# And if you took Natural Selection to Ahead Four at will,



## thetazuo

“I know,” he said without looking up. “You were wise to keep the entire ship in deep-sea state.”

“It had to be this way. Otherwise, agitated officers and soldiers would have attacked this cabin. And if you took Natural Selection to Ahead Four at will, you would have killed them all. That’s also the reason why the pursuers haven’t closed in.”

Excerpt From
The Dark Forest (Remembrance of Earth's Past)
Cixin Liu

Context: the ship called “Natural Selection” is a extremely large spaceship. There are four types of acceleration among which the highest is called “The Ahead Four”, which would allow the spaceship to travel at one-hundredth the speed of light. According to physics, the passengers (in this case, the officers and soldiers) would be dead in a spaceship traveling that fast—only deep-sea state can protect them. And before the quoted conversation, the spaceship has already been taken to Ahead Four.

Question:
Can I understand the underlined sentence as “The speaker knows ‘you’ didn’t kill them all, and uses this knowledge to argue that ‘you’ didn’t take Natural Selection to Ahead Four at will”? (That is to say, the topic sentence is not a mixed 2/3 conditional. Am I on the right track?)

Thank you.


----------



## Glasguensis

No. You here is the general case, like « if you look at the sun you can damage your eyes ».


----------



## Uncle Jack

No, I don't think so. The speaker is stating a fact, not drawing any conclusions.

I can see two ways the speaker could have ended up with this sentence. One is as an ordinary hypothetical statement, a type 2 conditional. The other person did not take _Natural Selection_ to Ahead Four "at will", they kept the ship in deep-sea state. I might have said that is the most likely reading, but the perfect conditional main clause argues against this, I think.

Another possibility is that they are expressing it as a real conditional, which might be better expressed as a type 0 general truth using the present tense, but the speaker is thinking of the previous situation so uses the past tense instead.


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you both.


Glasguensis said:


> No. You here is the general case, like « if you look at the sun you can damage your eyes ».





Uncle Jack said:


> No, I don't think so. The speaker is stating a fact, not drawing any conclusions.





Uncle Jack said:


> The other person did not take _Natural Selection_ to Ahead Four "at will", they kept the ship in deep-sea state.


After reading the previous text again, I think you are immaculately right. How could you have made the right inference? I’m curious.

Besides, Jack, why do you think it is a type 2 conditional? The main clause is “would have”, not “would”.


----------



## Uncle Jack

thetazuo said:


> How could you have made the right inference? I’m curious.


Always assume a writer knows what they are talking about and has an excellent command of English, and see if any sense can be made of the words as written. The speaker appears to be very knowledgeable. Both people know that the ship had been kept in deep-sea state. The only reason I can see for mentioning "Ahead Four" is that the ship had been taken to Ahead Four, and this in turn is the only reason I can see for mentioning deep-sea state and the attackers not closing in.


thetazuo said:


> Besides, Jack, why do you think it is a type 2 conditional? The main clause is “would have”, not “would”.


I don't; this is merely one of the possibilities. I edited my earlier post (but before you replied), and you may have seen an earlier version (although I see I left in the bit about it being an ordinary type 2 conditional, which of course it isn't).


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you again. 

So why can a mixed 2/3 conditional (assuming it is a mixed conditional) can be a factual statement? I would use a type 0 to express a fact. To me, a mixed 2/3 is always hypothetical, not factual. Maybe this is a very rare occurrence.  
By the way, can the topic sentence be a shorthand for “And if you *had taken* Natural Selection to Ahead Four at will, you would have killed them all.”, which is a standard type 3 conditional?


----------



## Uncle Jack

thetazuo said:


> To me, a mixed 2/3 is always hypothetical, not factual.


The situation is hypothetical, but the truth being expressed can be factual. Many situations can be expressed as a type 0, a type 1 or a type 2 conditional, depending on the way the speaker thinks about the situation:
0. If the ice caps melt, the sea level rises. [General truth]​1. If the ice caps melt, the sea level will rise. [Real possibility]​2. If the ice caps melted, the seal level would rise. [Hypothetical situation]​


thetazuo said:


> By the way, can the topic sentence be a shorthand for “And if you *had taken* Natural Selection to Ahead Four at will, you would have killed them all.”, which is a standard type 3 conditional?


