# If he was here yesterday, he certainly helped her



## Honki

Hi.

Please look at sentences (1) and (2).

　(1)　If it rains tomorrow, the match will be cancelled.
　(2)　If he was here yesterday, he certainly helped her.

Sentence (1) is a typical conditional sentence in English.
But, it seems to me that the if-clause in sentence (2) is different from the if-clause in sentence (1).
In my view, the if-clause in sentence (2) does not serve as a typical condition.

According to a grammar book of mine, sentence (3) below is given.

　(3)　It is if it rains tomorrow that the match will be cancelled.

This sentence (3) is the cleft sentence wherein the if-clause in sentence (2) is moved into the focus position.
I want to know whether or not the if-clause in sentence (2) can appear in the cleft sentence.
That is, I want to know wether or not sentence (4) is a correct Engish sentence.

　(4)　It is if he was here yesterday that he certainly helped her.

Everyone, do you judge the sentence (4) is a correct sentence?

Thank you in advance.


----------



## Glasguensis

Neither 3 or 4 are correct - are you sure you have copied correctly?

You are correct that 1 and 2 do not have the same structure, but the if-clause in 2 is a condition.


----------



## Honki

Glasguensis said:


> Neither 3 or 4 are correct - are you sure you have copied correctly?
> 
> You are correct that 1 and 2 do not have the same structure, but the if-clause in 2 is a condition.


Thank you for your comment, Glasguensis.
Your comment is very usful for me.
However, the grammar book which gives sentence (3) gives sentence (5) below:

(5)It is if John had come that Mary would have left.

In my view, sentence (3) and (5) are not used ordinarily, and therefore, sentence (3) and (5) are judged as incorrect.
But, it seems to me that sentence (3) and (5) are grammatically correct.
Still, I do not know whether or not sentence (4) is grammatically correct.


----------



## RM1(SS)

I agree that 3 and 4 are not correct.  Nor is 5.


----------



## Dale Texas

I also still wonder if you are copying this correctly or not putting in correct punctuation which would *require a colon* to announce what we're to consider, or if the original text is blending things all together in a hopeless jumble.

"I have a question about this sentence.  The sentence is*:* If John had come, Mary would have left."
or
"I have a question and it is this*:* If John had come, Mary would have left.  Is that correct?"

"It is if John had come Mary would have left." Not possible.

Is that what's happening here?


----------



## Honki

Dale Texas said:


> I also still wonder if you are copying this correctly or not putting in correct punctuation which would *require a colon* to announce what we're to consider, or if the original text is blending things all together in a hopeless jumble.
> 
> "I have a question about this sentence.  The sentence is*:* If John had come, Mary would have left."
> or
> "I have a question and it is this*:* If John had come, Mary would have left.  Is that correct?"
> 
> "It is if John had come Mary would have left." Not possible.
> 
> Is that what's happening here?


Thank you for your comment, Dale Texas.
Your comment is very useful for me.
But it is certain that a grammar book of mine gives the example sentences  "If John had come, Mary would have left."
and "It is if John had come that Mary would have left."

Once again, thank you.


----------



## suzi br

Is the second sentence given as a way of glossing the first one (thus both are about what would have happened if John had arrived?)  Otherwise I am struggling to see what context it could arise in. 

I am sure that many of the sentences we write in here would look odd taken out of context, but they are OK in the very narrow confine of trying to explain something about a language feature.


----------



## Loob

Honki said:


> (3)　It is if it rains tomorrow that the match will be cancelled.
> ...
> (4)　It is if he was here yesterday that he certainly helped her.





Honki said:


> (5)It is if John had come that Mary would have left.


Hello Honki

I'd say that (3) and (5), the cleft sentences given by your text book, are just about possible, but pretty unlikely.  They would become much more natural, though, if we added "only" to them:
_(3a)　It's only if it rains tomorrow that the match will be cancelled.
(5a) It's only if John had come that Mary would have left._

I don't think (4) can be made to work even with the addition of "only", so my answer to your post 1 question is "no".


