# If I didn't act that way, I wouldn't be sitting here



## sunyaer

This is a sentence from a news report titled _Darren Wilson tells ABC he had no choice but to shoot Michael Brown _on madamenoir.com website at 

http://madamenoire.com/492043/darren-wilson-interview-abc/

1. "If I hadn't pulled it, I wouldn't be sitting here."

But in the interview, Wilson actually said: 

2. "If I didn't act that way, I wouldn't be sitting right here."

According to grammar, sentence 1 is correct, as it's subjunctive mood, describing an imaginary condition that is against the fact. But why did Wilson say sentence 2 rather than 1? Is it that the subjunctive mood is not common in speaking or subjunctive and indicative do not make much difference to native speakers?


----------



## Glasguensis

Officer Wilson is not an English teacher. In real life, lots of native speakers use the indicative when they should really use the subjunctive.


----------



## 0hisa2me

Yes, he should have said, 'If I hadn't acted that way, I wouldn't be sitting right here.' Probably he would say it, in other circumstances. I imagine in Chinese too people sometimes say things that aren't grammatical, but you understand what they mean.

Some native speakers think it is important to respect grammatical rules, others don't.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

It's important to be clear that both forms are correct, but appropriate to different circumstances:

*1.* "_If I hadn't pulled it, I wouldn't be sitting here."_ -mixed 3rd/2nd conditional (past perfect in if-clause/conditional in main clause) - suitable for an imagined or real event in the past (my pulling it) with its present result (my being here now).  

But in the interview, Wilson actually said: 

*2*._ "If I didn't act that way, I wouldn't be sitting right here._" - conventional 2nd conditional (perfect in if-clause/conditional in main clause) - an unlikely consideration in the past (my acting that way) with its present consequence (my sitting here).

The difference between them is that in 1. he pulled it, whereas in 2. he was in the habit of acting that way.  The mixed 3rd/2nd form is suitable for an eventive meaning (a single pull); the 2nd condition here suggests that his presence is the result of his habit.

The suggestion that either is wrong I find strange.

0hisa2me says he should have said _"If he hadn't acted that way, I wouldn't be sitting here right now"_.  That is a correct form (another 3rd/2nd conditional) and alters the meaning to an eventive one: now it is his acting that way on that occasion which allows him to be sitting here.  In 2. it was his habit of usually acting in that way which was the cause.

Why one should wish to alter his meaning from a habit to an event is not clear to me.

The OP asks why the speaker went from 1. to 2.  The answer must be that he wished to present this behaviour as habitual - he wants to seem a good policeman - rather than suggest that he only behaved like this on this particular occasion.

I think we can deal with these things without talking about subjunctives, a word which means different things to different people in this sort of context.


----------



## bennymix

Hi Sunyaer,
I don't see that any distinctly subjunctive verb forms are involved.

I agree with Thomas that both sentences are acceptable;  given that it's a low-level police officer I'm not entirely convinced that he was availing himself of any such nuance as that the second is generally habitual.   In any case, the officer's version is that there was a rather extraordinary situation where his life was in danger, on two near occasions, of being taken by being pounded by fists or shot with his own gun-- hence his firing 12 shots at an unarmed man.   I'm not sure he'd want to speak of a habit of responding.


----------



## sunyaer

I just wanted to add that the words in my OP come during the time of 14:20 to 14:28 in the video. There is another time during 23:10 to 23:15 in the video when Wilson used subjunctive, saying something like "if he wouldn't..., "". It seems to me that he distinguishes between indicative and subjunctive, doesn't it?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

sunyaer said:


> I just wanted to add that the words in my OP come during the time of 14:20 to 14:28 in the video. There is another time during 23:10 to 23:15 in the video when Wilson used subjunctive, saying something like "if he wouldn't..., "". It seems to me that he distinguishes between indicative and subjunctive, doesn't it?


I don't think it helps anyone to call this a subjunctive.

I don't think we can work on this unless we are given the precise words.  I'm not interested in 'something like' what he said.

Bearing in mind the gravity of the circumstances, he must have been heavily coached and told what words to use.

This is why, in my view, he is presenting himself as an exemplary officer.  The form you say he chose, _"If I didn't act that way, I wouldn't be sitting right here_", brings the additional advantage of suggesting that he has acted that way on several occasions in the past, and it's only this which has allowed him to survive.  It stresses the dangers of the life of a police officer.


----------



## wandle

Thomas Tompion said:


> The difference between them is that in 1. he pulled it, whereas in 2. he was in the habit of acting that way.  The mixed 3rd/2nd form is suitable for an eventive meaning (a single pull); the 2nd condition here suggests that his presence is the result of his habit.
> 
> The suggestion that either is wrong I find strange.
> .....
> Why one should wish to alter his meaning from a habit to an event is not clear to me.


At another point in the same interview, though, he says that this was the first time in his police career that he had used his gun.
I think the past perfect tense 'if I hadn't' is required here.


----------



## Wordsmyth

The difference between "hadn't" and "didn't" in those two sentences has nothing to do with 'subjunctive vs indicative'. The mood doesn't change between the two sentences. I agree with TT's explanation (post #4) that, correctly used, the two have different meanings.

However, I suspect that this is just another example of a tendency (more prevalent among some AmE speakers than among BrE speakers) to use the simple past in place of the past perfect. It's possible that the author of the madamenoire.com article interpreted the statement in the sense of 'on that occasion', rather than as a reference to a habitual action (particularly as this was the first time Wilson had ever used his firearm) — and that he corrected the English (perhaps even subconsciously) to reflect the probable meaning.

Ws


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Yes, I can see the possibility of that, Wordsmyth.

It's difficult for us BE speakers to be sure of the significance of the switch in AE.

We know that the use of past tenses is different between the two languages.

I only feel qualified to speak of the effect of the change on the meaning in BE.

I don't share the prevailing tendency to assume that the guy is too fatheaded to understand the difference, and that he cannot have meant what he actually said.


----------



## Glasguensis

Thomas Tompion said:


> I don't share the prevailing tendency to assume that the guy is too fatheaded to understand the difference, and that he cannot have meant what he actually said.


I'm not sure why you're extending the benefit of that doubt. Has Officer Wilson shot other people?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I don't know, but he may be talking of a habitual caution, rather than suggesting that he obliterates anyone who pulls a toy pistol on him.

I think it's as easy to be very unfair on him as it is to be overgenerous.

I'm working within the context which was given us in the OP, like a good boy. 

I'm treating this as a language question, laying aside the very shocking and contentious nature of the case, and trying to interpret the normal meaning of the words used by the officer.


----------



## sunyaer

I am becoming more and more confused by so many different comments. Sure, we could put aside subjunctive vs. indicative, but did the officer express what he wished to say? As native speakers, do you feel his words are clear or you have to guess to figure out what he really meant?


----------



## wandle

wandle said:


> I think the past perfect tense 'if I hadn't' is required here.


Perhaps this policeman is careless about grammar, or feels that what he said was correct.
Another possibility is that people sometimes fudge their grammar or mode of expression when they are fudging the facts.


----------



## sunyaer

wandle said:


> Perhaps this policeman is careless about grammar, or feels that what he said was correct.
> Another possibility is that people sometimes fudge their grammar or mode of expression when they are fudging the facts.


Which expression, past tense or past perfect, would be considered favourable for the officer in this case in terms of providing evidence to justify his act of shooting?



Glasguensis said:


> I'm not sure why you're extending the benefit of that doubt. Has Officer Wilson shot other people?


 Extending the benefit of that doubt? What does that mean? Does that have anything to do with him shooting other people?


----------



## owlman5

> As native speakers, do you feel his words are clear or you have to guess to figure out what he really meant?


They seem clear enough to me, sunyaer.  I certainly don't have to guess about some mysterious meaning behind his words.

Fluent English-speakers in my part of the world probably wouldn't spend too much time agonizing over the difference between "did not" and "had not" in that sentence.  Things that seem terribly important in this forum can seem trivial to people who have other interests.


----------



## sunyaer

owlman5 said:


> ?..
> 
> Fluent English-speakers in my part of the world probably wouldn't spend too much time agonizing over the difference between "did not" and "had not" in that sentence.



