# conditional present/would



## masihk

It's an article in Reuters. I've learned that if we have present time in the main clause we should use *will*
and I think this is first conditional why does it use ''would''?

If no candidate *wins* 50 percent of the vote on May 19, a second round run-off *would* be held a week later.

here's the link:
Iran's Rouhani lashes out at hardliners in blistering final debate before vote


----------



## anahiseri

it's bad grammar really, but it is sometimes used.


----------



## anahiseri

"In everyday speech, you will hear people describing hypothetical situations using present simple."

I have quoted from this link:
Conditional present or past


----------



## SevenDays

masihk said:


> It's an article in Reuters. I've learned that if we have present time in the main clause we should use *will*
> and I think this is first conditional why does it use ''would''?
> 
> If no candidate *wins* 50 percent of the vote on May 19, a second round run-off *would* be held a week later.
> 
> here's the link:
> Iran's Rouhani lashes out at hardliners in blistering final debate before vote



Why? Because it can be used; it's perfectly natural and grammatical. _*Would *_and _*will *_are modal verbs. All modal verbs do two things: they can either express _obligation _or _possibility_. Whether your think of the run-off as an "obligation" or as a "possibility," _*would *_expresses less certainty than _*will*_. So, perhaps "will" sounded too definite/predictive/certain for the writer, who wanted to leave some leeway in his reporting; after all, you know how politicians are; they can change things at the last minute, which means there's always a chance that the run-off might be held _at some other time_, and not necessarily "next week."  The type 1 conditional, and all type conditionals, are _patterns _that describe _common _combinations in conditional sentences, but they don't cover _all _the possible combinations.


----------



## DonnyB

SevenDays said:


> Why? Because it can be used; it's perfectly natural and grammatical.....


I'm afraid I disagree with that.  While I accept that people use it, it comes across to me as an incorrect mix of open and closed conditionals, and had I been writing that sentence I wouldn't have used it.

The article in the link appears to be suggesting that the author thinks the vote could be a close one and a second round run-off is fairly likely, or at least a distinct possibility, so I'd have expected:
"If no candidate *wins* 50 percent of the vote on May 19, a second round run-off *will* be held a week later".


----------



## SevenDays

DonnyB said:


> I'm afraid I disagree with that.  While I accept that people use it, it comes across to me as an incorrect mix of open and closed conditionals, and had I been writing that sentence I wouldn't have used it.
> 
> The article in the link appears to be suggesting that the author thinks the vote could be a close one and a second round run-off is fairly likely, or at least a distinct possibility, so I'd have expected:
> "If no candidate *wins* 50 percent of the vote on May 19, a second round run-off *will* be held a week later".



And if I read your rewrite, I'd reason that the run-off will _definitely_ be held a week later, no _ifs_, _ands_, or _buts_ about it. "Would" stops short of that certainty. Had I been writing that sentence, I would've used whichever of the two better captured the political mood of the country. The type IV conditionals are patterns, not rules (though I understand that some see them as rules).


----------



## kentix

If no candidate *wins* 50 percent of the vote on May 19, a second round run-off *will* be held a week later.

If no candidate *were to win* 50 percent of the vote on May 19, a second round run-off *would* be held a week later.


----------



## e2efour

There is nothing like an example of the real thing.

So here are some sentences from Newsweek (2000) (bold added):

"If there* is* a challenge to Florida's slate, the chambers *would* meet separately and it *would* take a majority vote to rule on the challenge. The new Senate, when it meets, will be divided 50-50. But the old vice president will, under the rules, still be the presiding officer. So if there *is* a tie in the Senate on an Electoral College vote, Al Gore himself *would* cast the tie-breaking vote. He would, from all indications, vote for himself."

Is it being maintained that _would_ in these sentences is ungrammatical? It may be that we do not very often come across a combination of the present tense in the _if_ clause with a modal _would_ in the independent clause. But I don't find this problematical.

Could we have an explanation of what is meant by "an incorrect mix of open and closed conditionals"?


----------



## SevenDays

In other contexts, such as the Gore example above, "would" does other things. Gore, as the vice president, is the only one who cast a tie-breaking vote in the Senate, so "would" doesn't signal _less certainty. _Rather, "would" speaks to what's _unrealized_ at the time the article is written. Also, "would" _attenuates/softens_ the message, where the writer (probably) feels that "will" (_Al Gore himself will cast the tie-breaking vote_) comes across as too direct, too authoritative, too "final" (as if a date for the vote had already been scheduled).


----------



## DonnyB

e2efour said:


> Could we have an explanation of what is meant by "an incorrect mix of open and closed conditionals"?


I would describe the difference between an open and closed conditional as being basically _the degree of likelihood that the author sees for the condition being fulfilled_.

Sticking to the original topic sentence, so that we don't get sidetracked , the author _appears _to be suggesting that the voting may be close and the first ballot could well not result in anyone getting 50% of the votes.  In that event, to use kentix's version (1) from post #7,
If no candidate *wins* 50 percent of the vote on May 19, a second round run-off *will* be held a week later.
A second ballot *will *be held, because that's presumably what the election rules prescribe for this situation.

In the event that the author thought the scenario of a close vote necessitating a second ballot was an unlikely one, but merely wanted to speculate on the possibility, then kentix's version (2) describes that eventuality:
If no candidate *were to win* 50 percent of the vote on May 19, a second round run-off *would* be held a week later.
It may well not happen, but if it did, then that's what they *would* do about it.


----------



## SevenDays

Conditional sentences are not about _tense_, so thinking about _sequence of tenses_ (_were to_ ..._ would_) misses out on many possible combinations, all of which are perfectly grammatical. Notice how _strong_ and _to the point_ "gets" is in this sentence (from here), talking about a potential impeachment of Donald Trump, with Mike Pence becoming president (the "he" in the quote below):
_
And if he *were to* become president, he *gets* to appoint his vice president, which means you could, in theory, have a Mike Pence-Paul Ryan White House—the ultimate dream team for Republicans._

and how _bland_ and _watered-down _"would" sounds:

_And if *were to *become president, he *would *appoint his vice president, which means_ ....

So there's an alternative in this thread that I'm sure upsets type IV conditional advocates:

_If no candidate *were to* win 50 percent of the vote on May 19, a second round run-off *is* held a week later_.