----------



## Dale Texas

Perhaps suzi br is correct and 3 and 4 are supposed to be glosses to explain 1 and 2.  Still they are being seen as incorrect by us and not understood. That might be helpful for further thinking by us, but I want to put that aside for the moment.

You say: _"This sentence (3) is the cleft sentence wherein the if-clause in sentence (2) is moved into the focus position.
I want to know whether or not the if-clause in sentence (2) can appear in the cleft sentence..etc._" and then want to end up with a rewritten sentence 4."

I think that's not correct, that you can't adjudge that to be a properly constructed cleft sentence just because someone has put an "It is" in front of it.  You have own doubts which is why you're asking the question, of course, since it came from a grammar book.

There are other posters here who I think are more experienced in identifying cleft sentences so I will leave it to them to speak more authentically than I could, but  so far everyone has rejected and/or not even understood sentences 3 and 4, not at all your fault.


_cross-posted with Loob and srk_


----------



## Glasguensis

Please can you give us the text which surrounds sentence 3 in your grammar book ? Perhaps that will clarify why it gives what seems to be a bizarre sentence. Like Loob, I struggle to identify a context where this sentence would be remotely acceptable without modification. Even if we find out what it's trying to say, as a general rule we can definitely advise you to completely avoid this structure.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I wonder a little why this question has provoked such an outcry.

Why should Honki avoid this structure?  It is, after all, occasionally useful, and entirely idiomatic.

_Should I come tomorrow if it's raining? __ No, it's (only_ - _as Loob would prefer, but I see as not mandatory_) _if it's fine that you should come._

I think the problem, such as it is, lies in the apparently tenuous link between condition and  consequence in some of the examples.  In the longer form the logic of these links is presented more starkly, perhaps.

_If the cat is sick, the car will start promptly._

_It is if the cat is sick that the car will start promptly._

The longer sentence presents the condition as necessary - hence Loob's _only_ - and that forces us to consider the potential causal links, and reject the sentence when they seem absurd.

That is not a reason for discouraging the use of the extended formula, in my view.  In some circumstances it can be most useful.

If you accept _(2)　If he was here yesterday, he certainly helped her_, I can't see that you can object to_ (4) It is if he was here yesterday that he certainly helped her_.  (4) simply presents a potentially absurd causal link more starkly, it seems to me.

It shouldn't be beyond an intelligent person given plenty of time to think of circumstances in which it could make sense to say it.


----------



## Glasguensis

With all due respect, TT, I don't find this idiomatic in the least, and I can't see how it is useful.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

It's if people don't understand that we have to explain things to them.  If they can see the point, there's no need.


----------



## pob14

Thomas Tompion said:


> It's if people don't understand that we have to explain things to them.  If they can see the point, there's no need.


To me, this would be much clearer if the words "it's" and "that" were removed.


----------



## JamesM

Thomas Tompion said:


> It's if people don't understand that we have to explain things to them.  If they can see the point, there's no need.



This is honestly idiomatic to you, TT?  Can you provide examples of this?  Like several others here, I have a hard time imagining this construction to be idiomatic.  It is understandable but not something I would expect to encounter.

Adding Loob's "only" would make it idiomatic to me, but even then I would prefer the more straightforward version that pob14 suggests.


----------



## Honki

Thomas Tompion said:


> It's if people don't understand that we have to explain things to them.  If they can see the point, there's no need.


Thomas Tompion, thank you for your comment.
Your comment is very helpful.
Do you judge sentence (4) "It is if he was here yesterday that he certainly helped her." as grammatically correct?


----------



## DonnyB

Honki said:


> Do you judge sentence (4) "It is if he was here yesterday that he certainly helped her." as grammatically correct?


I would say yes, it is grammatically correct.  However, the problem is that it's not even remotely idiomatic and in my opinion no native speaker would say it.

Like TT, (post #11) I don't have a problem in general with the construction "It's [only] if ... that...".  

