# Present Open Conditional, Open Future Conditional, Closed Future Conditional



## Tenacious Learner

Hi teachers,
As some of you you probably know I've been trying to find the simplest explanations to the following conditionals, this is my *last* attempt to try to find them.

I know that the Zero Conditional has other uses. Having said that, I believe that the three options are correct, could you confirm that they are? I'm particularly interested in letter "c".
*Zero Conditional (Present Open Conditional)*
a) It is used to talk about general habits, NOT about specific situations.
b) It is used to talk about general conditions, NOT about specific situations.
c) It is used to talk about general situations, NOT about specific situations.
Example:
If my grandfather comes to visit us, he brings a present for me.

*1st Conditional (Open Future Conditional)*
It is used to talk about one specific situation, NOT about general situations.
Example:
If my grandfather comes to visit us, he will bring a present for me.

I believe that both options are correct, could you confirm that they are? I'm particularly interested in letter "b".
*2nd  Conditional (Closed Future Conditional)*
a) It is used to talk about hypothetical situations, NOT about certain ones.
b) It is used to talk about hypothetical situations, NOT about general or specific situations.
Example:
If my grandfather came to visit us, he would bring a present for me.

Thanks in advance.


----------



## DonnyB

What would confuse me here is that you've attempted to explain the difference between zeros and type 1s/2s by referring to general and specific situations, but illustrated it with a _specific_ example (the one about the grandfather bringing presents).  I think I'd combine (a) (b) and (c) to say something like: "It is used to talk about general habits, conditions or situations: things which are _always_ true".

I'd suggest ditching all the phrases which start NOT..., because I think that just confuses the issue, particularly in 2b.  Unlike some people, I've no objection to describing a condition as 'hypothetical': I think it's a readily understandable alternative to 'unreal'.  But surely a condition must be either general or specific (it can't be neither?).

I hope that doesn't come across as too negative: I appreciate how much effort you've already put into trying to make all this work.


----------



## Tenacious Learner

DonnyB said:


> What would confuse me here is that you've attempted to explain the difference between zeros and type 1s/2s by referring to general and specific situations, but illustrated it with a _specific_ example (the one about the grandfather bringing presents). I think I'd combine (a) (b) and (c) to say something like: "It is used to talk about general habits, conditions or situations: things which are _always_ true".



Then, this is how they will be.
Hmm... I haven't thought about that. But I have to agree, all of them are true. 
*Zero Conditional (Present Open Conditional)*
It is used to talk about general habits, conditions or situations.
*
1st Conditional (Open Future Conditional)*
It is used to talk about one specific condition or situation.
*
2nd Conditional (Closed Future Conditional)*
a) It is used to talk about hypothetical conditions or situations.



DonnyB said:


> I'd suggest ditching all the phrases which start NOT..., because I think that just confuses the issue, particularly in 2b


The idea of using "NOT..." was just to reaffirm to the students the differences between them in each one.


DonnyB said:


> I hope that doesn't come across as too negative: I appreciate how much effort you've already put into trying to make all this work.


Not at all, but thank you so much for your very nice words.  The effort is definitely on both sides, plus the patience on yours.

TL


----------



## karlalou

Tenacious Learner said:


> If my grandfather comes to visit us, he brings a present for me.


I would like to see 'always' either by adding it in the sentence or by adding an explanation that it is the same as saying "Whenever he comes, he always brings a present for me." Also I would like very much to see an additional example which is from a basic science, such as "if you add salts to something, it becomes salty" so that the difference of the each conditional pattern is apparently seen. Grandpa's example is still needed to know this is not for only science.


----------



## wandle

I think it is a mistake trying to match each conditional to a particular type of situation, general or particular.

(a) 'If water is heated to 100°C, it boils' is a valid present open conditional.
(b) 'If water is heated to 100°C, it will boil' is a valid future open conditional.
(c) 'If water were heated to 100°C, it would boil' is a valid present or future closed conditional.

(d) 'If Grandpa comes to visit, he brings me a present' is a valid present open conditional.
(e) 'If Grandpa comes to visit, he will bring me a present' is a valid future open conditional.
(f) 'If Grandpa came to visit, he would bring me a present' is a valid future closed conditional.


----------



## Loob

TL. just do it the way you want to do it - the way you feel will be most helpful to your students!