----------



## velisarius

I more or less agree with your point, SevenDays, but I'm afraid you've skewed things by completely omitting "get to" in your example in #11:

_And if he *were to *become president, he *would get to *appoint his vice president, which means_ ... sounds less "watered down" to me. For me, the speaker who used "were to...gets..." simply changed his mind in mid sentence.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

velisarius said:


> For me, the speaker who used "were to...gets..." simply changed his mind in mid sentence.


Which is another way of saying that the sentence is ungrammatical, a point on which I'd agree.


----------



## masihk

kentix said:


> If no candidate *wins* 50 percent of the vote on May 19, a second round run-off *will* be held a week later.
> 
> If no candidate *were to win* 50 percent of the vote on May 19, a second round run-off *would* be held a week later.


Do both of them refer to future?


----------



## masihk

e2efour said:


> There is nothing like an example of the real thing.
> 
> So here are some sentences from Newsweek (2000) (bold added):
> 
> "If there* is* a challenge to Florida's slate, the chambers *would* meet separately and it *would* take a majority vote to rule on the challenge. The new Senate, when it meets, will be divided 50-50. But the old vice president will, under the rules, still be the presiding officer. So if there *is* a tie in the Senate on an Electoral College vote, Al Gore himself *would* cast the tie-breaking vote. He would, from all indications, vote for himself."
> 
> Is it being maintained that _would_ in these sentences is ungrammatical? It may be that we do not very often come across a combination of the present tense in the _if_ clause with a modal _would_ in the independent clause. But I don't find this problematical.
> 
> Could we have an explanation of what is meant by "an incorrect mix of open and closed conditionals"?



very good example. my question is exactly here. they should be whether real or hypothetical. what is this combination  try to say?
why not using *will* in main clause ?
why not using *past tense* in If clause?

Do these combination have a point or difference in meaning compared to simple conditionals like first or second?


----------



## SevenDays

velisarius said:


> I more or less agree with your point, SevenDays, but I'm afraid you've skewed things by completely omitting "get to" in your example in #11:
> 
> _And if he *were to *become president, he *would get to *appoint his vice president, which means_ ... sounds less "watered down" to me. For me, the speaker who used "were to...gets..." simply changed his mind in mid sentence.



_Would appoint _or _would get to appoint_, it doesn't really change things; you still have "would" in there. This is not about the speaker changing his mind in mid-sentence; rather, the speaker starts with a supposition (_were to become president_), and then describes the consequence of that supposition _being_ true, which is why he switches to the indicative, which is the mood of what's factual (_he *gets* to appoint his vice president_). In other words, with the indicative, the speakers directs our attention to what he considers the most relevant/important part of what he is saying in that sentence. Think of how much would get lost in communication/meaning if every sentence that started with "if" had to be subjected to the "rules" of the type IV conditionals.


----------



## velisarius

I'm sorry, but what is a "type IV conditional"?


----------



## SevenDays

velisarius said:


> I'm sorry, but what is a "type IV conditional"?



type IV conditional*s*/the four types of conditionals; what every "if" sentence seems to be subjected to (first conditional, second conditional, etc.)


----------



## anahiseri

SevenDays said:


> type IV conditional*s*; what every "if" sentence seems to be subjected to (first conditional, second conditional, etc.)


 ? ? ?


----------



## Vronsky

SevenDays said:


> This is not about the speaker changing his mind in mid-sentence; rather, the speaker starts with a supposition (_were to become president_), and then describes the consequence of that supposition _being_ true, which is why he switches to the indicative, which is the mood of what's factual (_he *gets* to appoint his vice president_).


Yes, such things sometimes happen, as Anahiseri said it in #2. Sometimes people have a short memory and don't remember what they started a sentence with; sometimes people simply are not friendly with logic (as we say in Russian, sorry I don't how to say it English )


----------



## e2efour

SevenDays said:


> type IV conditional*s*/the four types of conditionals; what every "if" sentence seems to be subjected to (first conditional, second conditional, etc.)



This does not seem to make any sense.


----------



## karlalou

Vronsky said:


> Yes, such things sometimes happen, as Anahiseri said it in #2. Sometimes people have a short memory and don't remember what they started a sentence with;


And that might be telling what they really feel about words.


----------



## SevenDays

e2efour said:


> This does not seem to make any sense.



What I mean is that "if" sentences brought here are tagged (by some) as _incorrect, illogical, ungrammatical_, etc. if they don't neatly fit into one of the four conditionals. That's what "if" sentences are subjected to; the unpleasant experience (for them, the sentences) of being reworded so that they can then be called, for example, "Type 1 Conditional." But, of course, opinions vary on this issue.


----------



## e2efour

I don't know where you get type_ 4_ (or _fourth_) from, since the numbering in this system (which I am not a fan of) starts with zero.

Or perhaps you mean _mixed conditional_?


----------



## SevenDays

e2efour said:


> I don't know where you get type_ 4_ (or _fourth_) from, since the numbering in this system (which I am not a fan of) starts with zero.
> 
> Or perhaps you mean _mixed conditional_?



Ah, I see; I meant "type 4 conditionals" as a general term, covering the four types of conditionals (which actually range from zero to III), and not taking into account "mixed conditionals." I don't think of conditionals using the traditional approach (zero, I, II, III, plus mixed), so I use "type 4 conditionals" in a very loose way (simply to acknowledge the existence of such numbering system), but I see how that created confusion. Sorry about that.


----------



## wandle

Sorry to come in late on this one, but I would like to put in a word for correct grammar here.


masihk said:


> I think this is first conditional why does it use ''would''?


Iran's Rouhani lashes out


> If no candidate wins 50 percent of the vote on May 19, a second round run-off would be held a week later. Qalibaf has made a run-off more likely by resisting calls from other hardliners to step aside.
> (Writing by Parisa Hafezi; editing by Peter Graff)


That combination of clauses is incorrect. The Oxford English Grammar says this:


> Direct conditions may be open (or real) or hypothetical (closed or unreal).


The writer needs to choose one or the other. The OEG again:





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


*Kentix* gave the two correct options for the present case:


kentix said:


> *(1)* If no candidate *wins* 50 percent of the vote on May 19, a second round run-off *will* be held a week later.
> *(2)* If no candidate *were to win* 50 percent of the vote on May 19, a second round run-off *would* be held a week later.


Sentence (1) is an open (or real) future conditional and sentence (2) is a closed (or hypothetical) future condition. What is the difference?
Sentence (2) expresses the speaker's belief that the condition is unlikely to be fulfilled, whereas (1) expresses no doubt about it.

The verb forms used in closed or hypothetical conditions express the sense of unreality or disbelief which the speaker intends. That is the meaning of the past tense forms in a closed future conditional.