It's interested to hear that. But based on the responses so far, it seems some native speakers, who should be considered fluent English-speakers, do distinguish between "did not" and "had not" in that sentence. I am curious why these two tenses don't mean much difference to you in this context?


----------



## owlman5

Think about what he said, sunyaer: If I didn't act that way, I wouldn't be sitting right here.  He is sitting here.  He did act that way.  What's the problem?


----------



## Wordsmyth

Thomas Tompion said:


> _[...] _I don't share the prevailing tendency to assume that the guy is too fatheaded to understand the difference, and that he cannot have meant what he actually said.


Having spent a lot of time in North America, I feel slightly qualified  to comment on the difference. It's not that the guy's too fatheaded; it's just that he's probably one of those AmE speakers who doesn't perceive a need to use the past perfect (or wouldn't perceive a need if he ever thought about it). 

This has been discussed in several other threads, and many of our erudite transatlantic cousins accept the use of the simple past on many occasions where we would use the past perfect (cf owlman's comments). They often argue that the true meaning is usually clear from the context. I don't like the practice at all, because it makes the listener work harder to understand, and may even cause ambiguity — and of course, to my ear it just sounds wrong. Nonetheless, the speaker is saying what he means, by the standards of his language environment; it's just that it means something different to us.


owlman5 said:


> _[...] _Fluent English-speakers in my part of the world probably wouldn't spend too much time agonizing over the difference between "did not" and "had not" in that sentence.  Things that seem terribly important in this forum can seem trivial to people who have other interests.


It's not a case of agonising — and it's not a case of importance just in the forum. To many people (particularly BrE speakers) the simple past and the past perfect have distinct functions (without even thinking about it). So "If I didn't ..." in that sentence has a very different meaning from "If I hadn't", as TT explained, and the difference isn't trivial. If we hear "I didn't", we instantly understand it to be different from "I hadn't": no agonising involved, just communication breakdown. 

Ws


----------



## wandle

wandle said:


> Perhaps this policeman is careless about grammar, or feels that what he said was correct.
> Another possibility is that people sometimes fudge their grammar or mode of expression when they are fudging the facts.





sunyaer said:


> Which expression, past tense or past perfect, would be considered favourable for the officer in this case in terms of providing evidence to justify his act of shooting?


it is not that either expression would be considered favourable: but they mean different things.

My view is that, to express his meaning, the officer ought to have said 'if I hadn't'. Why did he not do so? I see three possiblities:

(1) he really knows he ought to have said 'if I hadn't' and if that were pointed out to him he would admit it;
(2) he actually thinks that 'if I didn't' is the correct thing to say for an unreal past hypothesis;
(3) he really knows it ought to have been 'if I hadn't', but has used the wrong expression (either consciously or not) because he is really lying and when people lie, they sometimes use expressions which are false in grammar as a well as false in fact: a kind of conscious or unconscious camouflage to make it difficult for other people to pin down their meaning.


----------



## boozer

Among the many excellent answers, I like TT's best - leaves nothing to add, really, but I just wanted to express my emphatic agreement with TT's reluctance to talk about subjunctive vs. indicative, which is something I personally consider rather erroneous in this instance.


----------



## sunyaer

wandle said:


> .
> 
> My view is that, to express his meaning, the officer ought to have said 'if I hadn't'. Why did he not do so? I see three possiblities:
> 
> (1) he really knows he ought to have said 'if I hadn't' and if that were pointed out to him he would admit it;



My best guess is that this is most likely.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

You are suggesting that you aren't asking a language question at all, Suyaer.


----------



## sunyaer

Thomas Tompion said:


> You are suggesting that you aren't asking a language question at all, Suyaer.



After reading all these posts, I have got to understand which should be the correct use, realizing native speakers of English may have different uses of their own language, some of which may even cause misunderstanding between them. I did ask a question regarding language, and my guess is also concerning language.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I'm just left wondering why you are rejecting a perfectly correct form.

You talk as though the guy doesn't know how to express himself in his native language.  It's not as though he's made a grammatical error of any kind.

I don't know if he meant to say something else.  Why should we think he did, when he produced an entirely valid statement?

I'm very reluctant to assume that people cannot have meant what they say, unless I have excellent evidence; and I don't feel we've got that here.

What I wonder is whether an American would say _"If I didn't act that way, I wouldn't be sitting right here_" to mean what British people would express as_"If I hadn't acted that way, I wouldn't be sitting right here_".

That may be as hard for AE people to judge as it is for BE people.  We need someone with very good knowledge of both languages to tell us.

This is what I mean by sticking to a language question.  We aren't here to judge this guy's motives; we need just to explain the meaning of the language he uses.


----------



## sunyaer

Thomas Tompion said:


> I'm just left wondering why you are rejecting a perfectly correct form.
> 
> You talk as though the guy doesn't know how to express himself in his native language.  It's not as though he's made a grammatical error of any kind.
> 
> I don't know if he meant to say something else.  Why should we think he did, when he produced an entirely valid statement?
> 
> I'm very reluctant to assume that people cannot have meant what they say, unless I have excellent evidence; and I don't feel we've got that here.
> 
> What I wonder is whether an American would say _"If I didn't act that way, I wouldn't be sitting right here_" to mean what British people would express as_"If I hadn't acted that way, I wouldn't be sitting right here_".
> 
> That may be as hard for AE people to judge as it is for BE people.  We need someone with very good knowledge of both languages to tell us.
> 
> This is what I mean by sticking to a language question.  We aren't here to judge this guy's motives; we need just to explain the meaning of the language he uses.



I actually feel lost by the language here. I believe that the office, as a native speaker, should have been able to say what he meant. 

 As you have pointed out, what we need is to have someone help with this: would American people use _"If I didn't act that way, I wouldn't be sitting right here_" to mean what British people would express as _"If I hadn't acted that way, I wouldn't be sitting right here_"?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

sunyaer said:


> I believe that the office, as a native speaker, should have been able to say what he meant. [...]


Why should there be a need?  Why think he doesn't mean what he says?

When you express yourself correctly in Chinese, does your office issue statements about what you really meant by your words?

This is what I mean when I say we shouldn't be speculating about his motives.


----------



## sunyaer

Thomas Tompion said:


> Why should there be a need?  Why think he doesn't mean what he says?
> 
> When you express yourself correctly in Chinese, does your office issue statements about what you really meant by your words?
> 
> This is what I mean when I say we shouldn't be speculating about his motives.



Let's have someone more knowledgeable of AE and BE to help with our question in previous posts first. If we can have clear understanding of the uses in both AE and BE regarding this issue, it's worth more than reading many grammar books.


----------



## boozer

Someone more knowledgeable than TT?!?  Hey, tell me you are joking! 

This said, I myself have argued here that I have heard AE speakers use 2nd conditional forms where 3rd conditional is strictly required. However, there is nothing here to lead me to think this is the case...


----------



## sunyaer

boozer said:


> Someone more knowledgeable than TT?!?  Hey, tell me you are joking!
> 
> ...



It is TT who put forward that request in post #25, not me. Please read through the posts. But can anyone claim that there is no one knowledgeable than him / her?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

We're drifting from the point, Sunyaer.

The issue is whether or not you are clear:

1. that both the forms you asked about are entirely correct.

2. that they mean different things.

3. what precisely they mean.

That seems to me the big issue.  If you are clear about those three, we can forget the rest as peripheral, in my view.

The answer to your question about why the officer shifted from one form to the other is a matter for speculation, and I'm as guilty as several of the others of having speculated. 

 I don't really regard that part as a language question, as you can see, which is not to say I'm criticizing you for asking it.


----------



## sunyaer

Thomas Tompion said:


> The issue is whether or not you are clear:
> 
> 1. that both the forms you asked about are entirely correct.
> 
> 2. that they mean different things.
> 
> 3. what precisely they mean.
> 
> That seems to me the big issue.  If you are clear about those three, we can forget the rest as peripheral, in my view.
> 
> The answer to your question about why the officer shifted from one form to the other is a matter for speculation, and I'm as guilty as several of the others of having speculated.
> 
> I don't really regard that part as a language question, as you can see, which is not to say I'm criticizing you for asking it.



I am clear about point 1 and 2, but not 3.

If we have to guess in order to get what the speaker meant, it's a communication issue. We use language to communicate,  if we can't achieve the communication purpose, can we say it's a language question, given that there is no grammar problems involved?

