# If he stayed in the army, he will have become a colonel.



## JungKim

> _If he stayed in the army, he will have become a colonel._


According to the Cambridge Grammar of English Language at page 203, the matrix clause (_he will have become a colonel_) cannot be construed as referring to a time in the future, but only to a time in the past. 
But I wonder why you cannot have said the sentence in a context like this:
"I don't know if he stayed in the army or not, because I've lost contact with him since I left the army, but if in fact he stayed in the army, he will have become a colonel by the end of the this year."


----------



## Copyright

What I would do:
_"I don't know if he stayed in the army or not, because I've lost contact  with him since I was discharged, but if he *did stay* in the army,  he *will be/become* a colonel by the end of this year."_


----------



## boozer

I suspect this will lead to another interesting 'conditional' debate, JK, but for me your sentence works despite not being the most elegant of sentences. 

PS. Cross-posted with Copyright who seems to be dodging a simple yes/no answer.


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Hullo, Jung.

In "_If he stayed in the army, he will have become a colonel" ,_ the modal auxiliary "will" has nothing to do with futurity but rather with the possible/probable _present_ state of things.
Think of "That'll be the postman".

As for the proposed alternative, I suspect it should go "I don't know if he stayed in the army or not, because  ... , but if in fact he stayed/did stay in the army he _would_ become a colonel by the end of the year."*​*

GS


----------



## boozer

Giorgio, 'if he stayed... he would become' is a straightforward 2nd conditional, or at least looks like one and, as such, does not convey the desired meaning, in my opinion.


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Hullo, boo.

I may be wrong, of course, but the idea behind "_... , but if in fact he stayed/did stay in the army he would become a colonel by the end of the year__"_ is the following:
_
"I haven't seen the guy for ages now, but if he *did* stay in the army — and mathematics is not an opinion — he should/would (as a matter of course) be promoted colonel by the end of the year".

_What d'you think?  

GS


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I haven't seen the problem yet, but the tenses in the OP (and in some of the other posts) are wrong.

  You need the auxiliaries in 1st conditional tenses here:_ If he has stayed in the army, he will have become a colonel by the end of the year._

Note the future force of_ if he has stayed...
_
I agree with you, JungKim.  I expect the authors of the grammar lacked your imagination.


----------



## Copyright

That sounds pretty good to me, TT.


----------



## entangledbank

I find it difficult to conceive of any actual use of this linkage of structures: it seems like it's too cognitively difficult to hold in mind an event that very probably will happen before some future limit, dependent on a completed action that I don't know the truth of. Any proposed alteration of the wording simplifies one of these modal/aspectual difficulties and makes it easier to process. However, at this stage I can't rule out a future reading for it.

'If he stayed' is allowable, though it's one of those things that makes it harder to understand than 'if he has stayed'. If he stayed - a choice he made at some definite and crucial time, when there were two paths to follow - when the war ended, perhaps. That involves the assumption or implicature that he has then continued the career and stayed to the present (which is overt in 'if he has stayed').


----------



## boozer

I am getting a bit confused about who agrees with what, but for my part, the sentence quoted from the grammar book is correct - If he stayed in the army, he will have become a colonel. It tells me that the speaker is not sure if he stayed in the army, but if he did, by now he has become a colonel (in the indefinite past, present result - his being a colonel). I also think the sentence proposed by Jung Kim also works although the time frame is completely different - past to future. In this latter sentence the future perfect tense (will have become)  is an unnecessary complication that makes the sentence inelegant, but grammar-wise I am quite prepared to endorse it.


----------



## wandle

Thomas Tompion said:


> _ If he has stayed in the army, he will have become a colonel by the end of the year._


 This is a valid open conditional referring to the past and 'the end of the year' can mean 'the end of last year' or 'the end of this year' but not any other year. (For 'this year' it would be more usual to say 'will become'.)

It would be different if his choice had fallen in an earlier year. Suppose we are speaking in 2014 about a choice made in 2011, but we do not know which way he chose. We can now say:

_If he did stay in the army, he will have become a colonel by the end of that year._

We can then reword this sentence, retaining mood and tense but discarding emphasis, with the result:


JungKim said:


> If he stayed in the army, he will have become a colonel.


This is still a valid sentence in the context mentioned, that is, uttered in 2014 and referring to 2011.

A past counterfactual or third conditional is also possible:

_If he had stayed in the army, he would have become a colonel by the end of the year._

This sentence tells us that he did not stay in the army and did not become a colonel, but it does not tell us which year is referred to; it could be any past year depending upon the context.


----------



## PaulQ

Copyright said:


> What I would do:
> _"I don't know if he stayed in the army or not, because I've lost contact  with him since I was discharged, but if he *did stay* in the army,  he *will be/become* a colonel by the end of this year."_


Copyright resolves the logic of the example sentence but the entire idea will only be logical if there is a system of automatic promotion that is related to the amount of time that any person serves in the army.

