16th century [...] and makes a few appearances in 19th century literature as well. [...]
> _
> <At any moment if he would have returned to her and taken her in his arms, she would not only have forgiven him but have blessed him also for his kindness._ — Anthony Trollope, The Way We Live Now, 1875>


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Hullo, everyone.

I'm sorry, intolerandus. My intention was to help you reach gradually the OP sentence via a number of passages. I find "imposture" a very strong offence.

@ Wordnip & Einstein (Hullo, Ein, always glad to see you). 

I was thinking along these lines:

1. If you _saw_ him in the street you wouldn't recognize him (here the protasis states a condition that has to be fulfilled in order for the apodosis to take place);

2. If you _saw_ him in the street why didn't you say to him "Hi!" (here the first chunk does not, in my opinion, express a condition to be fulfilled — the interlocutor _did_ see the guy in the street, or at least so he declares). This is the reason which encouraged me to write "If it is true that ..." in order for intolerandus to understand the way I interpreted the sentence.

GS


----------



## intolerandus

Giorgio Spizzi said:


> I find "imposture" a very strong offence.


 Giorgio, please accept my deepest apologies for that. My English is poor, and I could not think of a better word. You may know Russian word подлог, which is quite neutral. Of course I have said that in some kind of a jokey way. Sorry again for having offended you.


----------



## intolerandus

bennymix, thank you very much! This information is absolutely new and of great interest for me.

Incidentally, I am exulting tremendously at these words: 





> Would have is sometimes substituted for the *past subjunctive* had in the subordinate clause of a conditional sentence.


, recollecting one old Thread.


----------



## Loob

Hi intolerandus

Here's another way of looking at it - though I'm actually saying the same thing as several others.

We can use "will" in an _if_-clause when the _if_-clause indicates the result of the main clause rather than a prior condition:
_I will give you £100 if it will make you happy._
"Would" can be used in the same way:
_I would give you £100 if it would make you happy._

I think you've got a similar "result rather than prior condition" _if_-clause here. 
_I would take them if they wouldn't be frightened [as a result of my taking them]_.


----------



## intolerandus

Hi Loob! 
Your post is a great piece of a pedagogical competence, as always. Thank you very much!


----------



## Einstein

Good example about £100, Loob.

Another one:
- Why didn't you tell him?
- Becuse he would have got angry.
- Oh, well,_ if he would have got angry you did well not to tell him.

_If we want to analyse this last sentence according to the standard sequence, we can interpret it as:
Given that _he would have got angry had you told him_, you did well etc. I think this is the same point as Giorgio is making (Hi Spiz).

Bennymix's examples (post#22) are interesting, but they simply show a 19th-century use of "would". In our case (The Secret Garden) I think "would" is being used for a more specific reason, as others have said.


----------



## bennymix

Two further examples, from M-W unabr.



> <_If he would have pulled Peavy after his 75th pitch, the bullpen would have been called in the top of the fourth._ — David Haugh, Sacramento Bee, 2 Aug. 2011>
> 
> <_But the next day I think we had a dole of cider: cider in bowls, in scuppets, in helmets; and to conclude, if a man would have filled his boots full, there he might have had it._ — Thomas Nashe, The Unfortunate Traveller, 1594>


----------



## intolerandus

Loob said:


> I think you've got a similar "result rather than prior condition" _if_-clause here.
> _I would take them if they wouldn't be frightened [as a result of my taking them]_.


 Interestingly enough, there's some peculiar kind of paradox we have here. Linguistically, _I would take them_ is the apodosis (i.e. the consequence) and _if they wouldn't be frightened _is the protasis (i.e. the cause); but logically it's all the other way round, as they are possibly able to become frightened only after my taking them.


----------



## Truffula

Loob's explanation makes tons of sense.

Resolution of the paradox:
The mice being frightened _would_ be the result of taking them.
But not taking them _is_ the result of reasoning through that sequence and realizing it would turn out badly.
So the conditional result becomes the cause of the action not being taken.


----------



## intolerandus

Thank you, Truffula. 

I'm still rather uneasy with the idea that Burnett's initial sentence contains all this train of thought. For me, it is some kind of circulus vitiosus. It seems to me that I flatly have to come to terms with that.


----------



## Truffula

A vicious cycle, negative feedback? It shouldn't be.  It makes you uneasy that a character could know that picking up mice would terrify them, and use that as a reason not to pick them up?  Any experience with wild mice would let even a child know they are terribly timid creatures, and that no matter how cute and cuddly they look, they are far too easy to scare.  

But, as is well known in AI research, situations like this one make natural language comprehension difficult to automate.  The world knowledge (e.g., the fears of mice) implicit in proper interpretation is deep and ubiquitous.