I suppose this is possible, but "at will" is a very odd thing to say about a past event. It would be far better to refer to not being in a deep-sea state ("And if you had taken _Natural Selection_ to Ahead Four not in a deep-sea state...". "At will" points to the sentence being a general truth (real or hypothetical, take your pick), and the specific situation that has just happened is only incidental to what the person is saying.


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you again.
So can we say “And if you took Natural Selection to Ahead Four at will, you *would* kill them all” in this context to mean the same thing?


----------



## Uncle Jack

thetazuo said:


> So can we say “And if you took Natural Selection to Ahead Four at will, you *would* kill them all” in this context to mean the same thing?


This seems possible to me, as an ordinary type 2 conditional.


----------



## thetazuo

Uncle Jack said:


> This seems possible to me, as an ordinary type 2 conditional.


Thank you. So do you mean in this context I can use any type of conditional, including mixed conditional, to express the same idea (to state a fact)?

By the way, could you have a look at this example?
“This is the biggest difference between you and me: I’m just someone who faithfully carries out orders. You, you’re someone who always has to ask why.”
“Is that wrong?”
“It’s not about right or wrong. If everyone *had* to be clear about why before they executed an order, then the world *would have* plunged into chaos long ago”

Excerpt from The Dark Forest
Cixin Liu

Is the latest example stating a fact? Or it should be read as “not everyone *has* to be clear about why before they executed an order, and that is why the world *didn’t* plunge into chaos long ago”?


----------



## Uncle Jack

thetazuo said:


> So do you mean in this context I can use any you of conditional, including mixed conditional, to express the same idea (to state a fact)?


No, you cannot use any conditional. You need to decide what it is you want to say, then choose the form of words to match. Readers will use the reverse process, plus the context, to determine what you meant, what nuance you wanted to give and where you wanted to place any emphasis. If you cannot choose which words to use, particularly in such a simple situation as this appears to be, then you probably haven't thought about what you want to say with sufficient clarity.

In post #7, I suggested different ways in which the same situation may be expressed in a conditional sentence. What I did not intend suggesting was that a person might be undecided over which sentence to use. I would expect every person who chose one of those three sentences to be in no doubt that theirs was the correct way of expressing it. The situation may be the same, but the people and what they wanted to say about it would be different.

Your new sentence appears to be exactly the same as the sentence this thread is about. I think the most likely scenario is that it is a (real) general truth that the writer chose to express in the past.


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you again. I’m not sure if I understand you.


Uncle Jack said:


> No, you cannot use any conditional. You need to decide what it is you want to say, then choose the form of words to match. Readers will use the reverse process, plus the context, to determine what you meant, what nuance you wanted to give and where you wanted to place any emphasis.





Uncle Jack said:


> I would expect every person who chose one of those three sentences to be in no doubt that theirs was the correct way of expressing it. The situation may be the same, but the people and what they wanted to say about it would be different.


So we can’t use any type of conditionals because each type has its own nuance and emphasis. However, in effect, they are stating the same fact. Do I get it?


Uncle Jack said:


> Your new sentence appears to be exactly the same as the sentence this thread is about. I think the most likely scenario is that it is a (real) general truth that the writer chose to express in the past.


Do you suggest that a mixed 2/3 reading of the sentence is incompatible with reading it as a real general truth? Or both readings are correct—they are just different ways to look at the same sentence? (I know a mixed 2/3 reading is impossible for the op example.)


----------



## Uncle Jack

thetazuo said:


> So we can’t use any type of conditionals because each type has its own nuance and emphasis. However, in effect, they are stating the same fact. Do I get it?


They refer to the same thing. Whether or not you can say that they are stating "the same fact" is debatable. If you use a type 2 conditional you strongly imply whatever is expressed in the if-clause won't happen. If you use a type 1 you are suggesting it as a distinct possibility.


thetazuo said:


> Do you suggest that a mixed 2/3 reading of the sentence is incompatible with reading it as a real general truth? Or both readings are correct—they are just different ways to look at the same sentence? (I know a mixed 2/3 reading is impossible for the op example.)