Normally, armies do not promote people on the basis of how many years they have served, and thus promotion is always uncertain. So the only possible, logical statement would have to be:

_"I don't know if he stayed in the army or not, because I've lost contact  with him since I was discharged, but if he *did stay* in the army,  I suspect/think/estimate/reckon/etc. he *would be *a colonel/*make *colonel/ *be promoted to* colonel by the end of this year."_


----------



## wandle

PaulQ said:


> So the only possible, logical statement would have to be:
> 
> _"I don't know if he stayed in the army or not, because I've lost contact  with him since I was discharged, but if he *did stay* in the army,  I suspect/think/estimate/reckon/etc. he *would be *a colonel/*make *colonel/ *be promoted to* colonel by the end of this year."_


To be valid grammatically, a sentence does not have to be logical in relation to the real world, though.

It is perfectly correct English to say: _'Look at that grass fire: if we have a rainstorm now, it will only make it burn more fiercely_.'
That is correct in grammatical terms, but incorrect and illogical in factual terms.

It is not wrong in grammar to say _'He will become (or 'will have become') a colonel by the end of the year_', though it may be an unrealistic statement and may be falsified by the event.


----------



## JungKim

wandle said:


> A past counterfactual or third conditional is also possible:
> 
> _If he had stayed in the army, he would have become a colonel by the end of the year._
> 
> This sentence tells that he did not stay in the army and did not become a colonel, but it does not tell us which year is referred to; it could be any past year depending upon the context.



Interestingly, your sentence (_If he had stayed in the army, he would have become a colonel_) is actually what the CGEL put right next to, and directly compared with, the OP's sentence, and according to the CGEL the former's matrix clause (_he would have become a colonel_) can certainly refer to a time in the past, the present or even the future, unlike the OP's sentence, which is limited to a time in the past.


----------



## wandle

JungKim said:


> according to the CGEL ... the matrix clause (_he would have become a colonel_) can ... refer to a time in ... the future


Do they give any example of that?

The difference between 'If he has stayed in the army' and 'If he stayed in the army' is that between present perfect and past simple: the former brings the context into the present and thus leaves open a possible future connection, whereas the latter moves the context back one stage into the past, which excludes a future connection.


----------



## boozer

_If he had stayed in the army_ has a different meaning because it strongly suggests that the speaker knows for a fact that _he_ did *not* stay in the army.


----------



## wandle

> If he has stayed in the army, he will have become a colonel by the end of the year.


I must revise my earlier statement that this could refer to the end of last year or of this year, but not any other year.

Given appropriate context, the structure could refer in principle to any future time.
Suppose the context has already established that we are talking about the year 2016, for example, and we still do not know whether the officer has left the army or not.

Given that, we can well say:
_'If he has in fact stayed in the army, he will have become a colonel by the end of that year'._
This is equivalent grammatically to:
_'If he has stayed in the army, he will have become a colonel by the end of the year'._


----------



## Thomas Tompion

As usual we have people muddling true conditionals and_ if _in various bastard uses - _given that etc.

_In the bastard uses many different variations of tenses are permissible, but with them we aren't dealing with true conditions, of course.

If you want to be understood to be using true conditions, you must follow the conventions governing conditional sentences.We seem to be saddled with the if-clause, _if he stayed in the army.. 

_This can happily  be followed by the full 2nd conditional_ - if he stayed in the army, he would become a colonel next year _(can have future force)_,

_or by a mixed 2nd/3rd _- if he stayed in the army, he would have become a colonel last year _(cannot have future force)_.

_But JungKim wants the main clause to be_ he will have become a colonel by the end of this year.  _This means the if-clause needs to be_ if he has stayed in the army. 



_


----------



## boozer

Thomas Tompion said:


> [/I]But JungKim wants the main clause to be_ he will have become a colonel by the end of this year.  _This means the if-clause needs to be_ if he has stayed in the army. _


I think 'if he stayed' is quite possible, TT. In an earlier post Entangled also mentions that it is permissible. If it wasn't everything would be a lot easier to sort out, but it is. I agree, 'if he has stayed' is better and much clearer, but that does not invalidate 'if he stayed' as a viable option, in my opinion.


----------



## PaulQ

wandle said:


> To be valid grammatically, a sentence does not have to be logical in relation to the real world, though.


This is fine as far as theory goes. However, the human condition is to try to fit the grammar to the meaning: if there is no meaning, what becomes of the grammar in attempting to instil meaning to the example?

Your example is fine: the example of not knowing anything about someone and pre-supposing that promotion is only dependent upon time is confusing. 

I'm sure you have noted that a good percentage of the questions on WRF are as a result of faulty question. A good, non-confusing example is worth a lot.

There is nothing wrong with: "[He said he would not run, so] if he has continued to walk, he will be in London by next Tuesday."


----------



## wandle

Thomas Tompion said:


> As usual we have people muddling true conditionals and_ if _in various bastard uses - _given that etc._


Where, for example?


----------



## wandle

boozer said:


> I think 'if he stayed' is quite possible.


Yes indeed, but not with the same meaning as 'if he has stayed' (please see post 11).


----------



## wandle

PaulQ said:


> This is fine as far as theory goes. However, the human condition is to try to fit the grammar to the meaning: if there is no meaning, what becomes of the grammar in attempting to instil meaning to the example?


In real life, though, people are all the time making statements which are illogical and unrealistic in fact, but which are still grammatically correct. 