But the problem specifically with sentence (4) I think stems from the fact that the original sentence (2) on which it's based doesn't really work for me and I wouldn't have used it.  It's an odd sequence of logic to try and make into a conditional in the first place, and trying to turn it into "It's if.. that.." simply accentuates the original defective logic to the point where the sentence becomes unusable.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

JamesM said:


> This is honestly idiomatic to you, TT?  Can you provide examples of this?  Like several others here, I have a hard time imagining this construction to be idiomatic.  It is understandable but not something I would expect to encounter.
> 
> Adding Loob's "only" would make it idiomatic to me, but even then I would prefer the more straightforward version that pob14 suggests.


Hello James,

I'm not willfully wasting people's time here, and am a little surprised you might think I would.  Certainly this construction is idiomatic, in my view.  I'm entirely ready to admit that it most usually takes the form _'it's if etc._' to throw the stress where it needs to be, on the_ if_.  I'd be surprised that some people think it isn't, if I was not such an old hand here.

Can I provide examples?  Off I go to the COCA (the AE Corpus).  How about this? - _It's if you give up faith on every rider you pass that cycling would start to get really lonely. _Source: Bicycling -  Vol. 41, Iss. 7; pg. 18.  

There are quite a few others.

I suspect that some members have grossly underestimated the sophistication of Honki's question.  I find it difficult and intriguing.

If we take a viable conditional sentence, presenting a necessary condition which is not obviously necessary - _If I go to Bristol, I will wear my white hat_ - then it's the natural response to a question asking if the consequence could follow from other conditions -_ Will  you wear your white hat if you go to London? No, it's if I go to Bristol that I will wear my white hat._

I'm conscious that this conversation sounds a little as though it's taking place on the planet Mars, and that it would be more natural with Loob's _only_ in place, to point that this is a necessary condition, but I don't see anything unidiomatic here.

Many of the examples in he COCA and literature are much more informal, like:

_It's if something isn't good, it leaves this in your mouth._
_It's if you have a truck, it's with you they wanta go._


----------



## velisarius

The last example seems to be from a poem, where it makes sense - but I don't think it's a similar sentence to those under discussion:

_But I’ve found out somethin'
'Bout a truck I didn’t know:
It’s if you have a truck,
It’s with you they wanta go._
_http://www.dreamagic.com/cgi-bin/Po...n&title=Those_Chicks_at_Starbucks&number=0079_


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Honki said:


> Thomas Tompion, thank you for your comment.
> Your comment is very helpful.
> Do you judge sentence (4) "It is if he was here yesterday that he certainly helped her." as grammatically correct?


Yes, I do.

That shouldn't hide the fact that I also think it very odd, for the reason I've just implied: how can his being here  yesterday be a necessary condition of his certainly having helped me?

I'm not sufficiently imaginative to think instantly of circumstances in which this could be the case.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I think Donny puts the case very well, as usual.

I'm intrigued that Velisarius doesn't think the 'poem' a fair example.

Such poems do not fall within my sphere of expertise.  Isn't this person saying _If you have a truck, then people want to go with you_?

 Maybe people want to go with you even if you don't have a truck.  I wouldn't know about that.


----------



## JamesM

Thomas Tompion said:


> I'm conscious that this conversation sounds a little as though it's taking place on the planet Mars, and that it would be more natural with Loob's _only_ in place, to point that this is a necessary condition, but I don't see anything unidiomatic here.



I'm curious what your definition of "idiomatic" is, then.  If it sounds like it's taking place on Mars it's a good sign, in my opinion, that it doesn't sound idiomatic.



> _It's if something isn't good, it leaves this in your mouth._
> _It's if you have a truck, it's with you they wanta go._



Wow.  I don't even know what the first example means.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

JamesM said:


> I'm curious what your definition of "idiomatic" is, then.  If it sounds like it's taking place on Mars it's a good sign, in my opinion, that it doesn't sound idiomatic.


