# Conditional 1/2: "What if he tried to count things?"



## Vronsky

Hi,
I'm reading the story "Russell the Sheep" about a sheep called Russell who couldn't fall asleep. Here's an excerpt from there.

Russell thought he would never get to sleep. But then he had a brilliant idea. What if he tried to count things? That would make him fall asleep.​
I wonder what exactly Russel thought. I have two version:
1) "What if I try to count things? That will make me fall asleep."
2) "What if I tried to count things? That would make me fall asleep."​But I'm not sure which one is correct. Could you tell me?
Thanks in advance.


----------



## Truffula

Both sound correct to me


----------



## wandle

No. (1) is correct. Your question is really about direct and indirect statement.

The original text is an indirect statement. Sentence (1) is the corresponding direct statement, giving Russell's thought in his own words.


----------



## Vronsky

Thank you very much.



wandle said:


> The original text is an indirect statement. Sentence (1) is the corresponding direct statement, giving Russell's thought in his own words.


I have a question. What would've been the original text (an indirect statement) if Russel's thought had been the sentence (2)?


----------



## DankyBoi23

wandle said:


> No. (1) is correct. Your question is really about direct and indirect statement.
> 
> The original text is an indirect statement. Sentence (1) is the corresponding direct statement, giving Russell's thought in his own words.


They are both correct, though. (1) is correct for the reasons you stated, but (2) is also correct, at least in America. (2) is really saying "What if I were to try to count things? That would make me fall asleep." It's perfectly OK in normal speech to say "tried" instead of "were to try" because "tried" is simpler and conveys the same meaning.


----------



## wandle

Sentence (2) is the correct closed version of sentence (1), but English has no way of representing that difference in indirect speech. The indiirect version of (2) would be the same as that of (1) in the original text.

It is not likely that Russell, even if he is a sheep, would think to himself in the closed version, sentence (2). He genuinely wants to get to sleep and the context presents counting as a good idea for that purpose. There is no reason for Russell to express it to himself in the version which would mean that he thought the condition was unlikely to be met.


----------



## Truffula

I agree with DankyBoi23, "at least in America."  [edited because wandle changed his remark]

Here in the USA Today it's grammatical to use past tense:  "For the first time, a bumblebee has been placed on the endangered species list. But *what if they went extinct*?" from What if all bumblebees went extinct? We'd be in 'a world of trouble' 

Clearly the same kind of conditional as the sheep's...


----------



## FinWa

wandle said:


> Sentence (2) is the correct closed version of sentence (1), but English has no way of representing that difference in indirect speech. The indiirect veersion would be the same as in the original text.


What do you mean by it is "the correct closed version" ? The two sentences are actually different. One is using the future tense, and the other the conditional. They do not have the same meanings. In fact, #1 even sounds a little awkward to me because the question before it implies a conditional tense, but the sentence after it uses a future tense.


----------



## DankyBoi23

FinWa said:


> What do you mean by it is "the correct closed version" ? The two sentences are actually different. One is using the future tense, and the other the conditional. They do not have the same meanings. In fact, #1 even sounds a little awkward to me because the question before it implies a conditional tense, but the sentence after it uses a future tense.


I agree with FinWa. (1) implies that the sheep knows for sure that counting things will make him fall asleep, which is not true here, considering he is *trying *something out.


----------



## wandle

Truffula said:


> Disagree with wandle, ... Apparently in Britain it's ungrammatical (the word "soleicism" means "grammatical error" btw)


Please note I have edited my post 6. I had misread the original post. My comment about a solecism was mistaken and I have removed it. I apologise for the confusion caused.

Both sentences (1) and (2) are correct conditional sentences. Sentence (1) is more likely to be what the author intended as Russell's thought to himself.


----------



## Vronsky

wandle said:


> Sentence (2) is the correct closed version of sentence (1), but English has no way of representing that difference in indirect speech. The indiirect version of (2) would be the same as that of (1) in the original text.
> 
> It is not likely that Russell, even if he is a sheep, would think to himself in the closed version, sentence (2). He genuinely wants to get to sleep and the context presents counting as a good idea for that purpose. There is no reason for Russell to express it to himself in the version which would mean that he thought the condition was unlikely to be met.