Consider possible views which the writer of the topic sentence might have held. She might have regarded the premise (no candidate wins 50%) either (a) openly, as a possibility which might or might not happen, or (b) doubtfully, as something unlikely to happen.
The fact that she used the present tense form 'wins' tells us she was considering it openly as a future possibility at the time of of writing, and was not expressing a belief that it was unlikely to happen.

What did she mean as regards the consequence? If we have to rely on the article alone, we can only conclude that the Iranian constitution provides that if no candidate reaches 50%, a run-off will be held.  Notice the final sentence of the article (the second in my quotation above): 'Qalibaf has made a run-off *more likely* by resisting calls from other hardliners to step aside'. How does his persistence make a run-off more likely? Simply because if he stands, the hard-line vote will be more divided, making it less likely that anyone will reach 50%. This makes it clear that in the writer's view the run-off logically follows if no one gets to 50%.

In other words, it seems clear that there is no doubt in the writer's mind about the conclusion following from the premise. But let us suppose there were. How would that be expressed? The writer could say, for example, 'a run-off may be held', 'can be held', 'could be held' or 'might be held'. Any of these would tell us that the run-off was a possibility only and not a definite requirement. But saying 'would be held' does not convey that and the last sentence shows us in any case that the writer did not regard it merely as a possibility.

Conclusion: she did mean that the run-off would definitely follow if no one reached 50% and the text should have read 'will', not 'would'.


----------



## boozer

I think that more or less everything that could be said has been said here but still...
I agree with all those who think the original sentence is inelegant, at best.
I would not call it ungrammatical but I would not call it "an example to follow" either.

Seven Days, the 4 basic types of conditionals are, indeed, merely patterns, but they are the *right* patterns to follow unless you want your English to sound illogical or inelegant or both. I agree that there are many situations and scenarios that require you to deviate from those patterns, or to mix their constituent parts, but I do not see this case as one of them.

And by the way, I totally disagree with your analysis in post 16. The _if he were... he gets to_ combination is completely ungrammatical for me.


----------



## anahiseri

Seven Days, you can write and speak as you like, but what you propose is not standard English Grammar.

_And if he *were to* become president, he *gets* to appoint his vice president, which means you could, in theory, have a Mike Pence-Paul Ryan White House—the ultimate dream team for Republicans._

and how _bland_ and _watered-down _"would" sounds:

_And if *were to *become president, he *would *appoint his vice president, which means_ ....

.[/QUOTE]


----------



## anahiseri

Seven Days, if you *were* interested, you *could* look at these explanations:

http://www.ef.com/english-resources/english-grammar/conditional/

I would like to say: 
if you *are* interested, you *can* look at these explanations:
but I'm afraid it's not very realistic


----------



## SevenDays

boozer said:


> I think that more or less everything that could be said has been said here but still...
> I agree with all those who think the original sentence is inelegant, at best.
> I would not call it ungrammatical but I would not call it "an example to follow" either.
> 
> Seven Days, the 4 basic types of conditionals are, indeed, merely patterns, but they are the *right* patterns to follow unless you want your English to sound illogical or inelegant or both. I agree that there are many situations and scenarios that require you to deviate from those patterns, or to mix their constituent parts, but I do not see this case as one of them.
> 
> And by the way, I totally disagree with your analysis in post 16. The _if he were... he gets to_ combination is completely ungrammatical for me.



But what's _illogical _or _inelegant _is in the eye of the beholder, not in the eye of syntax. I'll say it again, because it is the basic point: conditional sentences are not about tense, and they are not about sequence of tenses. The point of all true conditionals (leaving aside _pseudo-conditionals/cookie conditionals_) is that the result/consequence _flows_ from the condition. Both _if he were to become president _and _if he becomes president_ establish a condition; if that condition is met, then a result follows: _he gets to appoint his vice president_. The cause-and-effect has nothing to do with tense (_were to _vs._ becomes_); it has to do with the condition being _realized _(Mike Pence = president). So, I don't see anything unusual or ungrammatical in the example that I introduced in post #16.

By the way, what's the "mixed conditional" category for? Isn't that category a recognition that tenses can be mixed in conditional sentences? If that's the case, why not put "If Mike Pence were to become president, he gets to appoint his own vice president" under "mixed conditionals"? But perhaps "mixed conditionals" comes with its _own_ rules.

In the teaching of English, we tend to simplify things, and that's good: there needs to be a starting point. No grammar book could cover _all _the possible conditional combinations. I have no problem with the "four conditionals + mixed conditionals" scheme, and if folks want to follow that pattern for every "if" sentence that they write, well, who can object to that? However, going a step beyond that and labeling "if" sentences that don't follow such patterns _illogical_ or _ungrammatical_ is, to me, "illogical." As learners will soon realize, mixed conditionals of _all types_ are quite common, particularly in speech. If a _particular _mixed conditional works or not depends on its own context, not on the tenses used.

Then again, people have rather strong views on all this.
Cheers


----------



## boozer

I do agree with a lot of what you say, really.
However, your example stands at the only point of overlap between the subjunctive and conditional moods in modern English. As you say, it is not grammar that forms the thought. It is the thought that invokes certain grammar patterns:
From an all-English perspective, the 'if he were to become' pattern reveals his becoming as extremely unlikely.
From my non-American perspective, the above utterance is the result of the condition being entirely hypothetical, even impossible.
And now you combine it with 'he gets', which is the grammar pattern associated with certainty.
That reveals scattered thoughts, at best.  ( Hey, no offence meant, nothing personal )


----------



## wandle

There seems to be more than one misconception in post 30, if I may say so.


SevenDays said:


> conditional sentences are ... not about sequence of tenses.


'Sequence of tenses' is a red herring. That is about the relations of tenses in indirect speech, which is a different sentence structure. The term is not relevant to conditionals and no one here has suggested that it is. Setting it up just to knock it down does not help the discussion.


> conditional sentences are not about tense


That bald statement is no more than partially true and without qualification it is misleading. Conditionals are classified both by mood (open or hypothetical) and by time reference (past, present or future), giving six basic types. The time reference is expressed by normal use of tense forms in open conditionals and by a special use of tense forms in closed or hypothetical conditionals. This table shows the respective tense forms for each of the basic types. These do represent rules, which a student needs to learn.


> The point of all true conditionals (leaving aside _pseudo-conditionals/cookie conditionals_) is that the result/consequence _flows_ from the condition.