How could politics proceed otherwise? Politicians, at least senior ones, are generally very competent in their use of grammar and language: this does not make their statements automatically correct in logic or fact.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

boozer said:


> I think 'if he stayed' is quite possible, TT. In an earlier post Entangled also mentions that it is permissible. If it wasn't everything would be a lot easier to sort out, but it is. I agree, 'if he has stayed' is better and much clearer, but that does not invalidate 'if he stayed' as a viable option, in my opinion.


Hi Boozer,

What sort of conditional do you think it is then?  You're going to have to persuade me.

Of course, the given-that school will say it is possible, because they aren't talking about conditional sentences.


----------



## boozer

wandle said:


> Yes indeed, but not with the same meaning as 'if has stayed' (please see post 11).


I have seen post 11 and in it you are analysing two different sentences. I agree that there are slightly different:
_if he stayed _- (i don't know if he did, but the past simple suggests I am aware of when exactly he was faced with the choice to stay or not to stay)
_if he has stayed _= if he is still in the army; I am not aware of when exactly he might have left the army or if he has, for that matter.

Other than that, either is an open past condition and either is possible in the original sentence. Maybe you had in mind some other difference?


----------



## wandle

boozer said:


> either is an open past condition


Yes.


> either is possible in the original sentence.


Yes, but only provided the sentence says 'by the end of the year' (not 'by the end of this year'). 

Both present perfect and past simple refer to the past, but they differ in relation to the future. Please see post 15:


wandle said:


> The difference between 'If he has stayed in the army' and 'If he stayed in the army' is that between present perfect and past simple: the former brings the context into the present and thus leaves open a possible future connection, whereas the latter moves the context back one stage into the past, which excludes a future connection.


This is continuing the same point as post 11.


----------



## JungKim

wandle said:


> JungKim said:
> 
> 
> 
> according to the CGEL ... the matrix clause (_he would have become a colonel) can ... refer to a time in ... the future_
> 
> 
> 
> Do they give any example of that?
Click to expand...

This is what the CGEL said at the bottom of page 203:


> In [ii] the possible staying in the army and the consequential becoming a colonel are in past time, whereas in _ only the former necessarily is: the becoming a colonel is simply subsequent to staying in the army and this includes the case where it is still in the future. _


_ 
And  and [ii] are as follows:



 If he had stayed in the army he would have become a colonel. [remote]
[ii] If he stayed in the army he will have become a colonel. [open]


Click to expand...


And the CGEL goes on to say:






			The difference becomes clearer if we add a time adjunct such as before the end of the decade: in  but not [ii], this could refer to the current decade, hence to a time in the future.

Click to expand...

_


----------



## PaulQ

wandle said:


> In real life, though, people are all the time making statements which are illogical and unrealistic in fact, but which are still grammatically correct.


You are taking the wrong point from what I wrote. My point is the conditional clauses are dependant upon the circumstances. If the circumstances are incomprehensible, how are you going to decide which conditional is appropriate?


----------



## JungKim

PaulQ said:


> Normally, armies do not promote people on the basis of how many years they have served, and thus promotion is always uncertain.





PaulQ said:


> You are taking the wrong point from what I wrote. My point is the conditional clauses are dependant upon the circumstances. If the circumstances are incomprehensible, how are you going to decide which conditional is appropriate?



But the circumstances include not only the general fact that the promotion is uncertain, but also the speaker's personal knowledge and judgment about "his" capability as an army officer to the point where the probability of "him" being promoted to colonel by a certain time is high enough for the speaker to choose "will" at the time of speaking.


----------



## wandle

JungKim said:


> But the circumstances include not only the general fact that the promotion is uncertain, but also the speaker's personal knowledge and judgment about "his" capability as an army officer to the point where the probability of "him" being promoted to colonel by a certain time is high enough for the speaker to choose "will" at the time of speaking.


Very true. What is more, even when the probability of promotion is low, the sentence 'If he stayed in the army, he will have become a colonel' is still perfectly correct and grammatical, even though the chance of its being true is not great.

As regards post 27:


> _ If he had stayed in the army he would have become a colonel. [remote]
> [ii] If he stayed in the army he will have become a colonel. [open] _


_
 the point made by the CGEL is that sentence  may refer to the future, as becomes clearer if we add the words 'before the end of the decade'. Yes; similar cases have been mentioned in an earlier thread.

This may well be a more problematical prediction than the open condition, and is of course harder to test, but the sentence is just as correct and grammatical._


----------



## JungKim

Maybe it's time I asked the same question but in a slightly different way.
As an ESL student, I've always been curious about sentences like:
(1) _He will have become a colonel by the end of next year._
Primarily because in my native tongue it sounds more natural to say:
(2) _He will become a colonel by the end of next year._

Although I was told there is nothing wrong with (2) per se, there are times when native speakers would prefer (1) over (2). Moreover, many grammar books usually include a sentence like (1) as an example to illustrate the future perfect construction, i.e., "will have + past participle", some even presenting (2) as a wrong example, if not ungrammatical.