----------



## karlalou

Loob is sweet  but as an opinion from students side, I agree with DonnyB that the "NOT ..." are rather too much. However, the idea that it's because you talk in the present tense it becomes a general idea has been helping me to understand the present tense, so I would have no problem to see it's explained as 'general'. For the explanation of the first conditional, I tend to feel uneasy with the word 'specific', but I think it's good as long as it's differentiated from 'hypothesis' which contradicts from the actual fact.


----------



## wandle

karlalou said:


> because you talk in the present tense it becomes a general idea


Unfortunately, that is not true.
The present open conditional can express a general truth, but it can also express a particular idea.

Here are some examples of present open conditionals expressing particular statements:

(g) 'If he is the man in the picture, he is wanted by the police.'
(h) 'If this cake contains nuts, it is not safe for me to eat it.'
(i) 'If you own all this property, you are a wealthy man.'

Edited for reference purposes.


----------



## karlalou

wandle said:


> 'If he is the man in the picture, he is wanted by the police.'
> 'If this cake contains nuts, it is not safe for me to eat it.'
> 'If you own all this property, you are a wealthy man.'


They seem to be all general idea since I agree that this sentence,


Tenacious Learner said:


> If my grandfather comes to visit us, he brings a present for me


is talking about 'general' idea.


----------



## karlalou

wandle said:


> (a) 'If water is heated to 100°C, it boils' is a valid present open conditional.
> (b) 'If water is heated to 100°C, it will boil' is a valid future open conditional.
> (c) 'If water were heated to 100°C, it would boil' is a valid present or future closed conditional.


We all have the freedom to say these, but while (a) is saying it as a general fact, (b) is saying it as something will surely happen, and (c) is making a hypothesis contradicting the fact that no one boiled water to 100°C, and these differences are the point of classifying the if-clauses.


----------



## wandle

> If my grandfather comes to visit us, he brings a present for me


You may say this makes a general point about a particular person in a particular situation. It is still a fairly particular statement.

It is not the kind of general or universal statement people have in mind when they speak of the zero conditional, such as 'If you put sodium in water, it produces a violent reaction'.

However, both statements are equally valid present open conditionals.





karlalou said:


> They seem to be all general idea


Sentences (g), (h) and (I) are each making a specific point about a specific individual in a specific situation. They are all very particular statements and they are all valid present open conditionals.


----------



## wandle

karlalou said:


> these differences are the point of classifying the if-clauses


For the purpose of classifying the 'if' clauses, the differences that matter are those of time and mood.

As regards time, (a) refers to present time; whereas (b) and (c) refer to future time.

As regards mood, (a) and (b) are open: the speaker is open-minded about it; he has no idea whether the condition is (or will be) fulfilled or not; whereas (c) is closed: the speaker is not open-minded about it; he believes the condition is not likely to be fulfilled.


----------



## karlalou

Tenacious Learner said:


> If my grandfather comes to visit us, he brings a present for me.





wandle said:


> (a) 'If water is heated to 100°C, it boils' is a valid present open conditional.





wandle said:


> (g) 'If he is the man in the picture, he is wanted by the police.'
> (h) 'If this cake contains nuts, it is not safe for me to eat it.'
> (i) 'If you own all this property, you are a wealthy man.'


All these sentences are in the zero conditional.
Here "my grandfather" or "the man in the picture" or "the cake contains nuts" or "someone owns all the property" or anything, however you modifies it, it's just as specific as water because these are all talking about not any particular event but a general idea; water is as specific as fire or diamond or his grandpa.

The shop at the corner opens at 8 in the morning.
This is talking about a general idea.
The shop at the corner has been closed since this Monday.
This is talking about a specific event.

I don't know if there's an occasion a present tense describes a particular event, however, I don't think it's wrong to add as a hint to grasp the zero conditional that it's used to talk about a 'general' idea. If the word 'idea' is triggering your argument then I think I see the reason why the OP has chosen three distinct terms, habits, conditions, and situations.


----------



## wandle

karlalou said:


> All these sentences are in the zero conditional.


I hope you realise that 'zero conditional' is not a technical grammatical term at all. The 0,1,2,3 classification is only an invention by language teachers who wanted to avoid using technical terms in the classroom. 'Zero conditional' is just a nickname.

The proper grammatical term for all the example sentences (a) to (i) is 'present open (or real) conditional'. The rule for a present open conditional, as shown by the examples and analysis I have given above, is nothing to do with whether it is a general or particular statement. The rule is simply this: a present open conditional has the present indicative in both the 'if' clause and the result clause. That is it. The word 'open' means that the speaker has an open mind on whether the condition comes true or not.