 This fails to distinguish between logic and grammar. A sentence is a valid conditional if it conforms to the rules of conditionals, no matter how illogical it may be. 'If two and two make four, then four and four make eight' is a valid conditional and is also correct in logic and maths. 'If two and two make four, then four and four make seven' is incorrect in logic and maths, but it is still a valid conditional sentence because it obeys the rule for a present open conditional. The conclusion does not follow in logic, but in grammar the result clause corresponds correctly to the 'if' clause. So-called pseudo-conditionals may be illogical, but they are still valid conditionals as long as they follow the grammatical rules.


> Both _if he were to become president _and _if he becomes president_ establish a condition; if that condition is met, then a result follows: _he gets to appoint his vice president_.


This ignores the basic difference of mood, between open (or real) and closed (or hypothetical). 'If he were to become' is a closed (hypothetical) future condition, which shows that the speaker believes it is unlikely to be fulfilled. To quote the Oxford English Grammar again: 





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


That example has the past 'were' in the conditional clause: therefore the host clause (in this case, result clause) requires a past modal: 'he would be entitled to appoint the vice-president'. The future open typically takes the present and future forms in the respective clauses: 'If he becomes the president, he will be entitled to appoint the vice-president'.

Mixing the moods is incorrect, not because some professor made this a rule, but because it makes the clauses contradict each other. A closed or hypothetical clause means the speaker believes that the condition has not been fulfilled, is not fulfilled or is not likely to be fulfilled. An open or real clause means the speaker does not have that belief.


SevenDays said:


> The cause-and-effect has nothing to do with tense (_were to _vs._ becomes_); it has to do with the condition being _realized _(Mike Pence = president).


That is true as far as it goes: in every conditional statement, it is being asserted that the result is the logical or factual consequence of the condition. But correct factual content is not what makes a valid conditional sentence.

As noted above, the sentence 'If two and two make four, then four and four make seven' is incorrect in logic and maths, but is still a valid conditional sentence because it obeys the rule for a present open conditional. That shows that factual correctness is not necessary to make a valid conditional.

The sentence 'If he were to become president, he gets to appoint his vice president' employs correct factual content, but it is grammatically incorrect because it mixes the moods and thus breaks the rule for a future conditional (whether open or closed).  This shows that factual correctness is not sufficient to make a valid conditional. What makes a valid conditional is correct grammar.


> what's the "mixed conditional" category for?


It is perfectly possible to combine clauses of different time reference. What is not possible in grammar is to combine different moods (open, or real, clauses with closed, or hypothetical, clauses). A present open condition may have a valid consequence which is past, present or future. A past open condition may have a valid consequence which is past, present or future (future from the time of the condition or from the time of speaking). In closed conditionals, a past condition may have a present consequence (or _vice versa) _and a present condition may have a future consequence (or _vice versa_). These combinations are grammatically valid provided that the correct tense forms are used for each time reference and that open and closed clauses are not mixed.


> labeling "if" sentences that don't follow such patterns _illogical_ or _ungrammatical_ is, to me, "illogical."


This statement apparently means that no 'if' sentence can be illogical or ungrammatical, whatever pattern it employs. Can we extend this panacea to all sentences, so that no structure can ever be ungrammatical? If not, why not? Why should conditionals be the only sentences where grammar is not needed or applicable?


----------



## karlalou

I agree with SevenDays.
Nothing wrong about a magazine article written a bit spectacularly. It's just their nature.

Unless we are native to English who are just interested to know about some grammar points, we shouldn't be segregated from the real world because otherwise we never know what's out there, while natives of course know and have no need to pay attention to them. Here, at a forum like this, we are supposed to be benefited from the real usage that grammar books can not cover, and this is helped a lot by trustworthy and considerate natives who have not forgotten the sense of the language.

In other words, we are not studying just to memorise some grammar patterns to add them to our general knowledge, but we are studying the grammar to become able to understand what's out there and to become able to use the language in real life.

When what we need to know is the grammar, good grammar books are the best source. Who needs to know the grammar to speak your own language? We want to be careful about 'rules', especially ones made with hasty generalizations. A linguist warns us:


> These are useful structures to practise. However, students sometimes think that these are the only possibilities, and become confused when they meet sentences like if she didn't phone this morning, then she's probably away (Michael Swan, Practical English Usage, §256.3)


The grammar is made from the reasoning of actual usage.

As the case of the OP's sentence, 'would' is often more logical than 'will' in the main clause of the 1st conditional. It must be the custom that is making 'will' to be so idiomatic. So far, I only understand the need for 'will' as the emotion out of high expectation. Probably we should reserve the use of 'would' for objective writings or something where logic is required. Meanwhile, I have observed that words like 'will probably' or 'might' or 'could' or 'should' are safe to use with the 1st conditional though it doesn't seem to be always the case. For example, catching a cold from someone seems to be considered inevitable when we say someone near us have a cold as a premise in the if-clause.


----------



## wandle

karlalou said:


> It must be the custom that is making 'will' to be so idiomatic.


We could say that all language is a matter of custom. However, custom has established definite rules which we formulate as grammar.

The word 'will' (or another form directly expressing future time) is indispensable in a future open conditional, because otherwise there is nothing to make it refer to the future. The word 'would' does not work, because it does not directly express future time.

If it stops raining, we will go out.
If it stops raining, we would go out.


----------



## velisarius

karlalou said:


> So far, I only understand the need for 'will' as the emotion out of high expectation. Probably we should reserve the use of 'would' for objective writings or something where logic is required.



That's  a strange idea. 

_1 If my boyfriend so much as glances at his ex at the party tonight, I'll kill him.
2 If my boyfriend started flirting with other girls at parties, I'd kill him.
_
In (2) the feeling of jealousy is applied to an imagined situation. In (1) it's applied to an imagined situation at a specific future time and place. I think it's the same emotion in both cases, and where strong emotions are present we may not make much distinction in our minds between something that is likely to happen and something that may be less likely to happen only because a specific situation hasn't yet arisen. *Nevertheless, unless we're so upset that we are unable to think straight, we would use either (1) or (2) and not a mixture.

*You may ask me why I used "would" there. (The sentence with "unless" is a kind of conditional sentence.) My answer is that it feels natural and doesn't seem obviously wrong: it isn't sending a mixed message.


----------



## wandle

With respect, the sentence with 'unless' is a conditional sentence, and it does require 'will' in the result clause since it has 'we are' in the 'if' clause.