So, as far as I've understood you, theoretically (grammatically) both sentences (1 and 2) can be Russell's thoughts. But from the context, you think the sentence 1 is more likely what Russell thought.


----------



## FinWa

Vronsky said:


> So, as far as I've understood you, theoretically (grammatically) both sentences (1 and 2) can be Russell's thoughts. But from the context, you think the sentence 1 is more likely what Russell thought.


I am unsure of Wandle's reasoning or if he misread something. But I do not think this is possibly a valid point, because (*1*) we cannot truly know what the likelihood is of someone wanting to express themselves in a certain way, nor what their intentions are apart form what they say. And more importantly, (*2*) these 2 sentences are almost exactly equal in terms of how common they are anyway, and their meanings are extremely similar, even if a little different.


----------



## wandle

FinWa said:


> What do you mean by it is "the correct closed version" ?


Sentence (1) is a correct open future conditional (also called first conditional).
Sentence (2) is a correct closed future conditional (also called second conditional).
Thus (2) is the closed version of (1) and (1) is the open version of (2).

The only difference between the open and closed future conditional is that the closed version means that the speaker of the sentence (in this case, Russell the sheep saying it to himself in ovine-speak) thinks that the condition is unlikely to be met.

However, we have no reason to think that the author wanted us to think that Russell thought that his bright idea (to try counting) was unlikely to come true.


----------



## Vronsky

FinWa said:


> I am unsure of Wandle's reasoning or if he misread something. But I do not think this is possibly a valid point, because (*1*) we cannot truly know what the likelihood is of someone wanting to express themselves in a certain way, nor what their intentions are apart form what they say. And more importantly, (*2*) these 2 sentences are almost exactly equal in terms of how common they are anyway, and their meanings are extremely similar, even if a little different.


Yes, I can see that the sentences are almost the same even though they use the different conditional structures. We can only suppose what Russell thought.

I think the sentence (1) is less likely because Russell cannot know for sure that fulfillment of the condition (counting things) necessarily causes the result (falling asleep).
In such situations, it's more reasonable to use the hypothetical conditional. Therefore, the sentence (2) is more likely even though it is the conditional 2 (hypothetical). I think in this case it doesn't mean that the condition is unlikely to be met.


----------



## wandle

Vronsky said:


> Therefore, the sentence (2) is more likely even though it is the conditional 2. I think in this case it doesn't mean that the condition is unlikely to be met.


I am afraid there is a misunderstanding there.

The closed future conditional (second conditional) does not mean that the condition is unlikely to be met.
It means that the speaker of the sentence thinks that the condition is unlikely to be met.

It is not about real probability. It is about the belief in the mind of the speaker (in this case, Russell).
Why would the author be suggesting that Russell did not think his idea would come true?


----------



## Vronsky

wandle said:


> It means that the speaker of the sentence thinks that the condition is unlikely to be met.
> 
> It is not about real probability. It is about the belief in the mind of the speaker (in this case, Russell).


It's an unusual definition. The definition that I stick to is:
"The Present Unreal Conditional is used to talk about what you would generally do in imaginary situations." ENGLISH PAGE - Present Conditionals

Sometimes an imaginary situation is unlikely to happen as the speaker believes, but sometimes it's quite real. The main point is that this situation is imaginary, hypothetical.


----------



## FinWa

wandle said:


> I am afraid there is a misunderstanding there.
> 
> The closed future conditional (second conditional) does not mean that the condition is unlikely to be met.
> It means that the speaker of the sentence thinks that the condition is unlikely to be met.
> 
> It is not about real probability. It is about the belief in the mind of the speaker (in this case, Russell).
> Why would the author be suggesting that Russell did not think his idea would come true?


That sounds extremely strange to me. So if I wrote this sentence:

"What if I drew a triangle? It would have three angles."

You would interpret it as me (the speaker) believing that, even if I drew a triangle, it would probably NOT have three angles? (Which is impossible)? I would draw no such conclusion if I heard that from someone, or else I would think them extremely odd/a madman.


----------



## Vronsky

Hmm... I think here can be even three possibilities:

(3) "What if I try to count things? That would make me fall asleep."