----------



## Einstein

There are plenty of cases with an apparent exchange of cause and effect. We can say:
"People have their umbrellas open because it's raining".
We can also say:
"It's raining because people have their umbrellas open". But this really means, "I know it's raining because I can see people with their umbrellas open".

So too in our case: "I would take them if I didn't know that this would frighten them".


----------



## se16teddy

Einstein said:


> There are plenty of cases with an apparent exchange of cause and effect. We can say:
> "People have their umbrellas open because it's raining".


 I would say rather that the English language helps us to confuse *cause and effect *with *evidence and inference*. Both _if _and _because_ are used for both concepts. 
_If we find trilobite fossils there, then there was life there in the Cretaceous. _


----------



## velisarius

I've been thinking (but not for all of the intervening 8 months) about how it might have been phrased differently. I think it might need an impersonal construction. It isn't something I would say, but is it correct in written English? I ask because I couldn't find other examples online.

_If it weren't that they would be so frightened, I would take them back with me_.


----------



## intolerandus

Thanks for this interesting contribution, velisarius.

It made me wonder if we can write:

_Would that they were not so frightened, I would take them back with me._

I realise it adds some dramatism to the initial sentence, but is it an example of correct English at all?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

intolerandus said:


> Thanks for this interesting contribution, velisarius.
> 
> It made me wonder if we can write:
> 
> _Would that they were not so frightened, I would take them back with me._
> 
> I realise it adds some dramatism to the initial sentence, but is it an example of correct English at all?


You could say that, but it would sound rather biblical.

It would have nothing to do with conditional sentences.

You need, probably, a stronger stop between the two sentences, for they are two separate sentences.


----------



## intolerandus

Thomas Tompion said:


> You could say that, but it would sound rather biblical.


Thank you.


Thomas Tompion said:


> It would have nothing to do with conditional sentences.


I beg to differ. I understand "would that" to mean "if only": it does not matter if we parcellate the sentence into two separate clauses or not, it contains a condition, ergo, it is a conditional sentence.


Thomas Tompion said:


> You need, probably, a stronger stop between the two sentences, for they are two separate sentences.


It is a question of style, rather than of grammar.
I agree, though, that _If only they were not so frightened! I would take them back with me [then]_ looks better, but then again, I do not see any reason why it should not be seen as a conditional sentence.


----------



## Loob

velisarius said:


> I've been thinking (but not for all of the intervening 8 months) about how it might have been phrased differently. I think it might need an impersonal construction. It isn't something I would say, but is it correct in written English? I ask because I couldn't find other examples online.
> 
> _If it weren't that they would be so frightened, I would take them back with me_.


I think it does work, veli, though I'd be tempted to add "the fact that".  (There are quite a few google hits for "_If it weren't for the fact * would be"_: click.)


intolerandus said:


> ... It made me wonder if we can write:
> 
> _Would that they were not so frightened, I would take them back with me...._


_Would that they were not so frightened _is 'correct', intolerandus, but you would, today, only use it in poetry - it would sound strange in ordinary speech or writing.

And as TT says, it isn't a conditional clause. The meaning is close to "I wish that they weren't so frightened."


----------



## sound shift

Loob said:


> The meaning is close to "I wish that they weren't so frightened."


I felt that this could be the case, in the sense of "I'm frustrated/annoyed that they're so frightened", because similar-looking sentences using "would", eg "If you would let me finish ...", suggest to me that the speaker is frustrated/annoyed.


----------



## Loob

Do you mean in the original sentence, ss*? I think that, as teddy mentioned earlier, the problem with that is that the mice are asleep at the time the sentence is uttered. But perhaps I've misunderstood?


(* It was intolerandus' _Would that they were not so frightened _that I was translating as_ I wish they weren't so frightened._)


----------



## sound shift

No, you haven't misunderstood, Loob; I have. It didn't register with me that all the mice were asleep. Rather like me at the time (but not now).


----------



## Thomas Tompion

intolerandus said:


> I beg to differ. I understand "would that" to mean "if only": it does not matter if we parcellate the sentence into two separate clauses or not, it contains a condition, ergo, it a conditional sentence.


Well differ away.  I'm glad that the natives seem to agree with me.

It is a terrible error to assume that when an English person utters the word 'if', he is necessarily introducing a conditional clause.

_Would that they were not so frightened _means _I would that_ (I wish that)_ they were not so frightened, _as people have said.

_If they were not so frightened_ could well be the opening of a conditional sentence.
_
If only they were not so frightened_ is very often just an expression of emotion.

Parcellated or unparcellated, the sentence needn't contain what the initiated would call a condition.


----------