It can only cause confusion in the minds of learners to tell them 'The zero conditional is used for expressing general truths'. That will make them think that when a present open conditional is in the form of a particular statement, such as examples (d) to (i) above, it must be a different kind of conditional: though the unfortunate learner is not told what type it is (all because the teacher is frightened of the dreadful technical term 'present open conditional').


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Hi TL,

Your 2nd condtional - *If my grandfather came to visit us, he would bring a present for me* illustrates the abyss into which people fall when they start talking loosely about_ closed_ and _open_ conditions.

You call it a 'closed future conditional', yet you are not saying that there's no question of your grandfather coming, just that it's less likely than in the first conditional -* If he comes, he will bring etc.
*
What is misleading and loose is that there are truly closed conditions in the past -* If he had come, he would have brought *- cannot easily leave open the possibility that he came, unlike *If he came, he would have brought*.

_Open_ and _closed_ in this context sound like absolutes, either the condition was, or is, or will be, met or it was not, or is not, or will not be, met.

Of course in the case of future events many more things might possibly happen - the range of the empirically possible is enormous - so unless you are talking about things which are logically impossible, like retreating forwards, or my being you, it's intellectually dangerous, and often disreputable, to talk of closed future conditions.


----------



## wandle

Thomas Tompion said:


> _Open_ and _closed_ in this context sound like absolutes, either the condition was, or is, or will be, met or it was not, or is not, or will not be, met.


'Open' and 'closed' refer to the speaker's attitude of mind, not to external facts. The Oxford English Grammar says this:


> Direct conditions may be open (or real) or hypothetical (closed or unreal) ...
> Hypothetical conditions ... express the speaker's belief that the condition has not been fulfilled (for past conditions), is not fulfilled (for present conditions) or is unlikely to be fulfilled (for future conditions).


Thus in *Tenacious Learner's* second example


Tenacious Learner said:


> *2nd Conditional (Closed Future Conditional)*
> If my grandfather came to visit us, he would bring a present for me.


the meaning of 'closed' simply is that the speaker thinks it unlikely that grandfather will visit.


----------



## Loob

Aren't there really two sorts of Second Conditional, one "closed" and one "open"?

_If my grandfather came to visit us, he would bring a present for me. (*But he never does come.)*
If my grandfather came to visit us, he would bring a present for me. *(It's my birthday next week: my grandfather might come!)*_


----------



## wandle

Loob said:


> Aren't there really two sorts of Second Conditional, one "closed" and one "open"?


Afraid not. There is only one: it is defined by grammarians as a closed (or unreal or hypothetical) future conditional.
To quote the Oxford English Grammar again:


> Direct conditions may be open (or real) or hypothetical (closed or unreal) ...
> Future and present hypothetical conditions take a past in the conditional clause and a past modal in the host clause.


That tells us how this conditional is formed. As to what it means (OEG again):


> Hypothetical conditions ... express the speaker's belief that the condition ... is unlikely to be fulfilled (for future conditions).


There is unfortunately no way in English to express different degrees of unlikelihood in a closed future conditional (second conditional).
We are up against the limits of the language.

We can say either 'If he comes, he will bring a present' (the speaker's mind is open on the question whether he will come) or 'If he came, he would bring a present' (the speaker's mind is not open as to whether he will come: the speaker thinks it is unlikely).


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Loob said:


> Aren't there really two sorts of Second Conditional, one "closed" and one "open"?
> 
> _If my grandfather came to visit us, he would bring a present for me. (*But he never does come.)*
> If my grandfather came to visit us, he would bring a present for me. *(It's my birthday next week: my grandfather might come!)*_


This is a very good point, Loob.

And even the closed one isn't truly closed.  Sure, he hardly ever comes, but that doesn't mean that it's totally out of the question that he might.

It's this abuse of 'closed' to mean 'almost closed' which I find loose and unhelpful.  And the suggestion that the 2nd conditional can be swept into this glib bracket suggests a love of neatness rather than considered thought.


----------



## wandle

Thomas Tompion said:


> It's the abuse of 'closed' to mean 'almost closed' which I find loose and unhelpful. And the suggestion that the 2nd conditional can be swept into this glib bracket suggests a love of neatness rather than considered thought.


That is a rather dismissive comment on the work and terminology of Sidney Greenbaum in the Oxford English Grammar (the result of a lifetime's work, and succeeding the Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, on which he had worked with Quirk and others).