What did Russell think? I'm afraid it'll remain a mystery.
Anyway, enough sheep for today


----------



## wandle

FinWa said:


> You would interpret it as me (the speaker) believing that, even if I drew a triangle, it would probably NOT have three angles?


Not at all. There you are suggesting that the conclusion would not follow from the condition being met, which is an entirely different thing (obviously the conclusion must follow if the condition is met!).

Your example (3) 'What if I drew a triangle? It would have three angles' is a parallel case to sentence (2) in post 1.
In other words, it contains a closed future conditional (2nd conditional).
To set up the proper comparison, we need to look at the corresponding open future conditional (1st conditional):
(4) 'What if I draw a triangle? It will have three angles'.

Now the question is, what is the difference between (3) and (4)?  Answer: in sentence (3) the speaker thinks the condition is unlikely to be met.
In other words, sentence (3) means the speaker thinks he is unlikely to draw a triangle, whereas sentence (4) is completely open on that point.
That is why it is called an open conditional. It means the speaker is neutral about whether he will draw a triangle: he may, or he may not, he does not lean either way.

Now let us go back to sentences (1) and (2).


Vronsky said:


> 1) "What if I try to count things? That will make me fall asleep."
> 2) "What if I tried to count things? That would make me fall asleep.


Sentence (1) is an open future conditional (1st conditional), sentence (2) is a closed future conditional (2nd conditional).
The difference between them is that in (2) the speaker thinks the condition is unlikely to be met.

In other words, in sentence (2) Russell the sheep thinks he is unlikely to try counting things, whereas sentence (1) is completely open on that point.
Sentence (1) means Russell is completely open about whether he will try counting: he may, or he may not, he does not incline either way.

Now is it likely that the author means Russell thought he would probably not try counting? I do not think so.
Consequently, we have no reason to think the author had sentence (2) in mind.


----------



## wandle

Vronsky said:


> Hmm... I think here can be even three possibilities:
> (3) "What if I try to count things? That would make me fall asleep."


That I am afraid is the grammatical solecism. It is not a possible direct version of the original, because it mixes open and closed (first conditional and second conditional - an invalid combination), whereas the original does not mix anything.


----------



## FinWa

I see now what you mean. I just cannot see that being the case, intuitively: that there is some kind of probable belief by the speaker when they make these sentences. As well, you seem to be analyzing the meaning of the first part of the sentence, based on what comes _after _it. I am unsure if this is possible in this context.

My basis for this is when I consider example sentences written in this form:

For example, someone is fixing a hardware problem and they look at the computer and say:

"What if I put this wire in this socket? That would start the computer."

Then right after saying that, they do it and fix the computer.

There is no comment on unlikelihood of them doing that, it is just a hypothesis. Thus, it is a comment on something that has not happened _yet, _not something that is _unlikely to happen in the future_ (him physically putting the wire in the socket).

Or what if a highly respected global-warming scientist said this to a group of other scientists?:

"What if carbon dioxide continues to enter the atmosphere at or above the amount it was entering the atmosphere during the year 1922? The North Pole would melt in the year 2150."

If you heard that sentence, and then believed that the scientist was making a suggestion that it is likely global warming would *not *continue at that level, you would have to be incorrect. He would not be making any sort of commentary on the likelihood of this condition being realized, only an observation on what would happen _if _it was realized. The only thing this means is that it is not absolutely certain it _will _be realized, which is technically true for anything based in the future whatsoever.


----------



## wandle

FinWa said:


> I see now what you mean. I just cannot see that being the case, intuitively: that there is some kind of probable belief by the speaker when they make these sentences.


Well, if you do not want to accept it from me, may I quote the Oxford English Grammar?


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


----------



## FinWa

Wandle,

That quote from Oxford means that unlikelihood is a _possible _meaning of that conditional in certain contexts, not the only one (hence the "or" in the full sentence).  

This is absolutely true _in some sentences but not all_. For example, in sentences such as, "What if I won the million-dollar lottery? I would...". Here we can interpret the speaker as saying they probably won't win, but what if they did? However, the obverse is also possible and definitely not a comment on probability, such as "What if I lost the million-dollar lottery? I would..." To interpret it in that way would mean that the speaker believes they will probably win (which would show them as either delusional or clairvoyant, judging by the pure odds against them). 