I also think context is also important in communication. Various contexts may render a communication effective or ineffective with the same words. Is my understanding correct?

Might it be helpful to look at the officer's words in this specific context. Let's look at the words before the sentence being discussed:

"We were both in shock. It was shocking having to pull it. But also at the same time it was shocking it was the only option I had. if I didn't act that way,...."

It seems to me now that the officer is recounting the incident, using "I didn't" right after 'the only option I had". He is narrating how the event was progressing.


----------



## Embonpoint

Well, police officers in the U.S. are not necessarily our best and brightest. The Supreme Court actually ruled that it is legal for police departments to reject officers who have higher than a certain IQ.

That said, I'm not sure Darren Wilson is making a grammatical error here. As an AE speaker, TT's nuance also rings true to me for several reasons. Mr. Wilson may have meant, "if I didn't in general approach every situation with the idea that I'm ready to shoot to protect myself, I wouldn't be sitting here today."

I did see this interview but I don't remember exactly what came before this particular statement. Was he talking in general about his police training, and the need to use deadly force to protect oneself if needed? If so, I think TT's interpretation is likely dead on right.

The other reason I think this interpretation makes sense is because "act that way" rings to me as a general way of acting, aggressively, according to police training. Saying "acting that way" as a way to say you shot someone at a specific point in time would be odd to say the least. 

If he wanted to be more specific about that day, he should have said, "if I hadn't shot him, I wouldn't be here today."  Or, "If I hadn't acted as I did..."


----------



## sunyaer

Embonpoint said:


> ...
> I did see this interview but I don't remember exactly what came before this particular statement. Was he talking in general about his police training, and the need to use deadly force to protect oneself if needed? If so, I think TT's interpretation is likely dead on right.
> ...



These are his words with the sentence we are discussing, in which there are no words related to general police training at this point.

"We were both in shock. It was shocking having to pull it. But also at the same time it was shocking it was the only option I had. if I didn't act that way, I wouldn't be sitting right here."


----------



## Thomas Tompion

sunyaer said:


> [...]
> If we have to guess in order to get what the speaker meant, it's a communication issue.


But my point all along has been that we are NOT guessing what the words mean, and you asked what they mean.

For some reason, which is unclear to me, you want them to mean something else.

If you are saying that the officer cannot have meant what he said, that's another matter.  And that other matter is where this ceases to be a language question, for me.  It's off the point.

Our business here is to examine the words for you and to tell you what they mean.  We are in trouble when the words are not grammatical, but that is not the case here.


----------



## Glasguensis

I have to agree with sunyaer here - I don't see any evidence in the context that Officer Wilson was intending to make a broader statement in the middle of a specific narrative. And even if he was, I don't see what "act that way" could refer to other than shooting someone. "If I didn't shoot people, I wouldn't be here today" is not exactly helping his image. All of the surrounding text suggests very strongly to me that he's talking about his specific act that day, and in standard English (both AE and BE), this would require him to use "hadn't acted".
I believe that in some US dialects, "to do" and its various forms replaces "to have" - for example "you done gone and spoiled everything". I have no idea whether Officer Wilson uses such a dialect, or whether this could explain this particular case. I agree that this is really now speculation - short of asking Officer Wilson I'm not sure we're going to get a definitive answer.


----------



## Embonpoint

sunyaer said:


> These are his words with the sentence we are discussing, in which there are no words related to general police training at this point.
> 
> "We were both in shock. It was shocking having to pull it. But also at the same time it was shocking it was the only option I had. if I didn't act that way, I wouldn't be sitting right here."



Okay, yep, I listened to it. The relevant part is at 14:23 here on this video: http://madamenoire.com/492043/darren-wilson-interview-abc/

My view after hearing this is that Darren Wilson just didn't use good grammar at that point. I doubt he's the brightest bulb on the tree, but even so, this is an area where it's possible an American can simply misspeak. He doesn't have any particular dialect, but it's possible he's just not super educated, and while I haven't noticed this before, this strikes me as an error an uneducated person could easily make.

Another possibility is, as someone suggested above, some of the lines may have been rehearsed. He does speak a lot about his job, his training, police procedures. It's possible that this line was rehearsed in that context but he pulled it out in another one.

By the way, I think this is called the past unreal conditional.


----------



## Wordsmyth

Thomas Tompion said:


> _ [...] _You talk as though the guy doesn't know how to express himself in his native language.  It's not as though he's made a grammatical error of any kind.
> I don't know if he meant to say something else.  Why should we think he did, when he produced an entirely valid statement?
> 
> I'm very reluctant to assume that people cannot have meant what they say, unless I have excellent evidence; and I don't feel we've got that here.
> 
> What I wonder is whether an American would say _"If I didn't act that way, I wouldn't be sitting right here_" to mean what British people would express as_"If I hadn't acted that way, I wouldn't be sitting right here_".
> 
> That may be as hard for AE people to judge as it is for BE people.  We need someone with very good knowledge of both languages to tell us.


I think my #19 provided some answers to those points, TT:

- TT: "You talk as though the guy doesn't know how to express himself in his native language."  
- Ws: "Nonetheless, the speaker is saying what he means, by the standards of his language environment; it's just that it means something different to us."

- TT: "I don't know if he meant to say something else. Why should we think he did, when he produced an entirely valid statement?" 
- Ws: "... many of our erudite transatlantic cousins accept the use of the simple past on many occasions where we would use the past perfect." 

- TT: "... unless I have excellent evidence; and I don't feel we've got that here."
- Ws: "This has been discussed in several other threads" _- and -_  "(cf owlman's comments)" _[also benny's comments] [also, see 'more evidence' below]

_- TT: "What I wonder is whether an American would say _"If I didn't act that way, I wouldn't be sitting right here_" to mean what British people would express as _"If I hadn't acted that way, I wouldn't be sitting right here_"."
- Ws: _[See second point above. I'm not saying that it's standard AmE, nor that all Americans do it; but it's quite often heard.] 

_- TT: "We need someone with very good knowledge of both languages to tell us."
- Ws: "Having spent a lot of time in North America, I feel slightly qualified  to comment on the difference."  _[While I may not be the world's leading expert (maybe JulianStuart should join in here), first-hand experience has made me very familiar with the phenomenon we're discussing here.] 

_If you'd like more evidence:

- In this thread, three AmE speakers confirm the usage. Two don't consider it proper, but they say it's common practice. One sees nothing wrong with it.

- This research paper by Aarts, Close, Leech and Wallis (University College London) shows that the use of the English perfect construction has been decreasing in American English since around 1800, whereas in BrE the change in frequency (if any) is less marked.

- The above (combined with the evidence that Wilson hadn't been in similar situations before) makes it perfectly feasible to consider that Wilson might have used "didn't" with the meaning of "hadn't". The clincher, for me, lies in the rest of the interview. Wilson uses other grammatical 'approximations' that are more common in (some) AmE than in BrE: for instance "If he would've gotten on the sidewalk, I probably never would've ...". This is another indication that the past perfect doesn't seem to come naturally to him.


Thomas Tompion said:


> _[...] _Our business here is to examine the words for you and to tell you what they mean. _[...]_


 Though what you're doing is telling sunyaer what they mean to you (which is also what they mean in my usage). But if we refuse to recognise the existence of different meanings in colloquial or dialect (or even improper) forms, we're not helping sunyaer to understand a possible (and I'd say highly probable) intended meaning. 

(Not to go off topic, but to give an analogous example to support my point: a common expression in AmE is "I could care less", used to mean the exact opposite of what the words actually say. You and I would undoubtedly say "I couldn't care less". But it would be a lost cause to insist that the speaker, with that grammatically correct statement , couldn't have meant what he obviously did mean.) 

Ws


----------



## sunyaer

Wordsmyth said:


> The clincher, for me, lies in the rest of the interview. Wilson uses other grammatical 'approximations' that are more common in (some) AmE than in BrE: for instance "If he would've gotten on the sidewalk, I probably never would've ..."



Just for convenience of reference for anyone interested in watching the video for this discussion, the line "If he would've gotten on the sidewalk, I probably never would've ..." is spoken during 23:10 to 23:15 in the video.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Wordsmyth said:


> what you're doing is telling sunyaer what they mean to you (which is also what they mean in my usage). But if we refuse to recognise the existence of different meanings in colloquial or dialect (or even improper) forms, we're not helping sunyaer to understand a possible (and I'd say highly probable) intended meaning. [...]