The question of why the speaker has chosen to frame the main clause in the past exists whether you interpret it as a real or hypothetical situation. If the speaker might otherwise have used a type 0 conditional, then placing the effect to the past more-or-less forces the if-clause to also be in the past. A type 2 conditional is more flexible, and the if-clause need not change if the situation is timeless but the effect is in the past.


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you, Jack.


Uncle Jack said:


> A type 2 conditional is more flexible, and the if-clause need not change if the situation is timeless but the effect is in the past.


I think by the above explanation you are as much as describing a mixed 2/3 conditional (a timeless if-clause combined with a main clause describing a past effect).
So is the new example really saying “not everyone *has* to be clear about why before they executed an order, and that is why the world *didn’t* plunge into chaos long ago”?



thetazuo said:


> And if you took Natural Selection to Ahead Four at will, you would have killed them all.





thetazuo said:


> If everyone *had* to be clear about why before they executed an order, then the world *would have* plunged into chaos long ago”





Uncle Jack said:


> If the speaker might otherwise have used a type 0 conditional, then placing the effect to the past more-or-less forces the if-clause to also be in the past.


If the the two examples are real past conditionals where the effect is placed in the past, why not just say “And if you took Natural Selection to Ahead Four at will, you *would* kill them all.” and “If everyone *had* to be clear about why before they executed an order, then the world *would *plunge into chaos long ago”? Isn’t “would” past enough as far as a real conditional goes?


Uncle Jack said:


> If you use a type 2 conditional you strongly imply whatever is expressed in the if-clause won't happen. If you use a type 1 you are suggesting it as a distinct possibility.


Is this difference really important in practice? You said earlier that “the specific situation that has just happened is only incidental to what the person is saying”.


----------



## Uncle Jack

thetazuo said:


> I think by the above explanation you are as much as describing a mixed 2/3 conditional (a timeless if-clause combined with a main clause describing a past effect).
> So is the new example really saying “not everyone *has* to be clear about why before they executed an order, and that is why the world *didn’t* plunge into chaos long ago”?


Don't change the sentence this way, as "not everyone" implies some people (but not others) are exempt, which is not at all the meaning of the original conditional sentence. Also, don't mix tenses. If you use "has", then use "execute" and "doesn't", and delete "long ago".



thetazuo said:


> If the the two examples are real past conditionals


They aren't, not in the usual sense of real past conditionals. They express general truths, not a particular situation in the past, but the writer has decided to illustrate them with an effect in the past.



thetazuo said:


> Is this difference really important in practice?


Yes, of course. It is the whole point of using a type 2 conditional (or at least, a type 2 if-clause).


thetazuo said:


> You said earlier that “the specific situation that has just happened is only incidental to what the person is saying”.


Yes. The sentence conveys a general truth. This oughtn't be affected by a specific event - the event is incidental to the truth being expressed - but the writer thinks this is a better illustration of the truth than a general statement.


----------



## thetazuo

Thanks a lot.


Uncle Jack said:


> Don't change the sentence this way, as "not everyone" implies some people (but not others) are exempt, which is not at all the meaning of the original conditional sentence. Also, don't mix tenses. If you use "has", then use "execute" and "doesn't", and delete "long ago".


I know “not everyone” implies some people are exempt, and I still think the new example implies “not everyone”, which you think is wrong. So how would you paraphrase the new example?
I mixed the tenses because I follow the guidance in this link (Mixed Conditionals | ENGLISH PAGE)




So you think the paraphrase given in the link is wrong?


Uncle Jack said:


> but the writer has decided to illustrate them with an effect in the past.


Since the effects are in the past, why not just use “..., you *would* kill them all” and “..., then the world *would* plunge into chaos long ago”? Isn’t “would” past enough?


----------



## Uncle Jack

thetazuo said:


> I mixed the tenses because I follow the guidance in this link


A type 2 if-clause can be followed by the conditional present or the conditional perfect. However, just because you can mix tenses in this situation, don't think that you can mix tenses in other situations. Sometimes you can, but you cannot, for example, in a type 0 conditional (not going from present to past, at any rate). I said this in post #13.


thetazuo said:


> Isn’t “would” past enough?


No. This is the conditional "would", which does not indicate time. It is not the past form of "will".


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you.
So my link is right?


Uncle Jack said:


> which is not at all the meaning of the original conditional sentence.