I'm not trying to attack you or anything, just understand the rationale and give my own so I learn something if I'm wrong.


----------



## wandle

FinWa said:


> That quote from Oxford means that unlikelihood is a _possible _meaning of that conditional in certain contexts, not the only one (hence the "or" in the full sentence).


Excuse me, that 'or' is exclusive: it lists the three possible cases (past, present, future) and gives the separate meaning of each.
I am sorry, but I have explained the point at length and quoted a recognised authority and if that is not enough, I am afraid there seems little point in going on.


----------



## FinWa

Okay, I don't know what else to say either. If we can't even agree on what "or" means I don't think we will get anywhere in this thread lol, unless other posters want to chime in.


----------



## siares

All the other verbs, I would think the same as wandle, but I think the past form, more tentative, goes better with the verb 'try'.
The conditionals with 'try' are not the same as others, because usually any result comes from doing something, not from trying to do something. People will probably not fall asleep if they just try to count.


----------



## SevenDays

Conditional sentences are about_* time*_ not "tense," and thinking in terms of _sequence of tenses_ can lead you down a rabbit hole. _All_ conditional sentences that refer to the "present" are linguistically _open_, whether they are expressed with the present tense (_What if I *draw* a triangle_?) or with the simple past tense (_What if I *drew* a triangle?_). They are "open" because the speaker _may_ or _may not_ draw a triangle (and the sentence itself is neutral as to whether the speaker will or won't do so). A conditional sentence is "closed" when the condition can't be fulfilled in "time," which means that _all_ conditional sentences situated in the past are "closed:"_ If I had drawn a triangle, it would have had three sides_. What this means is that I _did not draw_ a triangle, and I can't travel back in time to draw a triangle; that's why this past time conditional sentence is "closed." 

These two conditionals are _open_:
(1) _What if I draw a triangle? It will have three triangles_
(2) _What If I drew a triangle? It would have three triangles_
though (2) gets the label _remote conditional_, for the combination _simple past-would_ (but "remote" doesn't mean "closed;" "remote" simply differentiates [2] from [1])

If you follow the so-called sequence of tenses, then (1) and (2)  are the _only_ two choices available to you. But if you understand that conditional sentences are about "time" and not "tense," as I said above, then you being to realize that another possibility opens up: (3) _What if I *draw* a triangle? It *would* have three angles_. We are taught by traditional grammar that the difference between (1) and (2) has to do with what's _more likely_ (1) and _less likely_ (2), but I'd say that's rather simplistic. After all, _all_ triangles have three sides, and the idea of drawing a triangle with more or fewer sides is neither more likely nor less likely; it's simply _impossible_. If your drawing has two or four sides, it'll be something else, not a triangle. 

All conditional sentences are a mental representation of how we see the world: (1) presents the condition as _factuality_ (that's the pragmatic effect of the present tense), while (2) presents the condition as _potentiality. _Either way, the conditional sentence is "counterfactual" (I'm not actually drawing a triangle) and "open" (nothing prevents me from drawing a triangle). If your condition is "factual," it follows that the _result_ has a sense of certainty, which is why the modal "will" appears in the _apodosis_ (result clause), and if something is expressed as potentiality, then it's no surprise that the result clause is also expressed in the potentiality of "would." These combinations of tense (_draw, drew_) and modals (_will, would_) are patterns that emerge given our mental representation, but other combinations arise due to the particular perspective taken by the speaker; in other words, nothing prevents him from fashioning a conditional sentence that combines _factuality_ in the condition and _potentiality_ in the result (3). 

Now, what's "factual" or "potential" is really a semantic and therefore subjective call; to express the same idea, some will use (1), others (2), and yet others (3). Linguistically, it doesn't make any difference whether the condition is expressed with a present tense or past tense (because both tenses refer to "present time"), or whether the result has _modal will_ or_ modal would_, because both modal verbs express _epistemic meaning_: they both refer to logical conclusions (which means that these modal verbs are not in their _deontic _meaning of "obligation").   