You fail to acknowledge that I have throughout been clear that AE and BE usage might be different in such constructions.

I've been at pains to explain what the difference is between the sentences in BE, which is what Sunyaer said he didn't understand in his post #32.


----------



## sunyaer

First of all, thank you all for contributing to this thread I started. After learning from all the posts, I now have come to get a clearer picture of the question I asked. Here are some thoughts on comments by other members. Further input is still welcome as this kind of discussion is more helpful than reading grammar books. Probably this is what WR is for.


Glasguensis said:


> I have to agree with sunyaer here - I don't see any evidence in the context that Officer Wilson was intending to make a broader statement in the middle of a specific narrative. And even if he was, I don't see what "act that way" could refer to other than shooting someone. "If I didn't shoot people, I wouldn't be here today" is not exactly helping his image. All of the surrounding text suggests very strongly to me that he's talking about his specific act that day, and in standard English (both AE and BE), this would require him to use "hadn't acted".


As Wilson was recounting the event, shown in the words "the only option I had", it is logically sound to keep narrating as the event progressed by using "if I didn't...", based on the fact that the shooting came afterwards, and there is no unreal hypothesis involved at this point of narrating, which could eliminate the use of "If I hadn't...".

Note: Does_ "If I didn't shoot people when I had to, I wouldn't be here today" _sound better than_ "if I didn't shoot people, I wouldn't be here today" ?_


Embonpoint said:


> ...
> My view after hearing this is that Darren Wilson just didn't use good grammar at that point. I doubt he's the brightest bulb on the tree, but even so, this is an area where it's possible an American can simply misspeak. He doesn't have any particular dialect, but it's possible he's just not super educated, and while I haven't noticed this before, this strikes me as an error an uneducated person could easily make.
> ...


If "if I didn't..." is used to replace "if I hadn't.." to indicate unreal hypothesis in an isolated speech, the speaker could be regarded as being uneducated. But in Wilson's case, I wouldn't mark him as being uneducated, based on the fact that he used "if I didn't..." in his narrating, but not to present unreal hypothesis.


Wordsmyth said:


> - TT: "I don't know if he meant to say something else. Why should we think he did, when he produced an entirely valid statement?"
> - Ws: "... many of our erudite transatlantic cousins accept the use of the simple past on many occasions where we would use the past perfect."


See my comments above. As long as the intended meaning comes across, any form of language works. That's why the use of the simple past on many occasions replacing past perfect has its reason to exist. I would see these many occasions as meaning the right contexts.


Thomas Tompion said:


> I've been at pains to explain what the difference is between the sentences in BE, which is what Sunyaer said he didn't understand in his post #32.


If we take words out of a context, we can't say what they precisely mean. That's why I said I don't understand point 3 in my post #32.


----------



## Wordsmyth

Thomas Tompion said:


> You fail to acknowledge that I have throughout been clear that AE and BE usage might be different in such constructions.
> 
> I've been at pains to explain what the difference is between the sentences in BE, which is what Sunyaer said he didn't understand in his post #32.


 Fair enough. Now duly acknowledged.

 I'd just add that this isn't a clear-cut case of AE vs BE. In both of them, the established (correct?, normal?) usage is as you excellently explained in #4. It's just that many (but certainly not all) AE speakers habitually use the simple past in place of the past perfect (and also in place of the present perfect). Many educated AE speakers object to this trend, but it's become common enough that others accept it. That's why, given that Wilson is an AE speaker, I contested your "The OP asks why the speaker went from 1. to 2. The answer must be that he wished to present this behaviour as habitual - he wants to seem a good policeman". 


sunyaer said:


> _ [...]_ Note: Does_ "If I didn't shoot people when I had to, I wouldn't be here today" _sound better than_ "if I didn't shoot people, I wouldn't be here today" ? __ [...]_


It may sound slightly better from a moral point of view , but it's shifting away from what Wilson actually said. By saying "people" (and particularly with "when I had to"), you're clearly indicating a general or habitual action, so that's a normal use of "didn't". In Wilson's case, based on all the evidence I've seen, I remain convinced that he was talking about the events of that day, not about his policing methods in general. 


sunyaer said:


> _[...] _If "if I didn't..." is used to replace "if I hadn't.." to indicate unreal hypothesis in an isolated speech, the speaker could be regarded as being uneducated. But in Wilson's case, I wouldn't mark him as being uneducated, based on the fact that he used "if I didn't..." in his narrating, but not to present unreal hypothesis. _ [...] _


  
Whether he meant "didn't" or "hadn't", he was narrating in either case, and there's what you call 'unreal hypothesis' in either case (the terms 'unreal', hypothetical' and 'non-factual' are used, but not usually strung together ). "If I didn't" expresses a hypothesis (the reality is that I do); "if I hadn't" expresses a hypothesis (the reality is that I didn't). Note the tense shift in the if-clause: "if I didn't" expresses a hypothetical alternative to what I actually do; "if I hadn't" expresses a hypothetical alternative to what I actually did. If Wilson was using "I didn't" to mean "I hadn't" (as a lot of people do), then that's a non-standard usage that deviates from the normal interpretation.


sunyaer said:


> _ [...]_ See my comments above. As long as the intended meaning comes across, any form of language works. That's why the use of the simple past on many occasions replacing past perfect has its reason to exist. I would see these many occasions as meaning the right contexts._ [...]_


 Unfortunately, the intended meaning often doesn't come across. It didn't in this case, because different readers have read it in different ways. Even in cases where the meaning is obvious from the context, the deviant construction can still hamper communication, because those who are familiar with the normal construction may be distracted by the apparent anomaly.

Ws


----------



## sunyaer

Wordsmyth said:


> Unfortunately, the intended meaning often doesn't come across. It didn't in this case, because different readers have read it in different ways. Even in cases where the meaning is obvious from the context, the deviant construction can still hamper communication, because those who are familiar with the normal construction may be distracted by the apparent anomaly.


 Agree. So based on the above comments, the following non-standard usage is not recommended, isn't it? But why do some people still use it? Related to education level?


Wordsmyth said:


> If Wilson was using "I didn't" to mean "I hadn't" (as a lot of people do), then that's a non-standard usage that deviates from the normal interpretation.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

sunyaer said:


> Agree. So based on the above comments, the following non-standard usage is not recommended, isn't it? But why do some people still use it? Related to education level?


I've told you several times that the usage is standard and idiomatic.

Just to be clear: _"If I didn't act that way, I wouldn't be sitting right here._" is standard usage, and means_ "If I was not in the habit of acting that way, I wouldn't be sitting right here."_


----------



## wandle

As mentioned earlier, it is possible that the former officer was consciously or unconsciously mixing up his grammar, as a result of lying or fudging his statement. That is something we can neither confirm nor disprove.

If we leave that aside, and consider first, *out of context*, the sentence '_If I didn't act that way, I wouldn't be sitting right here_', then there are two possible ways to interpret it.

Meaning (a): '_If I were not in the habit of acting like that (i.e. shooting under the given circumstances), I would not be here now_'. 
This is correct in grammar. It is comparable to the sentence a parent might say to a child: 
_'If I did not go out to work every day, we would not have this nice house to live in'._

Meaning (b): '_If I had not acted like that (i.e. if I had not shot him dead), I would not be here now'_. 
If this is what the officer meant, then he has made a grammatical error by using the past tense form 'didn't act' instead of the past perfect form 'hadn't acted'.

Let us now apply the test of context, and consider these two meanings *within the context of the interview*.

As already mentioned, the officer made clear during the interview that he had never fired his gun before in his police career. This was apparently done deliberately to show that he was not in the habit of firing it, and therefore could not be accused of being trigger-happy.

This does seem to rule out the possiblity that he meant, _'If I were not in the habit of acting that way, I would not be here now'_.

Consequently, only meaning (b) is compatible with the context. In other words, ex-officer Wilson made a grammatical mistake by saying 'didn't act' instead of 'hadn't acted'.

What is not clear is why he made the mistake. Did he honestly think that 'didn't act' was a correct way to express an unreal past hypothesis, or was he (consciously or unconsciously) mixing up his grammar in the course of making a false statement? We do not know.