So I have always tried hard to understand and even internalize the future perfect construction against my instinct for (2) obtained through my native language. And boom! Here it comes. Now, _He will have become a colonel_ may not refer to a time in the future. Not only that, I'm now told (by this thread as well as the CGEL) that it would probably be easier to understand, more elegant, or even more grammatical to say _He will become a colonel_ instead of the latter if I want the sentence to refer to a time in the future.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

JungKim said:


> But the circumstances include not only the general fact that the promotion is uncertain, but also the speaker's personal knowledge and judgment about "his" capability as an army officer to the point where the probability of "him" being promoted to colonel by a certain time is high enough for the speaker to choose "will" at the time of speaking.


Hello JungKim,

You write as though you can choose your tense made to measure in conditional sentences.

This is not the case, although some native-speakers don't appreciate the fact.  You have to follow certain sequences of tenses if you wish to make true conditional sentences.  The books are very clear on this, and you should believe them.

With the if-clause you seem to be insisting upon, you are very restricted in the choice of tense in the main clause open to you.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

JungKim said:


> [...]
> So I have always tried hard to understand and even internalize the future perfect construction against my instinct for (2) obtained through my native language. And boom! Here it comes. Now, _He will have become a colonel_ may not refer to a time in the future. Not only that, I'm now told that it would probably easier to understand, more elegant, or even grammatical to say _He will become a colonel_ instead of the latter if I want the sentence to refer to a time in the future.


Your puzzlement is understandable.

My advice, for what it's worth, is to avoid trying to study these tenses in their use in conditionals, until you've mastered them in normal circumstances.


----------



## ALEX1981X

Recently in another thread we've dealt with a similar construction. 

I gather that _ "If he* stayed* in the army he will have become a colonel_" can only refer to the past whereas _"If he *has stayed* in the army he will have become a colonel by the end of this year"_ works fine in the future thanks to the present perfect "if he has stayed" which is open toward the future.
I'm wondering if this can be possible too:

_*If he stayed*-*if he did stay* in the army he *would *have become a colonel_ with the very same meaning as the original OP sentence _(If he* stayed* in the army he *will *have become a colonel_)

What do you think natives?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I think you need to be clear when you are talking about conditional sentences, and when not, Alex.

While the form_ "If he* stayed* in the army he will have become a colonel_" may look like a conditional sentence to you, it can only work grammatically when it is not introducing a true condition.  Your books will tell you this.  I am not making it up.  Can you think of a conditional form which uses this sequence of tenses?


----------



## JungKim

TT, could you please define "the true conditional"?


----------



## ALEX1981X

Thomas Tompion said:


> I think you need to be clear when you are talking about conditional sentences, and when not, Alex.
> 
> While the form_ "If he* stayed* in the army he will have become a colonel_" may look like a conditional sentence to you, it can only work grammatically when it is not introducing a true condition.  Your books will tell you this.  I am not making it up.  Can you think of a conditional form which uses this sequence of tenses?



I trust you TT  I don't know how to define this construction, but I feel that a sort of "condition" is stated in the if clause. It's like stating something *on the assumption* to agree with a fact (he was in the army) although we're not 100% sure but simply taken it for granted. We're just assuming the fact that "he stayed" in the army and drawing a logical/possible conclusion based on the first assumption. I don't really know if they're true or false conditional but I agree that they're not standard.
However, it's now a fact that also CGEL has illustrated this kind of sentences and given an explanation thus they seem to be correct, in the right context of course, as ever.


----------



## ALEX1981X

JungKim said:


> And boom! Here it comes. Now, _He will have become a colonel_ may not refer to a time in the future. Not only that, I'm now told (by this thread as well as the CGEL) that it would probably be easier to understand, more elegant, or even more grammatical to say _He will become a colonel_ instead of the latter if I want the sentence to refer to a time in the future.



Hi JungKim I understand your point being like you just an ESL learner 

Maybe, CGEL, says that "will have become a colonel" *can't* refer to the future but *in this particular construction,* given that in first part we have "if he stayed" simple past, hence the event is over and no relation with present or the future thus "will have become" can only refer to a time before now.
If he has stayed is another story and if I'm not wrong , is followed by "will have become a colonel" and of course "he will be a colonel" with the sense of futurity you're talking about


----------



## Thomas Tompion

ALEX1981X said:


> Hi JungKim I understand your point being like you just an ESL learner
> 
> Maybe, CGEL, says that "will have become a colonel" *can't* refer to the future but *in this particular construction,* given that in first part we have "if he stayed" simple past, hence the event is over and no relation with present or the future thus "will have become" can only refer to a time before now.
> If he has stayed is another story and if I'm not wrong , is followed by "will have become a colonel" and of course "he will be a colonel" with the sense of futurity you're talking about


Hello Alex,

You need to study the structure of conditional sentences in English before you start making any affirmative statements about them, in my view.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

JungKim said:


> TT, could you please define "the true conditional"?


Yes, certainly.  They are sentences where the main clause becomes true in those cases where the specified condition (in the if-clause) is or was or will be met.

The sort of bogus if-clauses that some people here are talking about are, for instance, saying  'granted that a condition is met, the main clause follows'.  Such bogus conditional sentences are not governed by the rules of tense sequencing which true conditional sentences should follow.  

In true conditional sentences you cannot choose your tenses _à la carte.  _You must follow one of the menus.  The books will tell you this, and you should believe them, learn the rules, and follow them.

They accommodate the meaning you seem to be striving for, though not with the if-clause you put forward in the OP.