Conditional sentences combine syntactic and semantic features; to reduce them to four types makes no sense. The "time" in which the sentence is set, the nature of the condition and expected result, plus other factors (having to do more or less _likelihood, probability, desirability_, etc) determine whether certain verb forms can or can't be used.


----------



## FinWa

Wow, great post!  I feel like I just read a PhD thesis.

I question the usefulness of this nonsense about open and closed conditionals, categories of conditionals, and solecisms. The most important thing is the _full_ _meaning _of the sentence_. _We need to start with meaning first, not ignore it and go to technical rules first to get at the "correct" meaning. That is my belief, and it seems like you were at least on a similar wavelength when you began explaining that conditionals are nuanced temporal statements, and do not just neatly fit into boxes.


----------



## Vronsky

wandle said:


> That I am afraid is the grammatical solecism. It is not a possible direct version of the original, because it mixes open and closed (first conditional and second conditional - an invalid combination), whereas the original does not mix anything.


The problem is that the original text is not a conditonal at all (though it contains the conjunction 'if'). The true conditional would be:
1.a) If I count things, I will fall asleep.
2.a) If I counted thing, I would fall asleep.​In this case, it's impossible to mix 1 and 2.
3.a) If I count things, I would fall asleep. *X*​
But this is not what the original text says. In fact, Russel the sheep thought:
"I can/could try to count things. It would make me fall asleep."​Here, there's not a condition-result relationship between the first and the second sentences.


----------



## velisarius

With "What if...?" and "Suppose..." you can follow with a verb in the present tense or in the past. The present tense sounds more immediate and vivid.

It must be a kind of conditional sentence: _What (will happen) if I do this? What (would happen) if I did that? _


----------



## Vronsky

velisarius said:


> With "What if...?" and "Suppose..." you can follow with a verb in the present tense or in the past. The present tense sounds more immediate and vivid.
> 
> It must be a kind of conditional sentence: _What (will happen) if I do this? What (would happen) if I did that? _


I agree with you. The conditional is hidden in the first sentence "What if I try/tried to count things?" => "What will/would happen if I try/tried to count things?"

The next sentence "That will/would make me fall asleep." is not part of the conditional.


----------



## wandle

To go back to the original question:


Vronsky said:


> I wonder what exactly Russel thought. I have two version:
> 1) "What if I try to count things? That will make me fall asleep."
> 2) "What if I tried to count things? That would make me fall asleep."But I'm not sure which one is correct. Could you tell me?


The first thing to note about the quotation 'What if he tried to count things? That would make him fall asleep' is that it is part of Russell's thought. 





Vronsky said:


> Russell thought he would never get to sleep. But then he had a brilliant idea. What if he tried to count things? That would make him fall asleep.


The quotation is expressing the content of the 'brilliant idea'. For brevity, The author does not bother with an introductory verb (e.g. ' Russell thought, "What if ...?" '). Instead, he goes straight into indirect statement. This is standard narrative technique.

Thus we see that the quotation is an indirect statement following an implied verb of thinking or saying in the past tense. Now in indirect statement, verbs following a past tense verb are backshifted. In order to convert the indirect statement back to direct speech, we have to remove the backshifting (in this case, change past to present or future) and change third person to first person. This gives the result: 'What if I try to count things? That will make me fall asleep'.

That is the direct expression of what Russell the sheep said to himself.

The direct version 'What if I try to count things? That will make me fall asleep' consists of two sentences. Each of these is an abbreviated conditional sentence.

For clarity, we can fill them out: 'What will happen if I try to count things?' 'If I try to count things, that will make me fall asleep'. That kind of abbreviated expression is perfectly normal, but the full form needs to be brought out in order to see the structure.

Here, the two sentences are not only conditionals, but conditionals of the same type. Thus whatever conditional rules apply to one will also apply to the other. For simplicity, then, we only need to look at one.

Let us take the sentence, 'If I try to count things, that will make me fall asleep'. This has a present tense verb in the 'if' clause and a future tense verb in the result clause. In other words, it is a straightforward open future conditional, also called a first conditional. That applies equally to 'What will happen if I try to count things?'