And how would you paraphrase my second example? What is the meaning of the second example? 


Uncle Jack said:


> If the speaker might otherwise have used a type 0 conditional, then placing the effect to the past more-or-less forces the if-clause to also be in the past.





Uncle Jack said:


> Sometimes you can, but you cannot, for example, in a type 0 conditional (not going from present to past, at any rate). I said this in post #13.


I’m quite aware of what you said in post 13. Of course I know we can’t mix tenses in a type 0, but we are talking about type 2, not type 0. So what’s the point in saying we can’t mix tenses in type 0?


----------



## Glasguensis

What paraphrase are you referring to on the linked page?
The meaning of the second example is that if everyone asked « why? », the world would be chaotic (because lots of necessary actions in the past would not have been undertaken).
There is no guidance as such on your page about mixing tenses, simply examples. Jack was merely saying that the fact that a number of examples exist doesn’t mean that it is always possible to mix tenses. He gave an example which he was sure you would agree with rather than confusing things with some other situation


----------



## Uncle Jack

thetazuo said:


> I’m quite aware of what you said in post 13. Of course I know we can’t mix tenses in a type 0, but we are talking about type 2, not type 0. So what’s the point in saying we can’t mix tenses in type 0?


What makes you so sure the speaker is thinking of a hypothetical situation? In any case, a hypothetical situation cannot be described using the present tense, unless you use a word like "consider"; the thing that marks it as hypothetical is the backshifted verb, whether it is part of an if-clause or not.


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you, glas.


Glasguensis said:


> What paraphrase are you referring to on the linked page?


I mean all three in the picture.


Glasguensis said:


> The meaning of the second example is that if everyone asked « why? », the world would be chaotic (because lots of necessary actions in the past would not have been undertaken).


Can I think it means “If everyone asks why, the world will be chaotic” (in present tense)?


Glasguensis said:


> Jack was merely saying that the fact that a number of examples exist doesn’t mean that it is always possible to mix tenses.


Does Jack mean we can’t mix tenses in our paraphrase because we are stating a general truth in either example—that is to say, a type 2 functioning as a type 0?

Cross-posted


----------



## thetazuo

Uncle Jack said:


> What makes you so sure the speaker is thinking of a hypothetical situation?


Hi. I am not sure. By “type 2” I mean the two examples are using a type 2 pattern, which doesn’t necessarily refer to a hypothetical situation.


Uncle Jack said:


> In any case, a hypothetical situation cannot be described using the present tense, unless you use a word like "consider"; the thing that marks it as hypothetical is the backshifted verb, whether it is part of an if-clause or not.


I understand this, (except what you mean by “consider”) Jack. But I can’t follow how come this has anything to do with my questions.


----------



## Uncle Jack

thetazuo said:


> Hi. I am not sure. By “type 2” I mean the two examples are using a type 2 pattern, which doesn’t necessarily refer to a hypothetical situation.


No. A type 2 pattern can ONLY refer to a hypothetical situation. There is a huge difference between "If he were late the deal would not have been signed" (hypothetical = type 2) and "If he was late the deal would not have been signed" (real), even if in many cases you cannot distinguish between the two from the actual words in the conditional sentence. You (almost) always need to look at context to interpret conditional sentences correctly.


thetazuo said:


> I understand this, (except what you mean by “consider”) Jack. But I can’t follow how come this has anything to do with my questions.


In post #14 you re-wrote a past tense if-clause into the present tense, and in post #18 you claimed the if-clause was a type 2 (a hypothetical situation).


----------



## Glasguensis

With respect to your picture, these are not paraphrases, they are examples of why you might employ the mixed conditional in question. But they are not necessarily the *only* reasons why you might do so - it’s therefore incorrect to imagine that any mixed conditional of that type has the meaning shown. The context is what tells us what meaning to interpret, not simply the grammar : this is true of almost any sentence in English.


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you, Jack and Glas. Yes, I cannot overstate the importance of the context.


Glasguensis said:


> With respect to your picture, these are not paraphrases, they are examples of why you might employ the mixed conditional in question.


If I didn't have to work so much, I would have gone to the party last night.
_But I have to work a lot and that is why I didn't go to the party last night._

You mean the sentence is red is not a paraphrase but an example? I thought “If I didn't have to work so much, I would have gone to the party last night.” was an example.