Did the point about necessary conditions really not make sense to you?

I gave what may have been a more natural-sounding (from a world in which people don't often wear white hats) example earlier.  If you twisted my arm, I'd tell you it was in post #13.



JamesM said:


> Wow.  I don't even know what the first example means.


No, neither do I, but then it's in AE, and also it may benefit from the context.  I suspected the context of being disgusting, so I didn't investigate.


----------



## dipsota

Sentence (2)  _If he was here yesterday, he certainly helped her _is incorrect.
In the conditional sentences type II,  the verb in the if (antecedent) clause is in the past and the verb in the main (consequent) clause is in the conditional tense: _If he was here...  he *would *help..

I agree with Loob:

The sentences are just about possible, but pretty unlikely. They would become much more natural, though, if we added "only" to them:


It is only if ...

_


----------



## Thomas Tompion

dipsota said:


> Sentence (2)  _If he was here yesterday, he certainly helped her _is incorrect.[...]


Bold statement, Dipsota.

Have you considered that it might be a correct past form of the zero conditional?

It obviously isn't a correct form of type II conditional; I agree with you there.


----------



## siares

It is interesting to learn that the structure 'it is if... that' sounds strange to majority without 'only'.  I've never learnt the structure but use it often instinctively - but never in written communication. I've copied it off someone who speaks quite loosely.. It actually feels very odd seeing it written down! Perhaps I find it natural to say only because I normally use it in specific situations - when clarifying incorrect assertions. I am guessing I mostly use 'it is when' or 'it is in case' (the thing happens/ed); even in cases when the original sentence contained 'if'.
- So B is saying he normally takes paracetamol for toothaches, right?
- No - it is if/when he has a headache that he takes paracetamol; he normally takes ibuprofen for toothaches. (I wouldn't be able to insert an 'only' in there without changing the meaning).

The help sentence sounds strange on its own but I could imagine it in a similar context: So you are saying if he was here today_.._No, it is if he was here _yesterday..._


----------



## dipsota

Thomas Tompion said:


> Bold statement, Dipsota.
> 
> Have you considered that it might be a correct past form of the zero conditional?
> 
> It obviously isn't a correct form of type II conditional; I agree with you there.




Yes, Thomas Tompion, you're right. It might be a correct past form of the zero conditional!  

Kind regards.


----------



## Glasguensis

DonnyB said:


> But the problem specifically with sentence (4) I think stems from the fact that the original sentence (2) on which it's based doesn't really work for me and I wouldn't have used it.  It's an odd sequence of logic to try and make into a conditional in the first place


The sequence of logic which I see for this sentence is something like this : 
Wow, Jane's piano-playing has really improved!
Yes - I noticed that too. I think perhaps her piano teacher was here yesterday.
Well if he was here yesterday, he certainly helped her!




siares said:


> I am guessing I mostly use 'it is when' or 'it is in case' (the thing happens/ed); even in cases when the original sentence contained 'if'.
> - So B is saying he normally takes paracetamol for toothaches, right?
> - No - it is if/when he has a headache that he takes paracetamol; he normally takes ibuprofen for toothaches. (I wouldn't be able to insert an 'only' in there without changing the meaning).





Thomas Tompion said:


> It's if people don't understand that we have to explain things to them.  If they can see the point, there's no need.


I find "it is when...that" entirely idiomatic, but not "it is if...that". 
It is when he has a headache that he takes paracetamol
When he has a headache he takes paracetamol
If he has a headache he takes paracetamol
In the event of a headache he takes paracetamol

I find all of these idiomatic.


----------



## siares

Glasguensis said:


> I find "it is when...that" entirely idiomatic, but not "it is if...that".


How is it with "it is in case..that"?
Because I think 'when' would not always work to replace 'if'.