----------



## wandle

SevenDays said:


> These two conditionals are _open_:
> (1) _What if I draw a triangle? It will have three triangles_
> (2) _What If I drew a triangle? It would have three triangles_
> though (2) gets the label _remote conditional_, for the combination _simple past-would_ (but "remote" doesn't mean "closed;" "remote" simply differentiates [2] from [1])


Sorry, but they are not both open.
The terms 'open' and 'closed' are recognised grammatical terms for conditionals. To quote the Oxford English Grammar:


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


No. (1) is an open (or real) future conditional, also called first conditional.
No. (2) is a closed (hypothetical, unreal or remote) future conditional, also called second conditional.
Those are all recognised terms.

The difference between (1) and (2) is just as stated by the Oxford English Grammar:


> 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).


No (2), being a hypothetical (unreal, closed, or remote) future conditional, expresses the speaker's belief that the condition is unlikely to be met.
In other words, it is saying the speaker thinks he or she is not likely to draw a triangle.

By the same token, if we read the original quotation as a second conditional (closed future conditional), it will mean that Russell the sheep thought he was not likely to try counting.

However, there is no reason to think that that is what the author meant.
Thus there is no reason to read the direct version of the original as a second conditional (closed future conditional).


----------



## wandle

FinWa said:


> I question the usefulness of this nonsense about open and closed conditionals, categories of conditionals, and solecisms.


If we ignore the rules of grammar, we can interpret any sentence to mean anything we like.
However, if we all did that, communication would break down.

Please note (a) the open conditional : '_If we ignore the rules of grammar, we can interpret any sentence to mean anything we like_'.
This indicates that the writer's attitude is open or neutral on whether the condition will be met.
In other words, I have opened my mind to entertain the idea that the rules of grammar can be ignored.

Please note (b) the closed future conditional (second conditional): '_if we all did that, communication would break down_'.
This indicates the writer's belief that the condition is unlikely to be met.
In other words, I do not believe we will all do that (ignore the rules of grammar and interpret everything randomly).


----------



## Truffula

I question the accuracy of the rules dividing conditionals into open/closed or first/second types:

Problem of the four conditionals PDF  has some information like "the traditional divisions of zero, first, second, and third conditionals do not give an accurate account of how conditionals are actually used."

Since all communications have not broken down, yet apparently most of us ignore this "rule" - that means it is not a real rule


----------



## wandle

Truffula said:


> I question the accuracy of the rules dividing conditionals into open/closed or first/second types:


That is not a clear statement. It is not clear what rules it refers to. It does not seem to refer to previous posts in this thread.


Truffula said:


> "the traditional divisions of zero, first, second, and third conditionals do not give an accurate account of how conditionals are actually used."


No post in this thread has said those traditional divisions 'give an accurate account of how conditionals are actually used'.


Truffula said:


> Since all communications have not broken down, yet apparently most of us ignore this "rule" - that means it is not a real rule


This statement is also unclear.  Is this also meant to be saying 'the traditional divisions of zero, first, second, and third conditionals do not give an accurate account of how conditionals are actually used'?
If so, then the answer is the same: No post in this thread has said that those traditional divisions 'give an accurate account of how conditionals are actually used'.

To speak for myself, I have pointed out in various threads in this forum that the 0,1,2,3 classification does not give a complete or systematic description of conditionals (and have defended that view repeatedly). I have also linked more than once to this article, which starts from much the same position as the article linked to in post 35.


----------



## wandle

Vronsky said:


> What did Russell think? I'm afraid it'll remain a mystery.





SevenDays said:


> Conditional sentences combine syntactic and semantic features; to reduce them to four types makes no sense.





FinWa said:


> conditionals are nuanced temporal statements, and do not just neatly fit into boxes





Truffula said:


> the traditional divisions of zero, first, second, and third conditionals do not give an accurate account of how conditionals are actually used."


May I add a few points for the sake of clarity on the rules of conditional sentences?

(1) The two articles linked to in post 35 and post 36 do not suggest that there are no rules for conditionals. They do not mean that if you put together any combination of clauses you like, the result will still make sense. There are definite rules to be followed if we wish to communicate clearly.