Uncle Jack said:


> In post #14 you re-wrote a past tense if-clause into the present tense


But I wasn’t rewriting it—I was trying to paraphrase it.



Uncle Jack said:


> If the speaker might otherwise have used a type 0 conditional, then placing the effect to the past more-or-less forces the if-clause to also be in the past. A type 2 conditional is more flexible, and the if-clause need not change if the situation is timeless but the effect is in the past.


I think the quoted part in post 13 is very important, but I don’t quite understand it.
What do you mean by “If the speaker might otherwise have used a type 0 conditional”? And a type 0 should use present tense in both clauses, so why do say “then placing the effect to the past more-or-less forces the if-clause to also be in the past.”?

By the way, just to be sure, the if-clause in both of my examples (the topic sentence and the one in post 10) are timeless, I.e. the if-clauses can be past, present, or future, right?


----------



## Uncle Jack

thetazuo said:


> But I wasn’t rewriting it—I was trying to paraphrase it.


Paraphrasing is just a fancy word for a particular kind of re-writing.


thetazuo said:


> What do you mean by “If the speaker might otherwise have used a type 0 conditional”?


If the speaker had not chosen to use an effect in the past ("you would have killed them all" or "the world would have plunged into chaos long ago”) then they might have used a type 0 conditional. 



thetazuo said:


> By the way, just to be sure, the if-clause in both of my examples (the topic sentence and the one in post 10) are timeless, I.e. the if-clauses can be past, present, or future, right?


That is one of the problems with your two examples. They are only timeless if the writer envisioned them as hypothetical situations. I am increasingly of the opinion that he did not, that he sees these as general truths, but because he has chosen to illustrate them with effects in the past, he cannot* use a type 0 timeless if-clause. The general truths themselves are timeless, but the way the writer has chosen to express them is not.

* Conceivably he might be able to use a present tense if-clause and a past tense main clause, but I cannot think of a way to do this that sounds natural.


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you very much. 


Uncle Jack said:


> In any case, a hypothetical situation cannot be described using the present tense,





thetazuo said:


> If I didn't have to work so much, I would have gone to the party last night.
> _But I have to work a lot and that is why I didn't go to the party last night._


You say a hypothetical situation cannot be described using the present tense, but the red part uses the present tense. (Or the red part isn’t a paraphrase but a description of a real world situation?)


Uncle Jack said:


> They are only timeless if the writer envisioned them as hypothetical situations. I am increasingly of the opinion that he did not, that he sees these as general truths, but because he has chosen to illustrate them with effects in the past, he cannot* use a type 0 timeless if-clause. The general truths themselves are timeless, but the way the writer has chosen to express them is not.


So you think my two examples don’t fall into any standard category of conditional—not type 0, 1, 2, 3, nor mixed 2/3. The translator has invented an unusual type of “mixed” conditionals in their respective contexts where a standard type 0 or 1 or 2 would have worked better. Am I on the right track?


----------



## Glasguensis

You have clearly reached the stage where you need to forget about type 0/1/2/3 conditionals and accept that native speakers use a variety of other types of conditionals which don’t fall neatly into any of these categories. That doesn’t mean that they are breaking the rules or inventing anything - it’s like the science you learn at school, which gives you perfectly practical ways of calculating how fast an object will fall to earth which will work up to a point, and then more advanced education will add in complications such as atmospheric drag and gravitational variations. 

I have already told you that the red part isn’t a paraphrase and in any case none of your examples from your image are hypothetical situations


----------



## Uncle Jack

thetazuo said:


> thetazuo said:
> 
> 
> 
> _But I have to work a lot and that is why I didn't go to the party last night._
> 
> 
> 
> You say a hypothetical situation cannot be described using the present tense, but the red part uses the present tense.
Click to expand...

In what way do you think the red part describes a hypothetical situation?


thetazuo said:


> The translator has invented an unusual type of “mixed” conditionals in their respective contexts where a standard type 0 or 1 or 2 would have worked better. Am I on the right track?


I don't think another form would have "worked better", just that it would have been easier to explain. On the other hand, if the writer had used a type 0 or type 2 conditional, you would never have asked about it, because the meaning would probably have been obvious.