----------



## velisarius

Thanks, wandle. Well, I know it does require "will" - I just wonder sometimes why I often feel the urge to use "would" in the main clause. I don't feel I've "changed my mind in mid-sentence", but I always correct myself when it comes to writing it down.


----------



## SevenDays

velisarius said:


> Thanks, wandle. Well, I know it does require "will" - I just wonder sometimes why I often feel the urge to use "would" in the main clause. I don't feel I've "changed my mind in mid-sentence", but I always correct myself when it comes to writing it down.



Why? Perhaps you don't want to use the absoluteness of "will" ("would" leaves some wiggle room). I'll repeat the heresy that I stated in post #4: _*will *_has nothing to do with "future" in the sense of "tense." _*Will *_and _*would *_are modal verbs, and modal verbs do one of two things: they express either _possibility _or _obligation_. When it comes to "possibility" (or _certainty_, _likelihood_, etc.), _will _represents greatest possibility/certainty/etc., while _would _stops short of that (it refers to what is _less likely_, linguistically speaking). Modal verbs come with their own quirks, and "will" can only refer to the future, but "will" doesn't "mark" _future _(it isn't a future-making morpheme, the way that -ed forms past time and -s present time); "will" marks (absolute) certainty in a future context, while "would" marks less certainty _also _in a future context.


----------



## e2efour

velisarius said:


> *Nevertheless, unless we're so upset that we are unable to think straight, we would use either (1) or (2) and not a mixture.
> 
> *You may ask me why I used "would" there. (The sentence with "unless" is a kind of conditional sentence.) My answer is that it feels natural and doesn't seem obviously wrong: it isn't sending a mixed message.



The sentence sounds perfectly natural to me and I see absolutely no reason, as wandle suggests in #36, to change _would_ to _will._
The use of _will_ changes a specific statement to a general statement* and makes it sound odd to me.

*Correction: changes a general statement to a specific statement


----------



## karlalou

velisarius said:


> That's a strange idea.
> 
> _1 If my boyfriend so much as glances at his ex at the party tonight, I'll kill him.
> 2 If my boyfriend started flirting with other girls at parties, I'd kill him.
> _
> In (2) the feeling of jealousy is applied to an imagined situation. In (1) it's applied to an imagined situation at a specific future time and place. I think it's the same emotion in both cases, and where strong emotions are present we may not make much distinction in our minds between something that is likely to happen and something that may be less likely to happen only because a specific situation hasn't yet arisen. *Nevertheless, unless we're so upset that we are unable to think straight, we would use either (1) or (2) and not a mixture.
> 
> *You may ask me why I used "would" there. (The sentence with "unless" is a kind of conditional sentence.) My answer is that it feels natural and doesn't seem obviously wrong: it isn't sending a mixed message.


So, you apparently agree with us that 'would' with the 1st conditional works. That's good to hear. Thank you.  Now could you make it clear to me why the part of my post you've quoted is strange to you? (I'm sorry if I made you uneasy but around here I have been made so skeptical.)

You've provided us with an _emotional _situation in two different forms, and say you won't mix them up, though when you use 'would' with the 1st conditional here, it's fine. You've quoted the part I was saying


karlalou said:


> So far, I only understand the need for 'will' as the emotion out of high expectation. Probably we should reserve the use of 'would' for objective writings or something where logic is required.


Do you mean I should lower the register to the forum writings on the net, or something where we talk in normal way, from "objective writings or something where logic is required"?


----------



## wandle

SevenDays said:


> _*will *_has nothing to do with "future" in the sense of "tense."





> "will" can only refer to the future


This distinction, with respect, does not seem relevant to the rules of conditional sentences.


> "will" doesn't "mark" _future (_it isn't a future-making morpheme, the way that -ed forms past time and -s present time);


What is the point of it? Some scholars say that English 'will' constitutes a future tense, some say it does not.

This study compares grammar textbooks and finds seven modern scholarly works which maintain that the English verb has a future tense with 'will' and nine which maintain that it does not.

The question is whether the definition of 'tense' should be confined to changes of form within the word, or should include combinations of separate words: that is, different forms of the word, as against a different form of words. That is an academic distinction: a question of definition which can be argued either way. Some authorities take one view, some the other.

For practical purposes of language learning and teaching, it seems pointless to insist that we are not allowed to refer to a future tense. The only effect of that in practice is to increase confusion and reduce the efficacy of learning. At any rate, for teaching and learning the rules of conditional sentences, it is vital to state clearly what the different constructions are for open or closed, past, present and future conditionals.

For the present topic, the standard form of the future open conditional (first conditional) is: present tense in the 'if' clause, future tense in the result clause.

In other words a sentence such as 'If it stops raining, we would go out' is invalid, because it makes the meaning unclear. We do not know whether the speaker intends:

(a) 'If it stops raining, we will go out' (future open conditional: the speaker sees it as an open question whether the rain will stop); or
(b) 'If it stopped raining, we would go out' (future closed conditional: the speaker sees it as unlikely that the rain will stop).

It is important to note that in both (a) and (b) the result follows from the condition with equal certainty. There is no question whether the result will follow: the only question is whether the initial condition will be fulfilled. Sentence (a) presents that as completely open: sentence (b) presents it as unlikely. That is the vital difference and it is the only difference.

That difference in meaning for future conditionals can only be maintained by keeping 'will' for the open (or real) conditional and 'would' for the closed (or hypothetical) conditional.


----------



## karlalou

velisarius said:


> Well, I know it does require "will" - I just wonder sometimes why I often feel the urge to use "would" in the main clause. I don't feel I've "changed my mind in mid-sentence", but I always correct myself when it comes to writing it down.


Where is the requirement coming from? Why do you have to correct yourself when you feel the _urge_?

I am halfway through reading Michael Swan. Haven’t you heard something like this:


> (From Practical English Usage, §309.4)
> Descriptive rules simply say *what happens* in one form of a language (for example standard written British English, standard spoken American English, Yorkshire English, Dublin English or Singapore English), and *not what some people feel ought to happen*.





> (From the same as above§308.7) International English could turn out to be simpler in some ways than the modern standard varieties, without some of their less important grammatical complications. It will be interesting to see what happens.


I've heard that the grammar has been not taught to natives since like a half century ago. Isn’t that the reason for this?

The message is not to enforce the artificial grammar.


----------



## velisarius

I'm guilty of having been taught English grammar more than half a century ago , but this forum has helped me to revise my opinion of what is and isn't acceptable in standard spoken and written English today.