Have you any authority to offer against that?


----------



## Loob

Thomas Tompion said:


> It's this abuse of 'closed' to mean 'almost closed' which I find loose and unhelpful.


Yes, I feel rather the same, TT.
I never lose hope that one day I'll find a description of conditionals that I actually like!


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Loob said:


> Yes, I feel rather the same, TT.
> I never lose hope that one day I'll find a description of conditionals that I actually like!


It would be better if the people who insisted on the terminology would use the language of doubt and uncertainty, which is what they are really talking about, rather than resorting to apparent absolutes.


----------



## wandle

As the OEG makes clear, we have a choice of terms for this type of conditional: 'hypothetical', 'closed', 'unreal' (there is also 'remote', which some people prefer). None of them is perfect, each is flawed. Take your pick.

The important thing, whichever of those terms we use, is that they are all defined the same way in this context, namely:
(a) by how the second conditional is formed (past tense in the 'if' clause, past modal in the result clause);
and (b) by what such a conditional means (the speaker believes the condition is unlikely to be met).

It is these criteria which give us the meaning of the term for present purposes. It is unimportant which term we use, as long as we all keep the same meaning in mind.


----------



## karlalou

Tenacious Learner said:


> 2nd Conditional (Closed Future Conditional)





Tenacious Learner said:


> If my grandfather came to visit us, he would bring a present for me.


OP's example sentence is fine, but I find it's not 'future'. It should be _present_, but just in case of rare instances, i think you don't need to say it.



wandle said:


> I hope you realise that 'zero conditional' is not a technical grammatical term at all.


I hope you realise you've been misusing the grammar and misleading your students into eternal confusion, after receiving so many oppositions.

Those terms set by grammarians are helpful. I like the terms 'open' or 'closed' or 'real' or 'unreal'. The point is how you use these grammar. It's merely guidelines and not rules. After shown some basic examples, students are all free to write as their own reality requires. Yes, of course according to logic.

When someone acts a teacher and starts to explain everything according to whether it fits to any of these three or four example patterns, that is nothing but wrong.


----------



## wandle

karlalou said:


> OP's example sentence is fine, but I find it's not 'future'.


Excuse me, you are mistaken. The sentence 'If my grandfather came to visit us, he would bring a present for me' is a correct closed future conditional, also called second conditional. It employs the past tense forms, of course. That is how we refer to the future in closed (unreal, hypothetical) conditionals in English.


karlalou said:


> you've been misusing the grammar and misleading your students into eternal confusion


No. On the contrary, I have quoted carefully from the Oxford English Grammar to show the relevant points; for example, in post 18, which gives the rule for the closed future conditional:





> Future and present hypothetical conditions take a past in the conditional clause and a past modal in the host clause.


 Compare that with the above example and you will see that it corresponds exactly. *Tenacious Learner* gave it the correct name.


karlalou said:


> after receiving so many oppositions.


Disagreements can easily arise from misunderstanding. For example, you seem to think that I would limit conditionals to three or four patterns:


karlalou said:


> When someone acts a teacher and starts to explain everything according to whether it fits to any of these three or four example patterns, that is nothing but wrong.


I have never said that. On the contrary, I have always said that the three or four patterns of the 'traditional' EFL approach are (a) not systematic and (b) not complete as a picture of English conditionals.

Look at this post from an earlier thread. There I present a table of six different types and I add the comment: 





wandle said:


> that is only a basic table to illustrate the six fundamental syntactic types. It does not include all the various ways each of these types may be expressed.


----------



## karlalou

wandle said:


> The sentence 'If my grandfather came to visit us, he would bring a present for me' is a correct closed future conditional, also called second conditional.


'Closed' means it's done deal. The hypothesis, which contradicts the actual present fact, logically doesn't have any future. It's usually a regret. At least the speaker is saying it can't be changed anymore. Bringing up the word 'future' here, just confuses students.


----------



## karlalou

wandle said:


> On the contrary, I have quoted carefully from the Oxford English Grammar to show


Your problem is too strict to these grammar without full knowledge of it.

The problem of "If my wife has a cold, I would catch it" is not because it doesn't fit to any of these grammar patterns (actually this is in the form of 1st conditional and thus grammatical), though that was what you told me before, but the reason is because of some kind of customary.


----------



## wandle

karlalou said:


> 'Closed' means it's done deal.