I would not be able to put the piano sentence into 'it is when..that' structure, maybe because the stress is on the presence of piano teacher, not the timing of it.
I cannot come up with a simple scenario in which I would think the odd help sentence works in 'it is if..that' structure; here's a very convoluted one:

A is a technician who lied about her qualifications. B is an excellent technician who always helps A with her tasks when he is around, to help her conceal the fact. Device A was in charge of putting together malfunctioned and killed the whole floor (on Friday). The device was set up either on Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, officially by A. The question is, did B help her set up the device unofficially? Was the accident due to faulty parts, or due to human error putting them together?
Police investigate.
Witness: B always helped A if the manager wasn't around. He works only one day per week though...  I don't know which day he came in this week. I think not on Tuesday... A's manager was in on Wednesday, so in case B was in on Wednesday, he definitely didn't help A set up the device. But if A worked on it yesterday - (on Thursday) and B was around Thursday, he certainly helped her. That would definitely mean the device itself was faulty - B would have made sure it was set up correctly!
Police: We'll find out whether B was at work on Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday. So you are saying if he was in on Wednesday, he did help her for sure?
Witness: No, no, no! It is if he was here yesterday that he certainly helped her.


----------



## panjandrum

Honki said:
			
		

> (1)　If it rains tomorrow, the match will be cancelled.
> (2)　If he was here yesterday, he certainly helped her.
> (3)　It is if it rains tomorrow that the match will be cancelled.
> (4)　It is if he was here yesterday that he certainly helped her.


Sentences #3 and #4 are cleft versions of #1 and #2.  This doesn't change the meaning, but changes the focus.  They are correct, but not natural English.

Sentence #2 is unusual, reflecting a certainty about his behaviour that is somewhat in conflict with the uncertainty about his presence.  It is a past implicit inference (See *this thread*, post #4).



			
				Honki said:
			
		

> (5)It is if John had come that Mary would have left.


This is a cleft version of:
_If John had come, Mary would have left._
In my view, all five sentences are grammatically correct, but I can't imagine ever using sentences #3, #4, or #5.


----------



## Glasguensis

siares said:


> How is it with "it is in case..that"?
> Because I think 'when' would not always work to replace 'if'.


I agree - it doesn't. But in those cases I think simply "If..." works better than "It is if...that"



siares said:


> I would not be able to put the piano sentence into 'it is when..that' structure, maybe because the stress is on the presence of piano teacher, not the timing of it.


I agree, but I wasn't suggesting you should. The original (2) form is fine.

I realise you put thought and time into your lying technician scenario, but I'm sorry, I still don't find the sentence natural. It's the "certainly" which precludes the "It is if...that" structure. I would say "It's *only* if he was here yesterday that he *would have* helped her"


----------



## siares

I enjoyed the time put in and don't mind at all if it doesn't lead anywhere.


Glasguensis said:


> "It's *only* if he was here yesterday that he *would have* helped her"


But I think the only would mean it was only Thursday when he would have helped; and completely precludes Tuesday as a possibility.
The Witness did imply Tuesday was a possibility too. (The police's questioning technique is awful, of course.)


----------



## siares

Glasguensis said:


> It's the "certainly" which precludes the "It is if...that" structure.


I think the same, but thinking of style only, I can't tell about grammar.
'it is if' underlines the condition in _if _clause
and 'certainly' stresses the _then_ clause
And it is very strange to try to put an emphasis on both parts of the sentence. I am not sure whether it is impossible though, or just unusual. I said it aloud a few times and a thought specific cadence and intonation fitted it, but only just about.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

The  point about the 'certainly' is that it makes it probable that we are dealing with a sufficient rather than a necessary condition.

The 'it is if X, that Y' form works for necessary conditions, which is why some people feel a need to add the 'only'.

Someone should have pointed this out earlier.

An example like _(3)　It is if it rains tomorrow that the match will be cancelled_ is not very happy because the condition is unlikely to be necessary - there may be plenty of other things which could cause the match to be cancelled, like a train strike, for instance.

That was why I chose those other examples, in which the condition could be more easily represented as necessary, to illustrate the form.