When I compose a post in this forum, knowing that it's going to be read by learners from all over the world, I take a little more care to eliminate any sources of ambiguity or imprecision. That's all. 

When a question is specifically concerned with grammar rules the OP has been taught (often with public examinations in view), obviously one tries to give an appropriately prescriptive answer.


----------



## Forero

wandle said:


> If it stops raining, we will go out.
> If it stops raining, we would go out.




And:

_If it stopped raining, we would go out._
_If it stopped raining, we will go out._
_If it were to stop raining, we would go out._
_It if were to stop raining, we will go out._
_Were it to stop raining, we would go out._
_Were it to stop raining, we will go out._

But:

_If it stops raining, I would like you to come with me._

The original statement is of the "If it stops raining, we would go out" type and does not make sense in its original context. The writer has apparently forgotten, upon writing the comma, what he/she just wrote.

But it could make sense if another condition were expressed or implied by the context:

(*Under the proposed rules,*)_ if no candidate *wins* 50 percent of the vote on May 19, a second round run-off *would* be held a week later._

As I see it, degree of probability is irrelevant. In fact, _would_ usually indicates something sure under the circumstances:

_If this apple were ripe, it would be red._
(This means that logically, for this apple, redness inescapably follows from ripeness.)

Neither does this last statement claim that this apple is not ripe. Yes, we use past subjunctive for things that we know are not the case, but we also use it for things that might be the case.

For example, if a person is gravely ill and will probably not survive the night, we still might say "If she were to die before morning, then ...". In other words, we sometimes use the same subjunctive form because something is "unthinkable", not necessarily impossible.

Or, for example, if we know the apple in question is ripe but we are talking to someone we know needs some convincing, we might start with subjunctive mood to make our case through logic rather than by directly contradicting their beliefs.


----------



## wandle

Forero said:


> it could make sense if another condition were expressed or implied by the context:
> (*Under the proposed rules,*)_ if no candidate *wins* 50 percent of the vote on May 19, a second round run-off *would* be held a week later._


With respect, that does not work. The added condition 'under the proposed rules' governs all the rest of the sentence, not just one clause.
We can interpret 'under the proposed rules' as either (a) open or (b) closed. 'Open' means 'if the proposed rules are adopted'; 'closed' means 'if they were adopted'.

Thus we have either:
(a) 'If the proposed rules are adopted, then, if no candidate wins 50 percent of the vote on May 19, a second round run-off will be held a week later'; or
(b) 'If the proposed rules were adopted, then, if no candidate won 50 percent of the vote on May 19, a second round run-off would be held a week later'.

With this added condition, it is not realistically possible to imagine the sentence as an open conditional, because that would imply that the presidential election had actually been halted after the first round, for the purpose of debating a change applicable to the second round.

On the other hand, it is easy enough to imagine it as a closed conditional, because that makes the supposed condition unreal or hypothetical: something that would happen if the situation were different.


----------



## wandle

karlalou said:


> Where is the requirement coming from?


Please read the second part of post 41, starting at 'For the present topic'.
That shows that the rules are necessary in order to maintain the meaning. Without the rules, the meaning is lost or diminished.


karlalou said:


> The message is not to enforce the artificial grammar.


Grammar is not artificial. It is simply the formulation in brief of the principles which in fact govern the use of language. The rules of grammar are just the way the language works.


----------



## Forero

wandle said:


> With respect, that does not work. The added condition 'under the proposed rules' governs all the rest of the sentence, not just one clause.
> We can interpret 'under the proposed rules' as either (a) open or (b) closed. 'Open' means 'if the proposed rules are adopted'; 'closed' means 'if they were adopted'.
> 
> Thus we have either:
> (a) 'If the proposed rules are adopted, then, if no candidate wins 50 percent of the vote on May 19, a second round run-off will be held a week later'; or
> (b) 'If the proposed rules were adopted, then, if no candidate won 50 percent of the vote on May 19, a second round run-off would be held a week later'.


I was thinking of a "should they be adopted" situation, but I don't think that has to be said explicitly to make the statement valid.

Another thing we do (at least in AmE) is to use _would_ when we are thinking "in order to ...", even without stating the purpose:

(_In order to comply with the new rules,_)_ if no candidate wins 50 percent, a second run-off would be held._

The idea is the same, we have to have another closed condition in mind to support the use of _would_. Even "I would like you to come with me" has some underlying closed condition (e.g. "if you would", "if you could", "should I be so presumptuous").

All this is just to capitulate that sometimes _would_ legitimately occurs in conditional sentences that look "open".

But my main point is that _would_ does not belong in the sentence in the article, since there is no past time expressed or implied and no closed condition expressed or implied. It should be _will_ - full stop. How likely or unlikely the author thinks a second run-off might be is irrelevant.

The sentence is the article has a mistake in it. I will continue to believe this unless and until someone asks the author and gets an answer to the contrary.


----------



## wandle

Forero said:


> I was thinking of a "should they be adopted" situation,


In other words, that means 'if they were adopted': case (b) in post 45.


Forero said:


> (_In order to comply with the new rules,_)_ if no candidate wins 50 percent, a second run-off would be held._


Once again, I have to disagree. It needs to be either open or closed (either 'wins' ... 'will' or 'won' ... 'would').


Forero said:


> "I would like you to come with me" has some underlying closed condition (e.g. "if you would", "if you could", "should I be so presumptuous").


Yes, indeed.


Forero said:


> sometimes _would_ legitimately occurs in conditional sentences that look "open".


Here again, I must differ. 'Open' simply means that the speaker is expressing no doubt about the condition: it is not about probability or likelihood at all, whereas modal 'would' does belong to the sphere of probability or likelihood.

A condition has to be either open or closed: either (a) the speaker is expressing no doubt about it (open condition) or (b) the speaker is expressing a belief that the condition is not fulfilled or is unlikely to be fulfilled (closed condition).

This either/or is logically unavoidable. Conditions always express the idea as unconfirmed. 'Unconfirmed' may mean that the idea is possible (the case may or may not be true, both outcomes equally possible: open condition); or that the idea is improbable (the case is unlikely to come true: closed future condition, case (b) in post 45); or that the idea is impossible (the case is contrary to fact: closed present or closed past condition).


----------



## karlalou

velisarius said:


> When I compose a post in this forum, knowing that it's going to be read by learners from all over the world, I take a little more care to eliminate any sources of ambiguity or imprecision. That's all.
> 
> When a question is specifically concerned with grammar rules the OP has been taught (often with public examinations in view), obviously one tries to give an appropriately prescriptive answer.