----------



## ALEX1981X

Thomas Tompion said:


> Hello Alex,
> 
> You need to study the structure of conditional sentences in English before you start making any affirmative statements about them, in my view.



Well it could be Thomas but I've noticed that it is also difficult for you natives to give explanations, so no wonder that a non native can have troubles, however I think we are all free to have an opinion and we are free try to contribute.That's why this forum exists
I've also noticed that often you natives disagree on this matters so you can imagine why non natives like us pose this kind of questions without receiving  a direct answer 

If you think that what I've written is not correct or is misleading you have the chance to say that so that we learners can learn something.
In your view why CGEL stated this?
*According to the Cambridge Grammar of English Language at page 203, the matrix clause (he will have become a colonel) cannot be construed as referring to a time in the future, but only to a time in the past.*


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I'm sorry you feel I haven't given you a direct answer.

I have suggested that you study the rules of tense-sequencing in conditional sentences, which are clearly stated in any decent grammar.

Then it's simply a question of applying them to the case in point.

When you start telling me which pattern you wish to follow, I will receive the impression that you are makiing good progress in the understanding of these issues.

It's when people start suggesting that one can choose any tense one wishes in conditional sentences and thus give their sentence the meaning that tense would normally give a clause, that I feel the need to point out these things which you find unpalatable.


----------



## ALEX1981X

Thomas keep it simple  I've only said,* in my opinion*, why CGEL has stated that and I expressed my PERSONAL opinion about the "conditional" sentences you've asked me. Is it so strange to you?

May I know what's your point of view regarding CGEL?


----------



## wandle

ALEX1981X said:


> why [did] CGEL state[d] this?
> *According to the Cambridge Grammar of English Language at page 203, the matrix clause (he will have become a colonel) cannot be construed as referring to a time in the future, but only to a time in the past.*


As quoted by *JungKim*, the sentence to which the CGEL was referring was this:


> If he stayed in the army he will have become a colonel.


There are several points to note:
(1) this is an open, or first, conditional;
(2) it refers to the past;
(3) the future perfect tense in this case is used not to refer to the future, but to express a prediction or conclusion; 
(4) in this standard usage, the future perfect expresses a proposition which is true or false in the present.

Thus we can rephrase the sentence as follows: 
_If in fact he did stay in the army, then we have reason to believe (or 'it is highly probable') that he has by now become a colonel. _


----------



## ALEX1981X

wandle said:


> As quoted by *JungKim*, the sentence to which the CGEL was referring was this:
> 
> There are several points to note:
> (1) this is an open, or first, conditional;
> (2) it refers to the past;
> (3) the future perfect tense in this case is used not to refer to the future, but to express a prediction or conclusion;
> (4) in this standard usage, the future perfect expresses a proposition which is true or false in the present.
> 
> Thus we can rephrase the sentence as follows:
> _If in fact he did stay in the army, then we have reason to believe that he has by now become a colonel. _



Thanks Wandle. Now it's clear. 
Could you please tell me if the sentence you've quoted (If he stayed in the army he *will* have become a colonel) is the same as _If he stayed in the army he *would* have become a colonel. 			 		 
_Do they have the same meaning?


----------



## wandle

ALEX1981X said:


> Thanks Wandle. Now it's clear.
> Could you please tell me if the sentence you've quoted (If he stayed in the army he *will* have become a colonel) is the same as _If he stayed in the army he *would* have become a colonel.
> _Do they have the same meaning?


No. The result clause 'he would have become a colonel' implies that he did not become one.

For that case, we need the third, or counterfactual past, conditional:
_If he had stayed in the army, he would have become a colonel_. 
Now each clause is saying that the event it refers to did not take place.

On the other hand, the clause 'if he stayed in the army' leaves it open whether he did or not.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

ALEX1981X said:


> [...]
> Could you please tell me if the sentence you've quoted (If he stayed in the army he *will* have become a colonel) is the same as _If he stayed in the army he *would* have become a colonel._


Hi Alex,

This is a case in point.  Look at your books.  You will see immediately that *If he stayed in the army he will have become a colonel *is not a true conditional sentence.

What pattern does it conform to?  None that you'll find in the grammars.

This is where you need to exercise your judgement, in my view.  Analyse each so-called conditional, and where it fails to conform, reject it.

* If he stayed in the army he would have become a colonel *does, on the other hand, conform to a pattern.  It's a mixed 2nd/3rd conditional, ie. not a form which is very obviously applicable here.

So the first sentence is unidiomatic and the second inapplicable.  You should be starting to work these things out for yourself now.


----------



## JungKim

Thomas Tompion said:


> I haven't seen the problem yet, but the tenses in the OP (and in some of the other posts) are wrong.
> 
> You need the auxiliaries in 1st conditional tenses here:_ If he has stayed in the army, he will have become a colonel by the end of the year._





Thomas Tompion said:


> If you want to be understood to be using true conditions, you must follow the conventions governing conditional sentences.We seem to be saddled with the if-clause, _if he stayed in the army..
> 
> _This can happily  be followed by the full 2nd conditional_ - if he stayed in the army, he would become a colonel next year _(can have future force)_,
> 
> _or by a mixed 2nd/3rd _- if he stayed in the army, he would have become a colonel last year _(cannot have future force)_.
> 
> _But JungKim wants the main clause to be_ he will have become a colonel by the end of this year.  _This means the if-clause needs to be_ if he has stayed in the army.
> _





Thomas Tompion said:


> While the form_ "If he* stayed* in the army he will have become a colonel_" may look like a conditional sentence to you, it can only work grammatically when it is not introducing a true condition.