----------



## Embonpoint

Thomas Tompion said:


> I've told you several times that the usage is standard and idiomatic.



I am American, and I can say that at least among the people I know (of varying education levels) this is neither standard nor idiomatic. It is certainly possible it is common in some regions or among certain levels of education. Darren Wilson is from Missouri, far from me geographically and culturally. However, it is not as common as grammar slippages I notice daily, such as replacement of the past subjunctive by the simple past ie. I wish I was rich. In fact I had not noticed  this usage until this thread, though it is possible I have heard it  and received a general impression of poor English without dissecting why. To me, as an American (born in New Jersey and lived in five different states over 50 years, it is not an error I could make even in a moment of inattention as it sounds completely unnatural to me.


----------



## Glasguensis

sunyaer said:


> So based on the above comments, the following non-standard usage is not recommended, isn't it? But why do some people still use it? Related to education level?


sunyaer, we cannot comment on why some people stray from the "standard". Typically what starts from a misunderstanding or an incomplete understanding of grammar, especially learned orally, is copied and becomes common in a group of people. New people entering the group may even copy something they know to be non-standard so that they don't stand out as being different. This happens all the time in English - it's how slang develops, and how new expressions enter the language and others become out-dated.


----------



## Embonpoint

Thomas Tompion said:


> Can you really be saying that educated Americans don't use standard 2nd-conditional forms?  I think there must be some other explanation for your strange statement.


 
I'm talking about the subject of this thread. If I didn't xxx, I wouldn't YYY to mean If I hadn't xxx, I wouldn't yyy.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Embonpoint said:


> I'm talking about the subject of this thread. If I didn't xxx, I wouldn't YYY to mean If I hadn't xxx, I wouldn't yyy.


Forgive me.  I thought there must be an explanation.


----------



## sunyaer

wandle said:


> Did he honestly think that 'didn't act' was a correct way to express an unreal past hypothesis, ...


Would it surprise you if he says he did?


----------



## Embonpoint

I'm fascinated by this thread, as I'm fascinated by the Darren Wilson story. Just for fun, I Googled "If I didn't act the way I did" and would you believe what popped up? George Zimmerman.

George Zimmerman, who founded the neighborhood watch at a local condo complex,  also shot and killed an unarmed young black youth. He was acquitted. And his media statement, widely quoted, is nearly identical to Darren Wilson's:  *I know that **if I didn't act, act the way I did, um, I wouldn't be here.
*
 Mr. Zimmerman's first language was Spanish, and the interview from which this was quoted was done in Spanish, and translated as shown above. Maybe because George Zimmerman elsewhere said something in English with this syntax? Or maybe it was just a translator error in English.

But either way, there's serious irony in Darren Wilson parroting the words of another guy, in nearly the same situation, who got off scott-free. Coincidence? I doubt it. I would be shocked if, during his housebound agonizing month preparing for the Grand Jury, Mr. Wilson didn't read the news coverage of George Zimmerman's case. Or his lawyer did. I strongly suspect one or both of them decided that "If I didn't act that way, I wouldn't be here today" was a winner.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Embonpoint said:


> [...]. Or his lawyer did. I strongly suspect one or both of them decided that "If I didn't act that way, I wouldn't be here today" was a winner.


I'm amused you make this point, Embonpoint.

When I said something rather similar back at post #3, people tried to sit on it rather heavily.


----------



## Embonpoint

I went back to look, but post number three is by 0hisa2me. Do you mean another post?


----------



## Glasguensis

Thomas Tompion said:


> I'm amused you make this point, Embonpoint.
> 
> When I said something rather similar back at post #3, people tried to sit on it rather heavily.


I too am confused, TT. My understanding of all your previous posts was that you were arguing that this _*wasn't*_ in fact a grammatical mistake, whereas Embonpoint is suggesting that it is a _*deliberate *_grammatical mistake.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Glasguensis said:


> I too am confused, TT. My understanding of all your previous posts was that you were arguing that this _*wasn't*_ in fact a grammatical mistake, whereas Embonpoint is suggesting that it is a _*deliberate *_grammatical mistake.


This is how I see it:

There's no mistake in _"If I didn't act that way, I wouldn't be sitting right here_"; it's a normal 2nd conditional.

I can't speak for Embonpoint, but I thought she was making a similar point to the one I made in #3, that the officer may well have been coached to say this, NOT because it's a mistake (IT ISN'T), but because it suggests a cautious habit in a policeman, and draws attention to the dangerous lives they lead.

We then had intermingled a string of posts seeming to argue that, while he had produced a standard 2nd conditional - I think some people acknowledged that this is what he had done - he must, given the circumstances, have meant the mixed 3rd/2nd conditional.

I have been reluctant throughout to say that a native speaker who says one perfectly correct sentence ought to be accused of making an error, for he must have meant some other perfectly correct sentence.  I feel our business here is to say what his words mean, rather than speculate about what he might alternatively have meant. 

This naturally caused us to raise and discuss the issue of whether in AE it was idiomatic to use the standard 2nd conditional to project the meaning which would require the mixed 3rd/2nd in BE.  I don't think that the AE members could agree on that, and then unfortunately some people went on to say that to do this was an error and even questioned the officer's educational standards.

 I wouldn't call the abuse of an idiom - saying X thinking it means Y - an error of grammar, and I think much confusion has followed from the practice.

I'm entirely open to the idea that the officer committed an abuse of idiom, intentional or otherwise, but don't feel that's a proper subject of speculation for us, or that we know enough about the case or the officer's character to reach an informed view on it.


----------



## wandle

sunyaer said:


> Would it surprise you if he says he did?


It would surprise me if he made any comment on the grammar at all. He might well be under legal advice not to do so.


Thomas Tompion said:


> There's no mistake in _"If I didn't act that way, I wouldn't be sitting right here_"; it's a normal 2nd conditional.


It can only be a normal second conditional if 'didn't act that way' means an habitual action. What habitual action could that be?
Wilson says in the same interview that he had never fired his gun before in his police career. Thus shooting under the given circumstances cannot be the habitual action.

Consequently, if 'didn't act that way' is meant to refer to the shooting, then it is a grammatical error.


----------



## Embonpoint

Thomas Tompion said:


> I can't speak for Embonpoint, but I thought she was making a similar point to the one I made in #3, that the officer may well have been coached to say this, NOT because it's a mistake (IT ISN'T), but because it suggests a cautious habit in a policeman, and draws attention to the dangerous lives they lead.



 I originally thought you might be dead-on right on this, and said so earlier. That idea made a lot of sense to me given that Darren Wilson had generally argued that he was following standard police procedures.

However, I changed my mind in post #37 after watching the video. In context, he clearly means, "If I hadn't shot him, I wouldn't be here today." If you want to watch, check out my link in that post; I also gave the time this statement appears to make it easy to find.

In my latest post, I'm saying something completely different-- wondering aloud if Darren Wilson and his lawyer simply lifted a proven winner from the Zimmerman case. We have no way of knowing if they noticed the grammar problem, or noticed it and didn't care, but in any case, why mess with something which previously worked like a charm?


----------



## Forero

As I see it, the form the officer used is correct but terribly ambiguous. I think it is probably meant as a counterfactual, but beyond that I really don't know what he meant. I will guess he probably meant "Had I not pulled the trigger, I might not be here" but felt compelled to exaggerate the potential danger to himself. I will also guess his emotions interfered with his ability to communicate effectively.


----------



## Wordsmyth

sunyaer said:


> Agree. So based on the above comments, the following non-standard usage is not recommended, isn't it? _[...]_





Thomas Tompion said:


> I've told you several times that the usage is standard and idiomatic.
> 
> Just to be clear: _"If I didn't act that way, I wouldn't be sitting right here._" is standard usage, and means_ "If I was not in the habit of acting that way, I wouldn't be sitting right here."_


 It's a standard construction, as TT says. So to convey the 'habitual' sense it's perfectly recommendable. But if it's used in the context of a particular past occasion, then it's a deviant usage (as I said above, to avoid any confusion over the term 'standard' ). 


wandle said:


> _[...]_ What is not clear is why he made the mistake. Did he honestly think that 'didn't act' was a correct way to express an unreal past hypothesis, or was he (consciously or unconsciously) mixing up his grammar in the course of making a false statement? We do not know.