----------



## colognial

Hello, everybody. I have two side questions. The first one is, is "only if it rains tomorrow, will the match be cancelled" another way of saying exactly the same thing as is said in Example (3) ("it is if it rains tomorrow that the match will be cancelled")? Are the two interchangeable in all instances, or is there a difference (in nuance, perhaps) between them?

Secondly, if there is a difference between the two sentences,  is it by any chance one of shifted emphasis? What I'm asking is, would it be correct to suppose that one generally uses the pattern in the 'blue sentence' to emphasize the condition and that of the red sentence to underline the low probability of something happening or of something having happened?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

colognial said:


> Hello, everybody. I have two side questions. The first one is, is "only if it rains tomorrow, will the match be cancelled" another way of saying exactly the same thing as is said in Example (3) ("it is if it rains tomorrow that the match will be cancelled")? Are the two interchangeable in all instances, or is there a difference (in nuance, perhaps) between them?
> 
> Secondly, if there is a difference between the two sentences,  is it by any chance one of shifted emphasis? What I'm asking is, would it be correct to suppose that one generally uses the pattern in the 'blue sentence' to emphasize the condition and that of the red sentence to underline the low probability of something happening or of something having happened?


Hello Colgnial.

First question:  No, the blue sentence is not simply another way of saying exactly the same thing as example (3), the red sentence.

The blue sentence makes explicit that the condition is necessary.
In the red sentence, it's likely that the condition is necessary, but the point is not made explicitly.

So there is an important difference.

Second question: You might call the difference one of stress, but I don't think the difference is as you describe it - there's an important distinction between emphasizing something (what you are suggesting) and making explicit that the condition is of a particular kind (what I tried to explain above).  Also it's not a question of probability of the condition's being met, but of the causal relationship between the condition and the consequence.  The blue sentence is saying that it's necessary that the condition is met for the consequence to follow - thus it's saying that the match will not be cancelled if it doesn't rain.  In the red sentence the causal link is strongly stated - it's saying that the consequence will follow if the condition is met - but it's not making explicit that the consequence would not follow unless the condition is met - other conditions might bring about the same consequence.

I have argued (in previous posts) that the form of the red sentence is appropriate for necessary conditions, but you need something stronger, like the addition of an_ only_, to make explicit that we are dealing with a necessary condition.


----------



## Forero

For me, sentences (1) through (5) are all grammatical and idiomatic. (3) is a cleft version of (1), and (4) is a cleft version of (2), but (3) and (4) say things implicitly that (1) and (2) do not say.

In some contexts sentence (3) does fit the meaning of sentence (1). For example:

(1') _If it rains tomorrow, the match will be cancelled. Otherwise it will be held on time._
(3') _It is if it rains tomorrow that the match will be cancelled. Otherwise it will be held on time._

Any context in which we assume "Otherwise it will be held on time" allows sentence (3) to be true whenever (1) is true.

But this is not to say that sentence (3) by itself implies "Otherwise it will be held on time". What sentence (3) says that sentence (1) does not is implicit, not expressed outright, and "Otherwse it will be held on time" is just an example of context that allows (3) to jibe with (1). Another example of context:

(3'') _It is if it rains tomorrow that they said the match will be cancelled._

Sentence (3'') can be true if rain tomorrow was what they said might result in the match's being cancelled. The match does not have to be held if it does not rain tomorrow.

And we can delete "they said" from (3'') in a context in which we already know we are talking about what was said.

Similarly, if we assume for sentence (2) that he could not help her if he was not here yesterday, then (4) is true if (2) is true, though sentence (4) does not actually state that he could not help her if he was not here yesterday. And there are other contexts that can make (4) jibe with (2).


----------



## Glasguensis

I have a hard time accepting as "idiomatic" a structure that I have never ever heard anyone use.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I've heard people use it and can see why they should wish to do so.