No. 'Closed' in this context just means that the speaker thinks the condition is unlikely to be met.

I have just given you the rule for the closed (also called hypothetical) future conditional, taken from the Oxford English Grammar, but in case you have not read it here it is again:


> Future and present hypothetical conditions take a past in the conditional clause and a past modal in the host clause.


Is there anything there you do not understand? (Remember, in this context, 'closed' and 'hypothetical' mean the same thing).


----------



## Thomas Tompion

karlalou said:


> The hypothesis, which contradicts the actual present fact, logically doesn't have any future.


But this is to suggest that the if-clause makes a statement.  If-clauses don't make statements, and so cannot contradict anything.


karlalou said:


> The problem of "If my wife has a cold, I would catch it" is not because it doesn't fit to any of these grammar patterns (actually this is in the form of 1st conditional and thus grammatical), though that was what you told me before, but the reason is because of some kind of customary.


It's like no 1st conditional I've ever seen.


----------



## karlalou

> In type 1 conditional sentences, you can also use modals in the main clause instead of the future tense to express the degree of certainty, permission, or a recommendation about the outcome. (By an outside grammar site)


And I agree with this statement because I've actually seen the form in use.



Thomas Tompion said:


> It's like no 1st conditional I've ever seen.


I wonder how you say it when you want to say something you don't know if it's true or not, but if it's the case, there's a possibility of its happening.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

karlalou said:


> And I agree with this statement because I've actually seen the form in use.
> 
> 
> I wonder how you say it when you want to say something you don't know if it's true or not, but if it's the case, there's a possibility of its happening.


If you are unsure about such things, start a thread to ask about them, after looking to see whether or not we've already got some.


----------



## karlalou

Thomas Tompion said:


> If you are unsure about such things, start a thread to ask about them, after looking to see whether or not we've already got some.


Thanks for your advice. I've already done that, and I got the link from a native, and came to the conclusion that it's grammatical but because of some kind of customary "catching a cold from someone" is something inevitable to English natives.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

karlalou said:


> Thanks for your advice. I've already done that, and I got the link from a native, and came to the conclusion that it's grammatical but because of some kind of customary "catching a cold from someone" is something inevitable to English natives.


It sounds to me as though you've been seriously misled.


----------



## siares

Thomas Tompion said:


> It's like no 1st conditional I've ever seen.


I just saw this on a forum:
_I would be surprised if anyone drinks water from their own well without.._
it has the same form as
_If my wife has a cold, I would catch it_

What are the differences between them, Thomas Tompion, please, when one is acceptable and one not?

I hope it's not too frustrating to explain, but I want to make sense of 2 views on 2 forms:

1) If she was sick last week, he would be sick now too. (open, we don't know if she was or wasn't sick) - accepted by most
2) If she drinks water, I would be surprised. (rejected by most)

Why is the second one not accepted (except I now found an example on the forum...), if the first one is?
Is it to do with semantics rather than verb form? I hope you can help, the curiosity is killing me!
Thank you.


----------



## Vronsky

siares said:


> I would be surprised if anyone drinks water from their own well without.





siares said:


> 2) If she drinks water, I would be surprised. (rejected by most)


Who are these most? This is a correct conditional sentence.

This phrase "I would (not) be surprised" has already been discussed on the forum. For example, 2nd Conditional . I think you were supposed to see that.

This type of sentences "I would be surprised if ..." is a pseudo-conditional. In fact, the sentence in the quote can be written in _"I would be surprised by the fact that she drinks water."_ Here, there is no cause-effect relationship. "I would be surprised" is simply a phrase that shows your attitude to something.

On the contrary, in the conditional sentence _"If my wife has a cold, I will catch it"_, there is a strict cause-effect relationship between if and result clauses.


----------



## wandle

Vronsky said:


> On the contrary, in the conditional sentence _"If my wife has a cold, I will catch it"_, there is a strict cause-effect relationship between if and result clauses.


It is a misconception to think that a cause-effect relationship is needed for a sentence to be a conditional.
That is confusing the semantic content with the grammar: they are two different things.

If a sentence is correctly formed with an 'if' clause and a result clause, then it is a conditional.
The test is whether the grammatical form is correct (a linguistic question), not whether the relationship is causal (a semantic question).

For example, in this case the grammatical form is incorrect, because it mixes open with closed (unreal, hypothetical): 'If she drinks water, I would be surprised'.