  I fully agree with everything in your #45, wandle. As for why he made the mistake ... I've noticed that it's mostly BrE speakers here who are puzzled by this. From personal experience, and from various other pieces of evidence that I mentioned earlier, I'm pretty sure he's just one of a number of AmE speakers who do that. It's not standard in that context, but it's not unheard of. 

I think Glasguensis hit the nail on the head with * << *Typically what starts from a misunderstanding or an incomplete understanding of grammar, especially learned orally, is copied and becomes common in a group of people. New people entering the group may even copy something they know to be non-standard so that they don't stand out as being different.*>>* 

Other concrete examples:
- From a CNN interview in 2006: DeAngelis (a high school principal, so not uneducated!) said _"I would not be sitting here today if I did not go through counseling"_. He was referring to a specific period of counselling in the past, not to a general habit of being counselled. We would normally say "if I had not been through counselling" in that situation.
- From a CBS interview in 2002: Betty Wilson (yes, another Wilson!) said _"__The jury had made up their minds that even if I did not commit a murder, I didn't deserve to live__"_. She was obviously not referring to a habit (which would have been "murders" anyway). We would normally say "even if I had not committed a murder" in that situation.

I feel pretty certain that Darren Wilson's use of "didn't" is just more of the same.


Embonpoint said:


> _[...]_ To me, as an American (born in New Jersey and lived in five different states over 50 years, it is not an error I could make even in a moment of inattention as it sounds completely unnatural to me.


 Are you sure?  ...


Embonpoint said:


> _[...]_ I would be shocked if, during his housebound agonizing month preparing for the Grand Jury, Mr. Wilson *didn't* read the news coverage of George Zimmerman's case. _[...]_


 In that sentence I would say "I would be shocked if ... Mr Wilson *hadn't* read ...".

- _I will be shocked if he doesn't read ..._ (in the future)
- _I would be shocked if he didn't read_ ... (in the future, or habitually)
- _I would be shocked if he hadn't read_ ... (specific occasion in the past)

Ws


----------



## boozer

Some months ago I wrote in a thread that I have observed, of late, that many AE speakers tend to make that mistake. I went so far as to imply that the 3rd conditional seems to be in decline in parts of the US. Some of our AE friends here, all educated folks, no doubt, were outraged by my audacity  Here is the thread:
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2838853


----------



## Embonpoint

Ha, Wordsmyth. Excellent observation, which caused me to think a bit. I have thought about this a bit since your post, and I realize that my strict sense of the tenses (similar to Brits) is in situations in which there is a clear sense of time and in particular where the outcome is already certain and known to the speaker: *If I hadn't intervened, he would have made a fool of himself.*

However, in the case of expressing emotion or a hypothesis about a past event, not so much. Maybe because the end result is fuzzy, so is my sense of timing:

*As soon as we left, my sister probably ate the entire pie.  I would be surprised if she didn't.*

However:

*When we left, I was sure my sister would eat the whole pie. But when I got there the next day, I found out she hadn't.*

 In the Darren Wilson sentence the answer of what happened is also known sense of timing can't be escaped--if I hadn't xxx, I would be dead. That's about the clearest case for me of when *hadn't* would be needed! And when I say it would be impossible for me to say that, yes, I'm sure. Perhaps for some Americans, the use of* didn't* is broader. Perhaps the language is evolving gradually, and I'm at one end of it, more conservative, as are other people in my circle of friends; Darren Wilson may be at the far outside edge of the curve, completely throwing the *hadn't *to the winds.

Now going to go look at Boozer's thread...


----------



## sunyaer

<<>>



Wordsmyth said:


> Embonpoint said:
> 
> 
> 
> _ [...]_ I would be shocked if, during his housebound agonizing month preparing for the Grand Jury, Mr. Wilson *didn't* read the news coverage of George Zimmerman's case. _[...]_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In that sentence I would say "I would be shocked if ... Mr Wilson *hadn't* read ...".
> 
> - _I would be shocked if he didn't read_ ... (in the future, or habitually)
> - _I would be shocked if he hadn't read_ ... (specific occasion in the past)
Click to expand...




Embonpoint said:


> Ha, Wordsmyth. Excellent observation, which caused me to think a bit. I have thought about this a bit since your post, and I realize that my strict sense of the tenses (similar to Brits) is in situations where there is a clear sense of time and in particular where the outcome is already certain and known to the speaker: *If I hadn't intervened, he would have made a fool of himself.*
> 
> However, in the case of expressing emotion or a hypothesis about a past event, not so much. Maybe because the end result is fuzzy, so is my sense of timing:
> 
> *As soon as we left, my sister probably ate the entire pie. I would be surprised if she didn't.*


 
If we are not sure whether or not Mr Wilson read the news coverage of George Zimmerman's case, _I would be shocked if he didn't read_ ... could be used to mean a hypothesis about a past event. This is probably why Embonpoint used "didn't" in his sentence.


----------



## Embonpoint

sunyaer said:


> If we are not sure whether or not Mr Wilson read the news coverage of George Zimmerman's case, _I would be shocked if he didn't read_ ... could be used to mean a hypothesis about a past event. This is probably why Embonpoint used "didn't" in his sentence.



Maybe. As a native speaker I don't conceptualize the grammar. But I know when I am not certain about what happened, I would use didn't, and when I am certain, I would use hadn't. If I'm understanding WordSmyth's comments correctly, British speakers would use hadn't in both cases to show anteriority.


----------



## sunyaer

Embonpoint said:


> Maybe. As a native speaker I don't conceptualize the grammar. But I know when I am not certain about what happened, I would use didn't, and when I am certain, I would use hadn't. If I'm understanding WordSmyth's comments correctly, British speakers would use hadn't in both cases to show anteriority.



If it is an unknown about what happened, it sounds wrong to me logically if hadn't is used, because hadn't has to have a certain point of time in the past as the reference when something happened, which created the fact that is known to the speaker.


----------



## Embonpoint

sunyaer said:


> If it is an unknown about what happened, it sounds wrong to me logically if hadn't is used, because hadn't is using a certain point of time as the reference when something happened, making the fact known to the speaker.



The only way I can conceptualize it is that when I'm not sure if something has happened, I conceptualize it in the present.* I haven't seen her in years. I would be surprised if she hasn't married by now. * It feels like present to me because I don't know if it's true. On the other hand, when I want to say she was not married at a specific time and I was sure of it, I would use past perfect: *When I saw her in 1992 she hadn't married yet, but now she is happy with her husband.

*I think I mentally put *I would be surprised if she hasn't married by now *in the same category as *she probably hasn't married yet *and I use the same tense.


----------



## Forero

"I would be surprised if ..." is a special case in that the "if" clause seems to be at the same time a condition and something surprising. In other words it means, in effect, "I would be surprised that ..., if that were so." It just seems more natural to use the verb form for a "that" clause for this kind of "if":

_I would be surprised if she didn't._ = _I would be surprised that she didn't, if she hadn't._

Sometimes, for me, there is a little too much "anteriority" suggested by a past perfect. For example, I might say "She would not have done that yesterday if she were his friend already" to refer to a hypothetical friendship yesterday as opposed to a hypothetical friendship before yesterday ("... had she already been his friend").

But, for me, none of this applies to the policeman's sentence.


----------



## Wordsmyth

As Forero says, we're now getting into examples that are different from Darren Wilson's usage. However, I think it's worth briefly trying to single out which elements do potentially apply to Wilson's statement. It may help in understanding why he used that construction.

In recent posts we've seen mention of timing/anteriority, (un)certainty, hypothesis vs reality, ... rather as if they're all relevant to any one use of the past perfect:


Embonpoint said:


> _[...]_ I realize that my strict sense of the tenses (similar to Brits) is in situations were there is a clear sense of time and in particular where the outcome is already certain and known to the speaker _[...]_





Embonpoint said:


> _[...]_ But I know when I am not certain about what happened, I would use didn't, and when I am certain, I would use hadn't. If I'm understanding WordSmyth's comments correctly, British speakers would use hadn't in both cases to show anteriority.