You can tell them follow their textbooks and teachers, and still there's no point hiding the truth from them.  I think you know that the point of teaching the 1st conditional is not only about the combination of ‘if’ and ‘will’ because *would/could/might/should* and *unless/when* also make the 1st conditional. 

If we are prohibited other than the combination of ‘if’ and ‘will’, we will surely write something odd.

I’ve been told from a native at another site that “If she has a cold, I will catch it” means it’s 100% sure, and if it’s “If she gets a cold, I would catch it” or “If she has a cold, I could/might catch it” it works fine with the meaning of less possibility than ‘will’. I don’t know why ‘if ~ gets ~ would’ works while ‘if ~ has ~ would’ doesn't, but it’s ok since this particular example doesn’t have much real usability to me and the problem could be its lack of the context, like so many examples given to students.


----------



## Forero

wandle said:


> In other words, that means 'if they were adopted': case (b) in post 45.
> 
> Once again, I have to disagree. It needs to be either open or closed (either 'wins' ... 'will' or 'won' ... 'would').
> 
> Yes, indeed.
> 
> Here again, I must differ. 'Open' simply means that the speaker is expressing no doubt about the condition: it is not about probability or likelihood at all, whereas modal 'would' does belong to the sphere of probability or likelihood.
> 
> A condition has to be either open or closed: either (a) the speaker is expressing no doubt about it (open condition) or (b) the speaker is expressing a belief that the condition is not fulfilled or is unlikely to be fulfilled (closed condition).


I disagree, but only slightly.

There are different ways to define "open" and "closed" conditionals and the infamous 1st, 2nd, etc., conditionals. Some definitions seem to be based on form; others seem to be based on meaning.

Even more confusion comes into play with speakers that use "if it was" where I would use "if it were" and with TT's notion of real conditionals vs. whatever he calls things like "If an apple is red, it is ripe". (The latter is in present indicative and logically means the same as "An apple is either ripe or not red". To me it is the same kind of conditional as "If it stops raining, we will go out".)





> This either/or is logically unavoidable. Conditions always express the idea as unconfirmed. 'Unconfirmed' may mean that the idea is possible (the case may or may not be true, both outcomes equally possible: open condition); or that the idea is improbable (the case is unlikely to come true: closed future condition, case (b) in post 45); or that the idea is impossible (the case is contrary to fact: closed present or closed past condition).


I make approximately the same distinction, but I define it just a little differently.

For me, the "if it were" kind of conditional is divorced from reality and "closed" in the sense that it does not even consider whether something really is or isn't so.

Its primary use is for things that are not so, whether entirely impossible or not. For example, "If I were you" or "If it were not raining" when it is in fact raining. I have heard from people on this forum who say they use only "If it was not raining" for the latter situation because rain is always possible, but only "were" in "If I were you", because my being you is categorically impossible. But for me, "If it was" refers to the past, not the present, and does not fit a contrafactual situation. For me, "If it were not raining" is quite natural when it is raining, even if I know it was not raining a moment ago and may stop raining just a moment into the future.

Unfortunately I was apparently typing while you were answering, but at the end of #44 I mentioned other uses of the "If it were" kind of conditional for cases in which the speaker may believe that the probability of whatever-it-is is not necessarily zero but chooses to use this kind of conditional statement for other specific purposes (possible but "unthinkable" conditions, conditions expressed without tense, e.g. "in order for x to be so" when the speaker is thinking "should we want x to be so", and conditions left unexpressed, e.g. "I would like x to be so" unaccompanied by any adverbial).

"I would like you to come with me" remains a closed conditional with the actual condition left to the imagination even when an open condition like "If it stops raining" is attached to it. In effect, "If it stops raining, I would like you to come with me" has my liking you to come with me conditional on both an expressed closed condition and the expressed open condition "if it stops raining".

The "If ... wins ..." type of condition is open in the sense that it is not closed. It does not mean a win and a non-win are equally likely.


----------



## Forero

karlalou said:


> You can tell them follow their textbooks and teachers, and still there's no point hiding the truth from them.  I think you know that the point of teaching the 1st conditional is not only about the combination of ‘if’ and ‘will’ because *would/could/might/should* and *unless/when* also make the 1st conditional.
> 
> If we are prohibited other than the combination of ‘if’ and ‘will’, we will surely write something odd.
> 
> I’ve been told from a native at another site that “If she has a cold, I will catch it” means it’s 100% sure, and if it’s “If she gets a cold, I would catch it” or “If she has a cold, I could/might catch it” it works fine with the meaning of less possibility than ‘will’. I don’t know why ‘if ~ gets ~ would’ works while ‘if ~ has ~ would’ doesn't, but it’s ok since this particular example doesn’t have much real usability to me and the problem could be its lack of the context, like so many examples given to students.


"If she gets a cold, I would catch it" sounds like a nonsequitur to me, but I might say "If she gets a cold, I would rather not catch it" or "If she gets a cold, I would want to steer clear of it."

I see nothing sure in "If she has a cold, I will catch it". Sure would be "If she has a cold, I catch it", or "If she had a cold today, I would have it too".

"If she has a cold, I might catch it" is fine, but it does not make my catching the cold any less likely than with "If she has a cold, I will catch it". "Might" says it is possible given the right circumstances. "Will" says something like "It fits my pattern".

And if a person says "I would be true", I don't imagine them to be saying that are not sure they are true.

For me, _will_ and _would_ have lots of different meanings, but changing _would_ to _will_ does not necessarily make anything more likely.

If I say "If she comes to a bridge, she crosses it" or "If she were to come to a bridge, she would cross it", the implication that, for her, coming to the bridge implies crossing it is just as sure in both sentences (but of course her coming to a bridge is not sure in either case).

"She would cross this bridge, but it is not built yet" does not reflect on her sure determination. She just can't cross a bridge she doesn't come to.

On the other hand, "She will cross this bridge, but it is not built yet" does leave some room for her to come to it after it is built and not cross it, provided she is willing, at some point, to do so.


----------



## PaulQ

It is all to do the degree of certainty:

If no candidate wins 50 percent of the vote on May 19, a second round run-off *will* be held a week later. This has happened 20 times in the last 30 elections.

If no candidate wins 50 percent of the vote on May 19, a second round run-off *would* be held a week later, but this last happened in 1929.

I'm no fan of these numbered conditionals - the best native speakers and writer ride a coach and four through the "rules".