Correct options could be, for example: 'If she is drinking water, I am surprised' (e.g. a doctor's reaction to a patient's unexpected recovery); or 'If she drank water, I would be surprised' (the doctor's earlier expectation).

Consider the sentence, 'If water boils, then the air is green'. This makes no sense in logic or in fact, but it is a valid conditional sentence (present open).

We can run it through all the various forms of conditionals: 'If water boiled, then the air would be green' (present or future closed); 'If water boiled, then the air was green' (past open); 'If water had boiled, then the air would have been green' (past closed) etc.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

siares said:


> I just saw this on a forum:
> _I would be surprised if anyone drinks water from their own well without.._
> it has the same form as
> _If my wife has a cold, I would catch it_
> 
> What are the differences between them, Thomas Tompion, please, when one is acceptable and one not?
> 
> I hope it's not too frustrating to explain, but I want to make sense of 2 views on 2 forms:
> 
> 1) If she was sick last week, he would be sick now too. (open, we don't know if she was or wasn't sick) - accepted by most
> 2) If she drinks water, I would be surprised. (rejected by most)
> 
> Why is the second one not accepted (except I now found an example on the forum...), if the first one is?
> Is it to do with semantics rather than verb form? I hope you can help, the curiosity is killing me!
> Thank you.


It's just an error, Siares.  Natives make errors.

You've got a choice between these two, both standard forms:

_I would be surprised if anyone drank water etc._ - 2nd conditional.
_I will be surprised if anyone drinks water etc_. - 1st conditional.


----------



## Vronsky

wandle said:


> For example, in this case the grammatical form is incorrect, because it mixes open with closed (unreal, hypothetical): 'If she drinks water, I would be surprised'.


What about the sentence "I would be surprised to find out that she drinks water"?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Vronsky said:


> What about the sentence "I would be surprised to find out that she drinks water"?


That would be fine, of course.  Though it would be usual to shift the tense:

_I *am* surprised to find out that she *drinks* water._
_I *would be* surprised to find out that she *drank* water._

However, as is usual with such tense-shifts, you can use the present in the clause in the second sentence, for the usual reasons - pressing present force, etc.

By avoiding the conditional, you avoid the need to follow the conventions of tense sequencing which apply in conditional sentences.


----------



## Loob

Vronsky said:


> Who are these most? This is a correct conditional sentence.


I can certainly imagine saying _I'd be surprised if she drinks water._


----------



## Vronsky

Loob said:


> I can certainly imagine saying _I'd be surprised if she drinks water._


I think it's possible because the complete sentence might be _"I'd be surprised if I found out that she drinks water." _Here, it's possible to use the present tense "that she drinks water". But as Thomas Tompion mentioned, strictly speaking, it probably should be "that she drank water". It's quite complicated; tense-shifting is something that I haven't fully mastered yet


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Loob said:


> I can certainly imagine saying _I'd be surprised if she drinks water._


Do you see it as a conditional sentence, Loob?

Doesn't it often just mean _I'd be surprised to learn that she drinks water_?

Imagine yourself hiding behind a tree to see if your pet mongoose drinks water or beer when left unmolested, discussing with a friend what you think it will drink.

And turn the sentence round - _if it drinks water, I *will *be surprised _- surely?


----------



## e2efour

Loob said:


> I can certainly imagine saying _I'd be surprised if she drinks water._



This is not an uncommon thing to say. See I'd be surprised if he came/ comes. There Thomas Tompion only called _if he comes_ "slightly slack speech". 

No one questioned the use of the present tense in "surprised if there winds - Google Search.

If I was speculating about Trump's knowledge of Chinese, I might say _I would be surprised if he can speak Chinese_ (rather than _if he could_).

Trying to force conditional sentences to conform to inferior classifications such as "2nd conditionals" is a waste of time since it doesn't reflect how people (even "educated" ones) actually speek.


----------



## Loob

Thomas Tompion said:


> Do you see it as a conditional sentence, Loob?


All I'm saying is that, for me,  _I'd be surprised if she drinks water_ is a well-formed _s_entence.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Loob said:


> All I'm saying is that, for me,  _I'd be surprised if she drinks water_ is a well-formed _s_entence.


Perhaps you don't have a pet mongoose.


----------



## siares

Thank you, Vronsky, e2e4, Thomas Tompion, Loob, wandle.


Loob said:


> _I'd be surprised if she drinks water_ is a well-formed _s_entence.