Thomas Tompion said:


> Yes, certainly.  They are sentences where the main clause becomes true in those cases where the specified condition (in the if-clause) is or was or will be met.
> 
> The sort of bogus if-clauses that some people here are talking about are, for instance, saying  'granted that a condition is met, the main clause follows'.  Such bogus conditional sentences are not governed by the rules of tense sequencing which true conditional sentences should follow.
> 
> In true conditional sentences you cannot choose your tenses _à la carte.  _You must follow one of the menus.  The books will tell you this, and you should believe them, learn the rules, and follow them.
> 
> They accommodate the meaning you seem to be striving for, though not with the if-clause you put forward in the OP.



Since your definition of "true conditionals" is not clear enough--at least not for me to want it to be--I've reread all your posts and tried to figure out what it really is. Please let me know if my understanding of your true conditionals as follows is correct.

From what I understand, what you call "true conditionals" are only those conditionals set forth in many traditional grammars. But some of your examples of true conditionals seem to deviate from the textbook conditionals.

You argue that the OP's sentence (_If he stayed in the army, he will have become a colonel._) is not a true conditional in that the if-clause contains the past tense _stayed_, followed by the matrix clause containing the present tense _will_. For it to be a true conditional, therefore, you argue that the OP's sentence should be changed so that the tense is consistent throughout the sentence, and you wrote the following examples of true conditionals:
(1)_ If he *has *stayed in the army, he *will *have become a colonel. _(present tense-present tense) [real]
(2)_ If he *stayed *in the army, he *would *become a colonel. _(past tense-past tense)[unreal]
(3)_ If he *stayed *in the army, he *would *have become a colonel. _(past tense-past tense) [unreal]

However, text book conditionals do not generally list a present-perfect if-clause as in (1) or the combination of a past-tense if-clause and a matrix clause having a 'would have + past participle' construction as in (3).

Maybe we're talking different types of traditional grammar books?


----------



## wandle

Thomas Tompion said:


> *If he stayed in the army he will have become a colonel *is not a true conditional sentence.
> 
> What pattern does it conform to?  None that you'll find in the grammars..


According to the excerpts quoted by *JungKim*, it is presented by the CGEL, no less, as an example of a valid conditional.

There are more valid patterns of conditionals than the basic examples given on teaching webpages and in ordinary text books.


----------



## PaulQ

JungKim said:


> But the circumstances include not only the general fact that the promotion is uncertain, but also the speaker's personal knowledge and judgment about "his" capability as an army officer to the point where the probability of "him" being promoted to colonel by a certain time is high enough for the speaker to choose "will" at the time of speaking.


I think you read a lot into quite a little.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

JungKim said:


> You argue that the OP's sentence (_If he stayed in the army, he will have become a colonel._) is not a true conditional in that the if-clause contains the past tense _stayed_, followed by the matrix clause containing the present tense _will_. For it to be a true conditional, therefore, you argue that the OP's sentence should be changed so that the tense is consistent throughout the sentence, and you wrote the following examples of true conditionals:
> (1)_ If he *has *stayed in the army, he *will *have become a colonel. _(present tense-present tense) [real]
> (2)_ If he *stayed *in the army, he *would *become a colonel. _(past tense-past tense)[unreal]
> (3)_ If he *stayed *in the army, he *would *have become a colonel. _(past tense-past tense) [unreal]
> 
> However, text book conditionals do not generally list a present-perfect if-clause as in (1) or the combination of a past-tense if-clause and a matrix clause having a 'would have + past participle' construction as in (3).
> 
> Maybe we're talking different types of traditional grammar books?


Hi JungKim,

You've really tried to sort this out, and I'll do my best to answer your implied questions here.

1.  I think my definition of a true conditional sentence is pretty standard.  The point is that the word* if* is used loosely to mean all sorts of things, like* granted that*, *although*, etc.  In such uses it does not introduce a conditional sentence proper (what I called a 'true' conditional sentence), though some of these uses can fool both learners and natives into thinking they are dealing with conditionals.

2.  I'm not entirely happy with your emphasis when you say 'For it to be a true conditional, therefore, you (TT) argue that the OP's  sentence should be changed so that the tense is consistent throughout  the sentence'.  What I'm saying is that if you want to write a conditional sentence in English you need to conform to one the patterns; you must observe the right sequence of tenses.  And the patterns give meanings which can be surprising to learners, but are usually, in context, second nature to natives.  I think the learners just have to learn them, as you seem also to feel.

3.  As to the individual examples, which I'll copy and paste straight out of your post, and comment on in red:

(1)_ If he *has *stayed in the army, he *will *have become a colonel. _(present tense-present tense) [real] - 1st conditional in the auxiliaries (present - future), 
(2)_ If he *stayed *in the army, he *would *become a colonel. _(past tense-past tense)[unreal] - 2nd conditional (past - conditional).
(3)_ If he *stayed *in the army, he *would *have become a colonel. _(past tense-past tense) [unreal] - mixed 2nd/3rd conditional (past - past-conditional).