(2) The two articles mentioned do not mean that the traditional classification of the four conditionals 0,1,2,3 is wrong, or that the rules for forming those conditionals can be ignored. On the contrary, those rules are correct and important.

(3) The purpose of the articles is not to attack the idea of rules for conditionals. They are both about how to teach conditionals and they both start from the point that the traditional 0,1,2,3 classification is not a complete picture of English conditionals. They do not say that the four types are wrong, but that they do not cover all cases.

(4) In other words, the 0,1,2,3 system is an over-simplification of the picture. It leads students to think that there are only four types (or, if we include two mixed, six types) of conditionals and that any other patterns of conditionals are not correct English, or at least not true conditionals. In other words, students taught by the traditional method often take away a too limited view of what a conditional is.

(5) Another drawback of the 0,1,2,3 system is that it makes no mention of the difference between open (or real) and closed (or unreal) conditions. In fact, the terminology of the 0,1,2,3 system was invented by language teachers in order to avoid talking about open and closed conditions.

(6) In my view, it is impossible to understand conditionals without keeping in view the two vital distinctions (a) of mood (the speaker's attitude of mind, either open or closed) and (b) of time, that is, past, present and future. Every condition must refer to one of those times, and the speaker's attitude to it must be either open or closed.

(7) My own contribution to this debate is the sixfold system which combines those two distinctions into a simple graphic table which, I propose, gives all the basic forms an English conditional can take and which allows any valid conditional sentence to be correctly analysed.


----------



## Truffula

I really like the sixfold system, wandle!  But it's missing the case where both parts use future or where just the first part uses future (none of wandle's examples use future tense even when they are labeled future)

But even six isn't enough categories really.  They're very handy to help figure out one way to express what you want to say if you aren't fluent in English, I think, but they aren't going to fill in the gaps of understanding what native speakers mean when we use conditionals however we feel like.

The use of Future Will in conditional protasis (IF-clause) has some examples  and The mixed conditional "future-future" has more.


----------



## wandle

Truffula said:


> none of wandle's examples use future tense even when they are labeled future


The sixfold table contains two future conditionals, one open and one closed.

Take the open future example (Type E) first: 'If he says that, he will be making a mistake'. This has present tense in the if-clause and future tense in the result clause (the main clause). That is in accordance with the rule for the ordinary future open conditional (first conditional).

Remember that in English we often use the present tense to express future time. That is the case in the 'if' clause. Compare the sentence, 'When I go to Paris, I will visit the Louvre'. The whole of this sentence refers to the future. That will still be true if we replace 'when' with 'if'.

Now take the closed future conditional (Type F, second conditional). The rule for this is: past tense in the 'if' clause, past modal in the result clause. That is what my example gives: 'If he said that, he would be making a mistake'. So in this case we actually have two past tenses, but they both refer to the future.

Thus both the table examples are correctly formed and refer correctly to the future.

As for using a future tense in the 'if' clause, that is not wrong and does actually occur regularly in official and legal usage, in sentences of the type 'If either party shall become insolvent, this agreement shall be voided'. That is just a variant of Type E in the table.

The table does not pretend to give all possible conditional patterns (that would not be practicable). It gives the six basic types and my claim is that every valid English conditional is either one of those six, or else a variant of one. That covers the case of future tense plus future tense (and I believe any other valid case).


Truffula said:


> understanding what native speakers mean when we use conditionals however we feel like.


If people make mistakes in using conditionals (which happens, especially in conversation, as it does with other constructions in English), then we have to use our common sense in understanding them: but that is no more than we have to do anyway in many aspects of life.


----------



## FinWa

wandle said:


> If we ignore the rules of grammar, we can interpret any sentence to mean anything we like.
> However, if we all did that, communication would break down.
> 
> Please note (a) the open conditional : '_If we ignore the rules of grammar, we can interpret any sentence to mean anything we like_'.
> This indicates that the writer's attitude is open or neutral on whether the condition will be met.
> In other words, I have opened my mind to entertain the idea that the rules of grammar can be ignored.
> 
> Please note (b) the closed future conditional (second conditional): '_if we all did that, communication would break down_'.
> This indicates the writer's belief that the condition is unlikely to be met.
> In other words, I do not believe we will all do that (ignore the rules of grammar and interpret everything randomly).