----------



## karlalou

Forero said:


> "Might" says it is possible given the right circumstances. "Will" says something like "It fits my pattern".


I take this as supporting what PaulQ says.


----------



## Forero

karlalou said:


> I take this as supporting what PaulQ says.


How?


----------



## karlalou

Forero said:


> How?


It says subjective differences of sureness and a little less degree of sureness.

The clarity differs because of the subject matter, but what these ‘will’ or ‘would’ or ‘might’ conveys is the same sureness or less degree of sureness.


----------



## wandle

What is implied by the conditional stucture in itself (that is, distinct from the semantic content)? What it means is that every conditional sentence is saying that the result follows from the condition with certainty. In other words, the result is always sure to come true, provided that the condition is met. That is the point and the meaning of a conditional sentence.

However, it does not say that the 'if' clause is always fulfilled. That is where any doubt or uncertainty enters in, not in the result clause. The 'if' clause sets the scene and the result clause has to correspond with it.

Consequently, the word 'would' is only to be used in the result clause of a closed (unreal, hypothetical) conditional. It cannot correctly go in the result clause of an open conditional, because an open condition does not express any doubt over the outcome. 'Open' means it may or may not be fulfilled: it is neutral. Either result is equally possible.


----------



## Sheikhbutt

DonnyB said:


> I'm afraid I disagree with that.  While I accept that people use it, it comes across to me as an incorrect mix of open and closed conditionals, and had I been writing that sentence I wouldn't have used it.
> 
> The article in the link appears to be suggesting that the author thinks the vote could be a close one and a second round run-off is fairly likely, or at least a distinct possibility, so I'd have expected:
> "If no candidate *wins* 50 percent of the vote on May 19, a second round run-off *will* be held a week later".


Hi Donny,
Can we say,
1.If no candidate *wins* 50 percent of the vote on May 19, a second round run-off *should* be held a week later".
2."If no candidate *wins* 50 percent of the vote on May 19, a second round run-off *could* be held a week later".


----------



## kentix

Elections (in mature democracies) are like clocks. The process goes forward without fail unless some major disaster happens. The only reason to use could or should is if some large disaster is looming that might interrupt the election. And the chance of that is very, very, very small.

1. If no candidate *wins* 50 percent of the vote on May 19, a second round run-off *will* be held a week later.

That's what _will_ happen. It's set in concrete (barring a huge disaster). As soon as it's clear no candidate won 50% in the first round, the final preparations will begin for holding the run-off election - it will happen because the initial results require it to happen within the rules of the system. There is no choice or uncertainty. No one doubts that, in this context.

1. If no candidate *wins* 50 percent of the vote on May 19, a second round run-off *should* be held a week later but with the alien invasion on the way it will never happen.

2. If no candidate *wins* 50 percent of the vote on May 19, a second round run-off *could* be held a week later, but only if the expected alien invasion is postponed.

There would have to be a very good reason to use should or could and, in the U.S., even the American Civil War and World War II were not good enough reasons to disobey the election laws and turn "will" into "should".


----------



## Sheikhbutt

kentix said:


> Elections (in mature democracies) are like clocks. The process goes forward without fail unless some major disaster happens. The only reason to use could or should is if some large disaster is looming that might interrupt the election. And the chance of that is very, very, very small.
> 
> 1. If no candidate *wins* 50 percent of the vote on May 19, a second round run-off *will* be held a week later.
> 
> That's what _will_ happen. It's set in concrete (barring a huge disaster). As soon as it's clear no candidate won 50% in the first round, the final preparations will begin for holding the run-off election - it will happen because the initial results require it to happen within the rules of the system. There is no choice or uncertainty. No one doubts that, in this context.
> 
> 1. If no candidate *wins* 50 percent of the vote on May 19, a second round run-off *should* be held a week later but with the alien invasion on the way it will never happen.
> 
> 2. If no candidate *wins* 50 percent of the vote on May 19, a second round run-off *could* be held a week later, but only if the expected alien invasion is postponed.
> 
> There would have to be a very good reason to use should or could and, in the U.S., even the American Civil War and World War II were not good enough reasons to disobey the election laws and turn "will" into "should".


I was just asking about the gramatical correctness of the sentence, as we cannot use* would* with present conditional so my question was that can we use *should *and *could *with present conditional.


----------



## DonnyB

Sheikhbutt said:


> I was just asking about the gramatical correctness of the sentence, as we cannot use* would* with present conditional so my question was that can we use *should *and *could *with present conditional.


As a general proposition it is _possible_, although in my opinion it would be unusual, and I agree with the answer kentix has given: neither of them works logically in that particular example.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Sheikhbutt said:


> I was just asking about the gramatical correctness of the sentence, as we cannot use* would* with present conditional so my question was that can we use *should *and *could *with present conditional.


I'm not entirely sure what you mean by the 'present conditional'.  The present and the conditional are separate tenses.

Perhaps you mean a conditional sentence where the if-clause is in the present.

The 0 conditional is a conditional form where both the if-clause and the main clause are in the present, so your question, Sheikbutt, resolves itself into _Can *should* or *could* have present force_?

The answer to this is that they both can have present force: *should* can mean *ought to* and could *can* mean *is able to*.

Thus either can be placed into your sentence to produce correct 0-conditional sentences.

eg. If no candidate *wins* 50 percent of the vote on May 19, a second round run-off *ought to* be held a week later.

Someone might well say this indignantly if after an inconclusive vote on May 19 no second round was held a week later.


----------



## Sheikhbutt

DonnyB said:


> As a general proposition it is _possible_, although in my opinion it would be unusual, and I agree with the answer kentix has given: neither of them works logically in that particular example.


Logically it doesnot make sense but apart from this if we talk about sentence structure :If clause in present tense with* Could *and *should  *;is it correct grammatically to say:

1.If no candidate *wins* 50 percent of the vote on May 19, a second round run-off *should* be held a week later".
2."If no candidate *wins* 50 percent of the vote on May 19, a second round run-off *could* be held a week later".


----------



## tunaafi

Yes.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Sheikhbutt said:


> Logically it doesnot make sense but apart from this if we talk about sentence structure :If clause in present tense with* Could *and *should  *;is it correct grammatically to say:
> 
> 1.If no candidate *wins* 50 percent of the vote on May 19, a second round run-off *should* be held a week later".
> 2."If no candidate *wins* 50 percent of the vote on May 19, a second round run-off *could* be held a week later".


Both your sentences make perfect sense logically and are grammatically correct, for the reasons I've tried to explain to you.


----------