Hypothetical/unreal/counterfactual conditionals are generally fairly easy to analyse, and often the only difficult thing is identifying them in the first place. There are relatively few valid combinations of if-clauses and main clauses that can fit together, and the if-clause will always be a type 2 or a type 3.

"Real" conditionals have a huge number of variations, and both the if-clause and the main clause can use almost any tense (but not, in modern English, the subjunctive mood). Two combinations have been glorified with "type" numbers, but it is a mistake to think that type 0 and type 1 are the only kinds of real conditionals. The whole family of conditionals relating to real situations and events in the past has been ignored completely in the type 0/1/2/3 classification system.


----------



## thetazuo

Thanks.


Uncle Jack said:


> In what way do you think the red part describes a hypothetical situation?


So the red part describes a real situation, a counterpart of the example above, which describes a hypothetical situation, right?


Uncle Jack said:


> I don't think another form would have "worked better", just that it would have been easier to explain. On the other hand, if the writer had used a type 0 or type 2 conditional, you would never have asked about it, because the meaning would probably have been obvious.


OK. I see. So how would you rewrite/paraphrase the two examples? I mean if you were the writer, how would you express the ideas of the two examples?


----------



## Uncle Jack

thetazuo said:


> So the red part describes a real situation, a counterpart of the example above, which describes a hypothetical situation, right?


I don't understand which sentences you are referring to. If you want an answer, please repeat the sentences you want to ask about, and the question.


thetazuo said:


> OK. I see. So how would you rewrite/paraphrase the two examples? I mean if you were the writer, how would you express the ideas of the two examples?


Rewrite in what respect? To achieve what? I think I have already re-written at least one of them as an ordinary type 0, which appears to be the obvious alternative.


----------



## thetazuo

Sorry for not being clear.


thetazuo said:


> If I didn't have to work so much, I would have gone to the party last night.
> _But I have to work a lot and that is why I didn't go to the party last night._


I mean the red part describes a real situation, a counterpart of the example in green, which describes a hypothetical situation, right?


Uncle Jack said:


> Rewrite in what respect? To achieve what? I think I have already re-written at least one of them as an ordinary type 0, which appears to be the obvious alternative.


Having reading through this thread again, I still can’t find your rewritten version. Sorry. I’m just curious whether you would construct the sentence in the same way as the writer did, to express the same idea. (would have killed..., would have plunged...)


----------



## Uncle Jack

thetazuo said:


> I mean the red part describes a real situation, a counterpart of the example in green, which describes a hypothetical situation, right?


Being able to reverse a conditional sentence is a rather unusual situation, and I am not sure you can draw anything from this. Usually negating the if-clause does not allow any conclusion to be drawn:
If I were you I would have gone to Brighton​Since I am not you, I....​


thetazuo said:


> Having reading through this thread again, I still can’t find your rewritten version. Sorry. I’m just curious whether you would construct the sentence in the same way as the writer did, to express the same idea. (would have killed..., would have plunged...)


If you want to retain the effects in the past, I see no reason to re-write either sentence.


----------



## thetazuo

Thanks.


Uncle Jack said:


> Usually negating the if-clause does not allow any conclusion to be drawn:


At school, I was taught that negating an unreal conditional would yield an real world reading of the original unreal conditional. Thus, 
If I didn't have to work so much, I would have gone to the party last night. (imagined world) Implies ——>
_But I have to work a lot and that is why I didn't go to the party last night. _(real world)
We can do this because an unreal conditional is always counterfactual.


Uncle Jack said:


> If I were you I would have gone to BrightonSince I am not you, I....


This “If I were you I would have gone to Brighton” implies “I’m not you so I didn’t go to Brighton”.


Uncle Jack said:


> Being able to reverse a conditional sentence is a rather unusual situation, and I am not sure you can draw anything from this. Usually negating the if-clause does not allow any conclusion to be drawn:


So according to what I was taught, the reversal of an unreal conditional is the implication of the unreal conditional. This is always the case. 
However, native speakers don’t seem to think this way. Or do I misunderstand you?


Uncle Jack said:


> If you want to retain the effects in the past, I see no reason to re-write either sentence.


Fair enough. 