I'm glad that I gave you those three examples, because they are all true conditionals and you'll find them with their explanations in the grammar books.

You have tried to summarize the meanings in your brackets after each one - my brackets concentrate on the sequence of tenses.

I have not tried to explain the meaning of each in detail, because they can easily be found for each case in the books, and we are not trying to be compendious here, but rather to look at one example which might have the meaning you seek.  I suspect the only true conditional form which will give you the meaning you seek is (1), but you seemed to wish a different if-clause, which disqualified that option, and that led to the subsequent wild goose chase.

4.  The books may not specify that you can follow the patterns of tense sequencing in the auxiliaries where you are using them.  This means that you can have a first conditional of the form: *If he has come, I will have seen him* - present/future, like our sentence (1).  That's a sort of past-tense version of* If he comes, I will see him*.

Most moderately well educated native speakers will be entirely familiar with this form. 

I expect the books don't mention this, because they are studious of brevity.  So am I usually.  I'm sorry to have produced such a long post.


----------



## JungKim

Thomas Tompion said:


> 2.  I'm not entirely happy with your emphasis when you say 'For it to be a true conditional, therefore, you (TT) argue that the OP's  sentence should be changed so that the tense is consistent throughout  the sentence'.  What I'm saying is that if you want to write a conditional sentence in English you need to conform to one the patterns;



Turns out I was mistaken about the reason why you rejected the OP's sentence as not being a true conditional. So it doesn't have to be the same tense throughout. And the reason is not simply because the past tense (_stayed_) is inconsistent with the present tense (_will_), but because the combination of the sentence simply is not one of the "patterns." 

Problem is, your patterns seem to cover a wider range of conditionals than the basic three types of conditionals (i.e., the 1st, 2nd and 3rd conditionals in most books, the 1st dealing with real situations and the rest with unreal situations).

What's even more problematic is, there is no way of knowing how wider you're going with your patterns. Most traditional grammar books do agree on the three basic types of conditionals, but beyond that they don't draw such a clear line as you seem to be drawing. Beyond the basic types, many tense combinations are made from the 1st conditionals, including the OP's sentence (which you say is not one of the patterns), as well as from the 2nd and 3rd conditionals, including (3) (which you say is one of the patterns but most traditional grammar books label as "AmE" and/or "informal." 

Last but not least, let's just assume for the sake of argument that I have learned (i.e., memorized) all your patterns. And I stumble upon, say, the OP's sentence, and what do I do? Do I just dismiss the sentence as not being a true conditional? My concern is to be able to understand the OP's sentence as clearly as a native speaker would, regardless of whether it be one of the patterns I've memorized or not. If I were to write a sentence myself, I would probably avoid using a non-true conditional, but that's not something I can do when I'm faced with the task of understanding.


----------



## boozer

Thomas Tompion said:


> This is a case in point. Look at your books. You will see immediately that *If he stayed in the army he will have become a colonel *is not a true conditional sentence.


Following our discussion, TT, I believe this is exactly where I cannot agree entirely. The way I see it, this is a very true conditional sentence. For a condition to be open it is enough for the speaker to believe it is open. If the speaker does not know what actually happened, then he can reasonably doubt if the condition was met or not, never mind that it happens to be a past condition. And the language readily reflects that. The speaker does not say
_If he had stayed in the army_...
because that would mean the speaker knows he likely did not stay. The speaker does not say
_If he has stayed in the army_...
although this, I believe, is a good option as well. 
What verb form would you use in the following situation: your wife went to the local hypermarket and did some shopping. She called you to tell you she was on her way back home so the shopping is now in the past. In the mean time, you invite a friend to join you for dinner and he asks, rather impolitely  'Wha' ye gonna have fa dinner?'. I might use this conditional sentence and in my mind it is an open past conditional: _If my wife bought mackerel, we are going to serve fish_.

Now, true, I do not know how to classify it. Maybe over the 17 long years that I was continuously taught grammar someone told me exactly what kind of a conditional this would be but, unfortunately, I have forgotten, just like I've forgotten 90% of everything else.  So now I have to go on instinct and say that I believe this to be a past open condition. It looks like a first conditional in that it is an open condition. It looks like a third conditional in that it is about the past and it looks like a second conditional in form, so I admit it is utterly weird. But in my mind it lives nonetheless. 

In addition, while I still remember the 4 basic types of conditionals plus the several more popular mixtures, I believe a language is larger than that and there may be situations that do not fit into those formulae. This may be one of them.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Hi Boozer,

In your case, I'd say 'If my wife has bought mackerel, we are going to serve fish'.

For me, 'If my wife bought mackerel, we are going to serve fish' is a perfectly grammatical sentence, but not a conditional.  It would be appropriate to circumstances where you know your wife bought mackerel and means 'Granted that my wife bought mackerel, we are going to serve fish'.

I suspect that some natives who write in these threads run sentences through in their minds, find they sound all right, and pronounce that conditional sentences of that form are idiomatic, not realising that the sentence, although it contains an if-clause, is not presenting a condition.  They should perhaps ask themselves whether the condition is sufficient or necessary.