Wandle,

I agree that rules of grammar are necessary in certain cases to resolve certain disputes. But they cannot possibly answer everything, especially in complex cases involving ambiguity. Literally speaking, meaning comes first, and then rules, not rules and then meaning. There is a philosopher called Ludwig Wittgenstein who became famous, and is still famous for his analysis of language and logic. His complex theories are summed up by a single sentence he once wrote: "Meaning is use." Words only mean things in the way they are used in everyday life, and nothing else.


----------



## wandle

FinWa said:


> I agree that rules of grammar are necessary in certain cases to resolve certain disputes.


At first sight, your position seems to have changed. In post 28, grammatical rules are described as nonsense. Now it seems they have some use, but only 'in certain cases to resolve certain disputes'. However, that still seems to me to miss the point of what grammar rules are and if I understand correctly you are still saying that they are not needed for the main purposes of language.

Wittgenstein warned against the idea that words have some mysterious essence, some inner identity that gives them meaning. He says they only have meaning because and insofar as they are shared with others through being used in ways that we all recognise.

If we move from the meaning of individual words to consider the way words work together, that is grammar, your position at this level seems to be the very one that Wittgenstein was warning against.

You seem to be saying that there are few if any grammatical rules which are shared with others and recognised by all. We can each for the most part decide our own rules and we do not have to recognise the rules of other people. If that picture of language were true, then no communication would be possible, because each person would be following a private set of rules and every sentence would mean something different to each of us.


----------



## FinWa

wandle said:


> Wittgenstein warned against the idea that words have some mysterious essence, some inner identity that gives them meaning. He says they only have meaning because and insofar as they are shared with others through being used in ways that we all recognise.
> 
> If we move from the meaning of individual words to consider the way words work together, that is grammar, your position at this level seems to be the very one that Wittgenstein was warning against.


My position is that to understand the meaning of something, we need to examine practical _uses _of that something in language (this is why I've been feeding endless example-sentences in this thread to show why your viewpoint cannot account for the meaning of the sentence, despite your appeal to grammatical rules). Grammar tries to account for use, but it is _not _use, _use _is _use_. Hence why there are endless exceptions to grammatical rules (try analyzing an example sentence like "how do you like them apples?" to get at the meaning behind it, without consulting use and ignoring grammatical standards). This is why a native speaker who never heard of a conditional statement can still understand the OPs sentence. 

There is no such thing as a 'rule' above and beyond uses. Grammar is a convenient, yet flawed short-cut to sometimes generalize _uses_. It is not _use _itself, nor can it fully capture a language's nature. This absolutely does not imply that chaos would ensue and that people wouldn't understand each other.


----------



## wandle

FinWa said:


> I've been feeding endless example-sentences in this thread to show why your viewpoint cannot account for the meaning of the sentence, despite your appeal to grammatical rules


I must have missed those 'endless example-sentences'. I did notice the examples in posts 17 and 21. I replied to post 17 in post 19 and to post 21 in post 32. There, I showed that the original quotation is made up of two abbreviated conditional sentences, both of the same type, and analysed that accordingly. I did not explicitly take up all your examples, simply because I tried to focus directly on the type involved in the original quotation.





FinWa said:


> a native speaker who never heard of a conditional statement can still understand the OPs sentence.


That fact proves the existence of rules.

The native speaker understands the sentence simply because he or she has learned the relevant rules.  It is not necessary to be conscious of the rules in order to learn and apply them, though it helps.

For foreign learners, however, who are the main users of this forum, the lengthy process of learning, much of it passive learning, that a native speaker goes through from infancy onwards is not possible and the explicit formulation of the rules is essential.


----------



## Cagey

We answer *specific questions* about* words or phrases* in a *complete sentence* with *context and background*.

This thread has wandered from the specific question laid out clearly in the first post. 

People have different opinions about conditionals, how they work, and how they should be classified.  These differences are not likely to be resolved.

This thread is closed. 

Cagey, 
moderator


----------