Is it a well formed-sentence if used in both situations below? I think they have been mixed in the discussions above:
1) action of drinking is in the future
(spying on mongoose)_ I don't think she will drink; I'd be very surprised if she drinks!_
2) action of drinking is in the present
_You think she's back on the bottle? No, no, she did very well in rehab; I don't think she drinks, I'd be very surprised if she does!
_
And Thomas Tompion, do you see both of them as slack speech, or both wrong, or one one and the other the other?

Thank you for the links, e2e4!

Vronsky, I know what you mean by pseudo-condition. I am trying to tidy up the views in my head (once taking the semantics into account, once not).


----------



## Thomas Tompion

siares said:


> 1) action of drinking is in the future
> (spying on mongoose)_ I don't think she will drink; I'd be very surprised if she drinks!_
> 2) action of drinking is in the present
> _You think she's back on the bottle? No, no, she did very well in rehab; I don't think she drinks, I'd be very surprised if she does!
> _
> And Thomas Tompion, do you see both of them as slack speech, or both wrong, or one one and the other the other?


1) is slack speech; obviously so, in my view.  It's got to be_ I'll be very surprised if she drinks_.
2) is not a conditional sentence.  It means _I'd be surprised to hear _(or_ learn _or _discover,_ or some such verb)_ that she does_. (It's not as though you are observing her and your surprise springs from your observation, which is what a conditional sentence would suggest).


----------



## siares

Thank you, Thomas Tompion, I understand what you mean.

By a nice coincidence, I came across a sentence in Cheers now, and I think that pseudo-conditionality, and the speaker's intention, and which clause is the first, has bearing on what sequencing is needed, despite wandle's interesting post 36.

A guy comes to ask about a bartender job.
See, I tend bar back home in lndiana. Well, it's not a bar exactly. _It's more like a pigsty with a jukebox, if we had a jukebox.
_
Although incorrect according to normal sequencing, it just sounds much funnier than it would with_ 'It would be more like a pigsty with a jukebox, if we had a jukebox.'_

I also think it doesn't work with reversed orders of the clauses:
_If we had a jukebox, it's more like a pigsty with a jukebox._



wandle said:


> If a sentence is correctly formed with an 'if' clause and a result clause, then it is a conditional.


Wouldn't it then follow, that if the sentence is incorrectly formed (as regards sequencing), it is not a proper conditional, but a pseudoconditional, which could still be valid under different set of rules?
What do you think of the pigsty sentence?

Thank you.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

siares said:


> I also think it doesn't work with reversed orders of the clauses:
> _If we had a jukebox, it's more like a pigsty with a jukebox._
> 
> Wouldn't it then follow, that if the sentence is incorrectly formed (as regards sequencing), it is not a proper conditional, but a pseudoconditional, which could still be valid under different set of rules?
> What do you think of the pigsty sentence?


It's certainly not what I would call a conditional sentence.  I'm not going to give it other names.

The point I've been making for many years now is that when we aren't dealing with conditional sentences, there's no need to look for or expect or feel bound by the normal rules of tense sequencing.

Most natives with half an ear for this sort of thing feel the difference in meaning when the tense sequencing is properly applied.  Many of the sentences which the others produce which they say break the ordinary rules of tense sequencing are not ungrammatical because they aren't true conditional sentences.


----------



## wandle

siares said:


> Well, it's not a bar exactly. _It's more like a pigsty with a jukebox, if we had a jukebox._.


This is just another case where one clause of the conditional is left unexpressed.

_It's more like a pigsty with a jukebox, or it would be, if we had a jukebox._

This is still funny, because the hearer still has to draw the conclusion that there is no jukebox and the place is nothing but a pigsty. However, the shorter version is funnier, because the point hits home that bit sooner. Brevity is the soul of wit. Omitting one clause of the conditional is a common feature of spoken language. This one is a valid present closed (unreal, hypothetical) conditional.


----------



## siares

Thank you very much, Thomas Tompion, wandle!
I like Thomas Tompion's view because it is more interesting to have an uncategorized beast conditional, but the elision you propose, wandle, sounds very clear.

The discussion made clear for me why _If she drinks I would be surprised _is different from _If she is sick he would catch it _where the form is identical but there is no 'learning of the fact'.

It is interesting to see two views - one judging from purely grammatical point as wandle's - both forms are rejected, and one purely semantical by Sevendays in this thread: both forms are accepted; and then there is a mixture of the 2.

Thanks, all.


----------