I still have problems with (3'') _It is if it rains tomorrow that they said the match will be cancelled._

The suggestion within the structure as I know it is that their saying that the match will be cancelled is conditional upon its raining tomorrow.  Yet my instincts would incline me to interpret the sentence as meaning: _What they said was that if it rained tomorrow the match would be cancelled._

In other words it's not their saying anything which is conditional upon its raining tomorrow; it's the match's being cancelled which is conditional upon wet weather.


----------



## Dale Texas

Glasguensis said:


> I have a hard time accepting as "idiomatic" a structure that I have never ever heard anyone use.



Me, too.  

(_I certainly don't agree per post 18 that many of us don't appreciate the sophistication of Honki's question which was found to be admittedly *difficult and intriguing*.  I could be wrong, but I think the question was posted in the first place because of something not seeming quite right.)_

Putting past tenses of zero conditionals aside, which I also find _intriguing_, should we just now all confess we don't know what in-the-Earth-world was wrong with us simpletons for not grasping this useful idiomatic structure and declare that from now on that "It is if it" can be, and who knows, maybe _should be_, a replacement for the too-straightforward "If it?"


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Dale Texas said:


> [...]should we just now all [...] declare that from now on that "It is if it" can be [...] a replacement for the too-straightforward "If it?"


This is to miss the point.

I don't think anyone has suggested that the one form can 'replace' the other.  They have different functions.


----------



## Forero

Thomas Tompion said:


> I've heard people use it and can see why they should wish to do so.
> 
> I still have problems with (3'') _It is if it rains tomorrow that they said the match will be cancelled._
> 
> The suggestion within the structure as I know it is that their saying that the match will be cancelled is conditional upon its raining tomorrow.  Yet my instincts would incline me to interpret the sentence as meaning: _What they said was that if it rained tomorrow the match would be cancelled._
> 
> In other words it's not their saying anything which is conditional upon its raining tomorrow; it's the match's being cancelled which is conditional upon wet weather.


My point is that rain tomorrow is not a necessary condition in (3''). Adding "they said" does not change the nature of the condition, yet sentence (3'') works.

In fact, I think the original sentence (3) can work if context allows us to understand "in what I heard them say that time".

In other words, what makes a cleft sentence work does not have to be explicit in the cleft sentence, and it does not have to be an implied "only" in front of the "if".


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I think this may be where we have to part company.  I'm not clear that (3'') works.


----------



## Keith Bradford

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

As a newcomer to this thread can I make a comment or two?

'If' is used in several ways in English, and not all of them are genuinely conditional.  It can mean *since* and it can mean *when*, and it can mean *I don't know whether... but nevertheless..*.
The last usage is the one invoked by "If he was here yesterday, he certainly helped her", i.e. "I don't know whether he was here yesterday, but nevertheless he certainly helped her".

It's just about possible to avoid this long paraphrase of mine by adding "It is... that..." to the original.  However, this is a rare and uncolloquial construction. Perhaps foreign learners of English shouldn't be encouraged to use it.
"It is only... that..." is far more colloquial, but perhaps even so it's perhaps more often seen with *when *than with *if*?
And a side comment, it's very obvious that grammar books used overseas are sometimes sadly lacking in knowledge of colloquial English.  This isn't the student's fault.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Hello Keith,

I'm interested in your comment about 3.  I wonder if the removal of _yesterday_ would make a difference - _if he was here, he certainly helped her._

Can you accept that sentence, as a type 0 conditional in the past, where _if_ means very much the same thing as_ when_, and we are talking about a habit? - _whenever he was here, he certainly helped her_.

Would you object to_ It was when he was here that he rang her every day?_ ie. when he was in Trinidad and Tobago he never rang at all.

I've ceased being surprised at the constructions some members find strange.


----------



## boozer

For what it is worth, it is only with pleasure  that I agree with TT that sentence 3 sounds fine and presents no great riddle in being a simple cleft (for some unknown reason) 1st conditional.

Cleaving sentence 2 (i.e. example 4), however, is a bit too much even for a "conditional" liberal like me.


----------