Embonpoint said:


> The only way I can conceptualize it is that when I'm not sure if something has happened, I conceptualize it in the present._[...]_





sunyaer said:


> If we are not sure whether or not Mr Wilson read the news coverage of George Zimmerman's case, _I would be shocked if he didn't read_ ... could be used to mean a hypothesis about a past event. This is probably why Embonpoint used "didn't" in his her sentence.





sunyaer said:


> If it is an unknown about what happened, it sounds wrong to me logically if hadn't is used, because hadn't has to have a certain point of time in the past as the reference when something happened, which created the fact that is known to the speaker.



But this seems to be confusing two entirely separate uses of the past perfect:

On the one hand, there's its use purely to indicate *timing* (anteriority): At the time when something happened, something else had happened previously. There's no conditional element in such cases.

On the other hand, there's the tense shift that occurs in the_ if_-clause (or equivalent) in 2nd and 3rd conditional sentences. This is a grammatical device that indicates *hypothesis*. It's not an indicator of relative timing. Anteriority doesn't come into it.
- "If I didn't" (simple past) expresses a hypothetical condition; the reality is that I do (present). 
- "If I hadn't" (past perfect) expresses a hypothetical condition; the reality is that I did (simple past). 

I wonder if that confusion is what's lurking behind some people's use of the simple past in place of the past perfect in 3rd conditional sentences. Perhaps instinctively they're trying to relate it to actual timing (a sort of_ "I did act that way, but if [at that same moment] I didn't act that way"_ logic) rather than to the normal 3rd conditional construction (_I did act that way, but if I hadn't acted that way ..._). Once the practice spreads, others (Darren Wilson, perhaps) just use it because it's what they've heard used, as Glasguensis explained in #47.

Or it may more simply be what you said earlier, Embonpoint:



Embonpoint said:


> Perhaps the language is evolving gradually, and I'm at one end of it, more conservative, as are other people in my circle of friends; Darren Wilson may be at the far outside edge of the curve, completely throwing the *hadn't *to the winds.


 That would tie in with what several researchers have found (I cited one back in post #38): that some AmE speakers (presumably the ones on the outside edge of your curve ) tend to prefer the simple past tense as a 'one size fits all' for anything that's 'past' (whether simple past, present perfect or past perfect).

<<>>

Ws


----------



## sunyaer

Wordsmyth said:


> ...
> - "If I didn't" (simple past) expresses a hypothetical condition; the reality is that I do (present).
> - "If I hadn't" (past perfect) expresses a hypothetical condition; the reality is that I did (simple past).
> 
> Perhaps instinctively they're trying to relate it to actual timing (a sort of_ "I did act that way, but if [at that same moment] I didn't act that way"_ logic) rather than to the normal 3rd conditional construction (_I did act that way, but if I hadn't acted that way ..._).?.



There is no problem with the logic "I did act that way, but if [at that same moment] I didn't act that way" in the speaker's mind. The problem is that when this _if _clause is spoken in "if I didn't act that way, I would not...", the listener will shift the "at that same moment" to "at this moment", considering the reality as at present, which is "I do act that way". This is where the confusion arises.

But the "I did act that way, but if [at that same moment] I didn't act that way" logic seems to work in the following sentence: 

"I wouldn't have seen him if he didn't come." 

The reason why this sentence comes across is that the perfect tense "I wouldn't have seen" limits "didn't" in the past, preventing the shift from "at that same moment" to "at this moment" in the listener's mind.


----------



## wandle

sunyaer said:


> "I wouldn't have seen him if he didn't come."
> 
> The reason why this sentence comes across is that the perfect tense "I wouldn't have seen" limits "didn't" in the past, preventing the shift from "at that same moment" to "at this moment" in the listener's mind.


It is still incorrect, though. Correct is: _'I would not have seen him if he had not come'_.


----------



## Wordsmyth

sunyaer said:


> _[...] _But the "I did act that way, but if [at that same moment] I didn't act that way" logic seems to work in the following sentence:
> 
> "I wouldn't have seen him if he didn't come."
> 
> The reason why this sentence comes across is that the perfect tense "I wouldn't have seen" limits "didn't" in the past, preventing the shift from "at that same moment" to "at this moment" in the listener's mind.


 Sorry, but no, it doesn't work that way. "I wouldn't have seen" doesn't affect the meaning of "didn't". In normal English, you can have:

(a) "I wouldn't have seen him if he hadn't come" (but he did come _[on that occasion]_, so I saw him _[on that occasion]_)

(b) "I wouldn't see him if he didn't come" (but he does come _[habitually or repeatedly]_, so I see him _[habitually or repeatedly]_)

(c) "I wouldn't have seen him if he didn't come" (but he does come _[habitually or repeatedly]_, so I saw him _[on that occasion]_)

Only if the speaker was (linguistically) one of the Darren Wilsons of the world, and if the context suggested that the normal meaning of (c) couldn't apply, would I go back and realise that he must have meant "if I hadn't come" instead of "didn't".

Apart from the shift of the apodosis (the consequence clause) into the past ("I wouldn't have seen him"), we've come full circle back to TT's explanation of the normal use of "hadn't" and "didn't" in post #4, and to the same ambiguity as was caused by Wilson's original statement (if we accept that the misuse exists) — or to the probable misunderstanding of his intended meaning (if we assume that (c) can have only its normal meaning).

Ws


----------



## Forero

Context is very important in English, so I have just watched the unpleasant interview in question all the way to the point where the policeman says sentence 2. In the interview, the policeman is speaking mainly in historical present tense with a few past tenses.

In context, I believe the policeman is reporting that he thought something like "If I don't shoot this dangerous suspect first, I won't live to tell the tale."

Sentence 2, then, is an example of "reported speech". "Don't" backshifts to "didn't", and "won't" backshifts to "wouldn't". "Shoot this dangerous suspect" (or whatever he really thought) becomes "act that way", and "live to tell the tall" becomes "be sitting right here" (on the ABC News set, telling the tale) for rather obvious reasons.

Thank you, TT, for the reminder not to speculate.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Very interesting.  Thank you, Forero.

So the reported 1st conditional becomes a 2nd conditional, with the eventive force of a 1st conditional.

_2.  _(I said to myself that)_ "If I didn't act that way, I wouldn't be sitting right here._"

I wonder if we share a worry about the end of the sentence, which has suddenly panned to the present, but then you made a good point earlier about the stress he must have been under.


----------



## Wordsmyth

sunyaer said:


> _ [...] _I have also noticed that the mixed 2nd/3rd conditional works only with verbs having the sense of a state, such as "knew", "were", "speak (French)", but not with verbs describing actions, such as "didn't come" in this post. Is that correct?


 If that were correct (that the mixed 2nd/3rd conditional doesn't work with verbs describing actions), I wouldn't have given (c) as a valid example of that construction in my post that you linked to. I gave that example with "didn't come" because it does work.

But Thomas T is giving you good advice, so I'll leave you to pay heed to what he says. 

By the way ...


sunyaer said:


> _ [...] I_ also found another example in this post, which has the pattern of "...would be..., if...simple present tense...":
> http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2806124&p=14181026#post14181026
> 
> "My son would be involved in other Saturday activities if he passes his audition for the orchestra, or if he is asked to join the football team".


 I can't see any way of justifying that sentence. As I've said in answer to your question in that other thread, sunyaer, I can't think of any conditional construction that uses "would" in the consequence clause and the simple present in the condition clause.

Ws


----------



## Forero

Thomas Tompion said:


> Very interesting.  Thank you, Forero.
> 
> So the reported 1st conditional becomes a 2nd conditional, with the eventive force of a 1st conditional.
> 
> _2.  _(I said to myself that)_ "If I didn't act that way, I wouldn't be sitting right here._"
> 
> I wonder if we share a worry about the end of the sentence, which has suddenly panned to the present, but then you made a good point earlier about the stress he must have been under.


I think of it as a sort of recasting of the "words" of the past to reflect their meaning in the present. For example, if yesterday I thought "I will go to a party at TT's house tomorrow night", then tonight at the party I might say "I knew I would be coming to this party at your house tonight." Yesterday's "will" becomes today's "would", and yesterday's "go to the party at TT's house tomorrow night" implies today's "be coming to this party at your house tonight".

Similarly, the unthinkable "not live to tell the tale" of the past implies the obviously false "not be sitting right here" of the present. It is not really a pan but a telling of yesterday's idea in terms of its meaning in today's environment.