Last but not least, you think that my two examples (if you took Natural Selection... if everyone asked why...) don’t fall into the type 0/1/2/3 classification system and defy labeling. Right?
These two examples are somewhere between a type 2 and type 0?


----------



## Uncle Jack

thetazuo said:


> This “If I were you I would have gone to Brighton” implies “I’m not you so I didn’t go to Brighton”.


No it does not. This is easily explained using mathematical logic (just draw up a truth table for "if P then Q", or "P → Q", if you prefer), but I don't really know how to convince you using English, which is poorly suited to discussing logic.

In the sentence "If I were you, I would have gone to Brighton", it is impossible to say what either "I" or "you" actually did, without additional information.



thetazuo said:


> Last but not least, you think that my two examples (if you took Natural Selection... if everyone asked why...) don’t fall into the type 0/1/2/3 classification system and defy labeling. Right?
> These two examples are somewhere between a type 2 and type 0?


They might have type 2 if-clauses, as I have said all along. However, if the writer was thinking of them as plausible real situations, there is no conditional "type" for a real if-clause in the past.


----------



## Glasguensis

thetazuo said:


> I mean the red part describes a real situation, a counterpart of the example in green, which describes a hypothetical situation, right?


No, this is nonsense. The green part is an example of a mixed conditional sentence. The red part explains a possible  context in which the green example could be used. Nothing to do with paraphrasing or real/hypothetical.
Your logic is completely incorrect as Uncle Jack has said. 
If I were Charlie the chimpanzee I’d have eaten that banana you left on the table.
We cannot deduce from this whether or not Charlie, the speaker or indeed anyone else actually ate the banana.


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you.


Glasguensis said:


> No, this is nonsense. The green part is an example of a mixed conditional sentence. The red part explains a possible context in which the green example could be used. Nothing to do with paraphrasing or real/hypothetical.
> Your logic is completely incorrect as Uncle Jack has said.


Thank you for clarifying that.


Uncle Jack said:


> No it does not. This is easily explained using mathematical logic (just draw up a truth table for "if P then Q", or "P → Q", if you prefer), but I don't really know how to convince you using English, which is poorly suited to discussing logic.
> 
> In the sentence "If I were you, I would have gone to Brighton", it is impossible to say what either "I" or "you" actually did, without additional information.


I’ll keep this in mind.

So can I think “not everyone *has* to be clear about why before they execute an order, and that is why the world *didn’t* plunge into chaos long ago” is a possible context in which the sentence “If everyone *had* to be clear about why before they executed an order, then the world *would have* plunged into chaos long ago” could be used?
Or can I think “not everyone *has* to be clear about why before they execute an order, and that is why the world *didn’t* plunge into chaos long ago” is an implication of “If everyone *had* to be clear about why before they executed an order, then the world *would have* plunged into chaos long ago”?
I know you told me not to mix tenses, but, since I’m not paraphrasing, maybe it’s ok to mix tenses?

And I am not sure if the chaos example works in the same way as the op example, because in the former the if-clause refers to a state (stative verb “had”) while in the latter the if-clause refers to an action (dynamic verb “took”). I think this would make a difference, if not a huge one.
Because in a mixed 2/3 conditional, when an if-clause refers to a state, the if-clause is concerned with something which was true in the past and remains true in the present (e.g. If you were not blind, you would have been able to go to school by bus). People don’t generally ask why before they execute an order—this was true in the past and remains true in the present. And the main clause “the world *would have* plunged into chaos long ago” is clearly counterfactual so I feel there is more to it than just placing the effect in the past.

All these traits belong to a mixed 2/3, and that’s why I tend to think the chaos example is mixed 2/3. However, as you said all along, it can be about a real situation alternatively.

And I’ve just noticed this:


Uncle Jack said:


> Another possibility is that they are expressing it as a real conditional,





Uncle Jack said:


> They aren't, not in the usual sense of real past conditionals. They express general truths, not a particular situation in the past, but the writer has decided to illustrate them with an effect in the past.


These two statements seem to contradict each other. You said that the two examples (perhaps including the chaos example) are expressed as real conditionals and you also said they are not past real conditionals. I can’t understand this. What do you mean?