Another point worth considering, though I've not seen this mentioned in the grammars, is that because the AE use of past tenses is so different from that in BE, some patterns are idiomatic in AE which are not idiomatic in BE.  I'm am not pretending to speak about a language other than BE, though notice that Copyright, an AE speaker, in post #8 generously showed himself happy with my suggested amendment of the sentence in the OP.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

JungKim said:


> Problem is, your patterns seem to cover a wider range of conditionals than the basic three types of conditionals (i.e., the 1st, 2nd and 3rd conditionals in most books, the 1st dealing with real situations and the rest with unreal situations).


I don't see this as a problem, JungKim.  I think you need to add the zero conditional to your list, and reckon that the auxiliaries can form the patterns too.





JungKim said:


> Beyond the basic types, many tense combinations are made from the 1st conditionals, including the OP's sentence (which you say is not one of the patterns), as well as from the 2nd and 3rd conditionals, including (3) (which you say is one of the patterns but most traditional grammar books label as "AmE" and/or "informal."


Beyond the four basic patterns, you need to be familiar with the mixed conditional patterns.  Do the books differ so extremely about them?





JungKim said:


> Last but not least, let's just assume for the sake of argument that I have learned (i.e., memorized) all your patterns. And I stumble upon, say, the OP's sentence, and what do I do? Do I just dismiss the sentence as not being a true conditional? My concern is to be able to understand the OP's sentence as clearly as a native speaker would, regardless of whether it be one of the patterns I've memorized or not. If I were to write a sentence myself, I would probably avoid using a non-true conditional, but that's not something I can do when I'm faced with the task of understanding.


This is a great question.

The problem you mention is one which faces any intelligent and sensitive native speaker who understands these issues.

Because many natives don't think about these things, they don't use conditional language precisely. Often it can be very hard to disentangle what they mean from what they say.  This is something which no amount of language learning can overcome.  You are one of the very few learners whom I've encountered advanced enough to recognise it.


----------



## boozer

Thomas Tompion said:


> Another point worth considering, though I've not seen this mentioned in the grammars, is that because the AE use of past tenses is so different from that in BE, some patterns are idiomatic in AE which are not idiomatic in BE. I'm am not pretending to speak about a language other than BE, though notice that Copyright, an AE speaker, in post #8 generously showed himself happy with my suggested amendment of the sentence in the OP.


Hello again, TT. 

I suspect our views are biginning to converge after this point you made. As I said, I would be quite happy with both _If my wife bought_... and _If my wife has bought_... though I see the former as more colloquial. Accent-wise I speak what many would classify as BE, but my experience of the English language is more of someone exposed to all varieties of English and immersed in some. And that to a point where I can barely remember what I have heard when and from whom. So it may well be that the simple-past if-clause is more 'American' than 'British'. However, I still remember ETB pronouncing it permissible in the early posts of this thread and I also believe it to be so. Mind you, the original sentence that triggered this interesting discussion is from a BE-based grammar book. 

Regarding certain uses of 'if' that you refer to as 'bogus conditionals' and I as 'pseudo-conditionals', I think we are mostly in agreement.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

boozer said:


> [...]
> Regarding certain uses of 'if' that you refer to as 'bogus conditionals' and I as 'pseudo-conditionals', I think we are mostly in agreement.


Hi Boozer

Many thanks for this.

I've a point or two:

1.  We don't know in what context the BE-based grammar book quoted the sentence in the OP.  It may have done so to illustrate non-conditional uses of if-clauses. Such uses can be perfectly idiomatic.  I'd always prefer a form which explicitly recognised that we were dealing with an assumption rather than a condition, but I know, and it's clear from threads like this, that there are people who don't make the distinction.

2.  The fact that the books are at such pains to teach the conventions about if-clauses in conditional sentences suggests that their writers realise that these conventions are vital for accurate idiomatic speech.  I don't think we help learners if we undermine their confidence in their need to learn these rules of tense-sequencing.  That's why I get a touch exercised about all this.  I know I don't have to make this last point to you, Boozer.


----------



## wandle

The possible types and patterns of conditionals are many and varied and are by no means confined to the basic patterns normally used in language teaching. The variety and complexity are such that it would be beyond the scope of secondary education or foreign-language tuition to tackle them all.

Some hint of this variety can be gained just by looking at the glossary of 
Conditionals: A Comprehensive Empirical Analysis By Renaat Declerck, Susan Reed 

That glossary does not contain the term 'pseudo-conditional', but it does include among others:  pseudo-hedge, pseudo-actualisation conditional, pseudo-implicative conditional, pseudo-inferential (conditional), pseudo-Q conditional, pseudo-Q inferential etc.

Another interesting entry:

*Possible-world typology of conditionals*: classification of conditionals on the basis of the possible world that is created by the P-clause. The first cut is between factual and theoretical conditionals. The latter may be of five subtypes, according to whether the P-clause is neutral, closed, open, tentative or counterfactual.

('P-clause' means the if-clause, 'Q-clause' the result clause.)

It is essential for the three basic patterns of conditionals to be taught to learners, but it is a mistake to think that there are no other types of conditional.


----------