----------



## Uncle Jack

thetazuo said:


> So can I think “not everyone *has* to be clear about why before they execute an order, and that is why the world *didn’t* plunge into chaos long ago” is a possible context in which the sentence “If everyone *had* to be clear about why before they executed an order, then the world *would have* plunged into chaos long ago” could be used?
> Or can I think “not everyone *has* to be clear about why before they execute an order, and that is why the world *didn’t* plunge into chaos long ago” is an implication of “If everyone *had* to be clear about why before they executed an order, then the world *would have* plunged into chaos long ago”?


Why on earth would you want to do this? In general, conditional sentences are unbalanced; you cannot negate the clauses and still retain the meaning. You cannot swap the if and main clauses and still retain the meaning. If you want to practice this then pick a straightforward type 2 or type 3 conditional to start with, not something as convoluted as this example, but I don't see where it will get you.


thetazuo said:


> Because in a mixed 2/3 conditional, when an if-clause refers to a state, the if-clause is concerned with something which was true in the past and remains true in the present (e.g. If you were not blind, you would have been able to go to school by bus).


No. The if-clause does not refer to time at all or, if it does, it refers to the future. The person is blind (present); the only possibility of his not being blind is in the future.


thetazuo said:


> These two statements seem to contradict each other. You said that the two examples (perhaps including the chaos example) are expressed as real conditionals and you also said they are not past real conditionals. I can’t understand this. What do you mean?


An ordinary real *past *conditional, in terms that you have used in other threads, describes a particular situation in the past. This sentence, if it is real, is not describing a particular situation in the past, but a general truth, which in itself is timeless. However, since the speaker has chosen to illustrate it with an effect in the past, they cannot use a type 0 present tense if-clause. Merely using a past tense if-clause does not turn it into the same type of sentence as "If he was late the deal would not have been signed" from post #23.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Uncle Jack said:


> [...]
> but the perfect conditional main clause argues against this, I think.


Stronger.  It completely discounts the suggestion, in my view, UJ.


----------



## thetazuo

Thanks for your response.


Uncle Jack said:


> Why on earth would you want to do this?


Because all the links I could find online teaching mixed conditionals do this and I learned about mixed conditionals from these links. The chaos example doesn’t appear to be an exception. Is it convoluted because of its referring to a general truth? I don’t quite think so. Its describing a general truth doesn’t affect the grammar, IMO.


Uncle Jack said:


> No. The if-clause does not refer to time at all or, if it does, it refers to the future. The person is blind (present); the only possibility of his not being blind is in the future.


But this seems different from what you previously said in the other thread:


Uncle Jack said:


> However, if the situation is presumed not to change (whatever it was before the turn is presumably what it still is after the turn), then a timeless type 2 if-clause can be used instead.


You said the state described in the if-clause is presumed not to change.
Actually, I was copying TT’s comment on a mixed 2/3 conditional by way of justification of my argument that we are dealing with a mixed 2/3:
Nor, clearly, is it a II/III mixed conditional - _if you were not blind, you would have been able to go to school by bus_ - because in the II/III mixed conditional, the if-clause is concerned with something which was true in the past and remains true, like your being blind.
I assume you are not disagreeing with TT, are you?


Uncle Jack said:


> Another possibility is that they are expressing it as a real conditional,





Uncle Jack said:


> An ordinary real *past *conditional, in terms that you have used in other threads, describes a particular situation in the past. This sentence, if it is real, is not describing a particular situation in the past, but a general truth, which in itself is timeless. However, since the speaker has chosen to illustrate it with an effect in the past, they cannot use a type 0 present tense if-clause. Merely using a past tense if-clause does not turn it into the same type of sentence as "If he was late the deal would not have been signed" from post #23.


Oh. I see. So you mean the Natural Selection and chaos examples are definitely not real *past* conditionals in any case but might have been a timeless real conditional if the writer had not chosen to place the effect in the past, right?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I thought we had already established that this translator didn't observe the usual rules about III conditionals.

This looks to me like another example where he has gone astray.


----------



## DonnyB

Unfortunately, I'm afraid detailed discussions of conditional sentence types using multiple sentence examples are outside the scope of our forum, where our rules require a clear focus on a single individual example.  

I'm therefore now closing this thread: thanks to everyone for their contributions, which I hope thetazuo has found useful.  DonnyB - moderator.


----------