I hope I am making sense.


----------



## Wordsmyth

Forero said:


> _ [...] _In context, I believe the policeman is reporting that he thought something like "If I don't shoot this dangerous suspect first, I won't live to tell the tale."
> 
> Sentence 2, then, is an example of "reported speech". "Don't" backshifts to "didn't", and "won't" backshifts to "wouldn't".


 That's a fascinating thought, Forero. I do share TT's concern about the sentence panning to the present, so I'm wondering what would happen if Wilson later recounted the interview to a friend (so that it would become reported reported speech):

Another round of backshifts would give "I told the interviewer that I had said to myself that _if I hadn't acted that way, I wouldn't have been sitting in the studio right then_" (I think!). Somehow that seems to work, with the original reported bit becoming a straightforward 3rd conditional.

I'm a bit less convinced by the examples about TT's party, because there's no conditional involved there. "Would", in that case, is expressing the future in the past, so the tense combinations aren't the same as for conditional sentences. (I hope _I'm _making sense.)

Ws

[PS. TT didn't invite me, and I'm probably just down the road! ]

.


----------



## wandle

Forero said:


> Sentence 2, then, is an example of "reported speech". "Don't" backshifts to "didn't", and "won't" backshifts to "wouldn't".


I beg to differ. I cannot agree here. Conditional sentences are not reported speech (indirect statement). They are different constructions. The whole point of the various types of conditional sentences is that the speaker is addressing the past, present or future hypothesis directly from his or her present standpoint. The context of the interview is certainly significant. 

Darren Wilson says that Michael Brown, leaning into the car, got a hand on his gun and tried to use it against him; he feared that Brown would be able to shoot him. He tried twice to fire the gun while it was under Brown's hand, but it jammed. Then as soon as he got his gun free from Brown's grip, he pulled the trigger a third time and the bullet went into the car door.  Here, the interviewer makes the point that that was the first time he had used his gun, and adds 'In all your years as a police officer?' and Wilson confirms that. Then he says that it was a shock to both him and Brown, and continues:

'_It was shocking that I had to pull it, but it was also - at the same time it was shocking that this was the only option I had, because if I didn't act that way, I wouldn't be sitting right here._'

Thus this sentence refers not to the actual shooting dead of Michael Brown, but to the first shot, fired while he felt himself under immediate threat of death (because he had to wrestle the gun away from the grip of the stronger man). It was this shot which caused Brown to move back, freeing Wilson from that imminent threat.

Thus the topic sentence is referring to the very specific situation when he says Brown was leaning into the car, trying to use the gun against him. Wilson's meaning is that his action in getting the gun free from Brown's grip and firing it as soon as he could was what saved his life.

This shows clearly, in my view, that the intended meaning of the conditional is '_if I had not acted in that specific way at that time, I would have been killed'_; and that the officer actually used the wrong tense in the if-clause.


----------



## Forero

wandle said:


> I beg to differ. I cannot agree here. Conditional sentences are not reported speech (indirect statement). They are different constructions. The whole point of the various types of conditional sentences is that the speaker is addressing the past, present or future hypothesis directly from his or her present standpoint. The context of the interview is certainly significant.
> 
> Darren Wilson says that Michael Brown, leaning into the car, got a hand on his gun and tried to use it against him; he feared that Brown would be able to shoot him. He tried twice to fire the gun while it was under Brown's hand, but it jammed. Then as soon as he got his gun free from Brown's grip, he pulled the trigger a third time and the bullet went into the car door.  Here, the interviewer makes the point that that was the first time he had used his gun, and adds 'In all your years as a police officer?' and Wilson confirms that. Then he says that it was a shock to both him and Brown, and continues:
> 
> '_It was shocking that I had to pull it, but at the same time it was shocking that this was the only option I had, because if I didn't act that way, I wouldn't be sitting right here._'
> 
> Thus this sentence refers not to the actual shooting dead of Michael Brown, but to the first shot, fired while he felt himself under immediate threat of death (because he had to wrestle the gun away from the grip of the stronger man). It was this shot which caused Brown to move back, freeing Wilson from that imminent threat.
> 
> Thus the topic sentence is referring to the very specific situation when he says Brown was leaning into the car, trying to use the gun against him. Wilson's meaning is that his action in getting the gun free from Brown's grip and firing it as soon as he could was what saved his life.
> 
> This shows clearly, in my view, that the intended meaning of the conditional is '_if I had not acted in that specific way at that time, I would have been killed'_; and that the officer actually used the wrong tense in the if-clause.


You are probably right. I just have a hard time listening to his story. I did notice his misuse of tenses in other _if_ clauses.


----------



## boozer

I wonder, though, why such misuses occur. There would not be any problem if the wrong tense was not right in a different situation - that would count as normal development and simplification of the language; evolution, if you will. As it is, however, using one tense (simple past) instead of the other (past perfect) changes the meaning in a totally unintended manner. People who use the wrong tense in a conditional sentence probably do realise this. Or do they? I suppose this is exactly why this whole discussion is taking place...


----------



## Wordsmyth

boozer said:


> _[...]_ As it is, however, using one tense (simple past) instead of the other (past perfect) changes the meaning in a totally unintended manner. People who use the wrong tense in a conditional sentence probably do realise this. Or do they?  _[...] _


 I suspect that generally they don't. 

As for why such misuses occur, I strongly suspect that it's down to over-simplification. As I mentioned in post #67, there's a trend (notably among some AmE speakers) towards using the simple past tense for anything that's 'past'. The senses that would otherwise be conveyed by the present perfect and the past perfect can then be inferred only from context (and then only sometimes). It's a trend that I've noticed a lot, as have others in various other threads, and one that researchers have also documented.

Over-simplification might also explain a similar 'misuse': putting "would" in_ if_-clauses (as if the speaker just knows that a conditional needs "would", and so puts it in everywhere!). Had Darren Wilson been one of the people who does that, his sentence might have been ""If I wouldn't have acted that way, I wouldn't be sitting right here." Either way, the past perfect seems to be slipping out of some people's vocabulary.

Ws


----------



## Forero

Wordsmyth said:


> I suspect that generally they don't.
> 
> As for why such misuses occur, I strongly suspect that it's down to over-simplification. As I mentioned in post #67, there's a trend (notably among some AmE speakers) towards using the simple past tense for anything that's 'past'. The senses that would otherwise be conveyed by the present perfect and the past perfect can then be inferred only from context (and then only sometimes). It's a trend that I've noticed a lot, as have others in various other threads, and one that researchers have also documented.
> 
> Over-simplification might also explain a similar 'misuse': putting "would" in_ if_-clauses (as if the speaker just knows that a conditional needs "would", and so puts it in everywhere!). Had Darren Wilson been one of the people who does that, his sentence might have been ""If I wouldn't have acted that way, I wouldn't be sitting right here." Either way, the past perfect seems to be slipping out of some people's vocabulary.
> 
> Ws


I noticed that he did put a stray "would" in an "if" clause earlier in the interview.


----------



## xiaokyao

Thomas Tompion said:


> *2*._ "If I didn't act that way, I wouldn't be sitting right here._" - conventional 2nd conditional (perfect in if-clause/conditional in main clause) - an unlikely consideration in the past (my acting that way) with its present consequence (my sitting here).


Hi, TT! I have a question.

If this sentence is a conventional 2nd conditional, shouldn’t it be involving an unlikely consideration in the present, rather than the past?

I’d help you with your homework if I had time.

An unlikely consideration in the present, (I had time) with present consequence (I can’t help you).

Why did “my acting this way” suggest a habitual action?


----------



## JulianStuart

Wordsmyth said:


> - Ws: "Having spent a lot of time in North America, I feel slightly qualified  to comment on the difference."  _[While I may not be the world's leading expert (maybe JulianStuart should join in here), first-hand experience has made me very familiar with the phenomenon we're discussing here.] _
> Ws


Sorry, WS, I completely missed this thread first time around.

The most common in both AE and BE is the "If I hadn't Xed, I would not have Yed" as all are saying (I don't believe he intended to describe a "routine way of acting" rather than the specific action of shooting). (But see below for "If I wouldn't have ...")

However, I don't think the "error" is solely an AE vs BE thing but that complex concepts (or at least complex verb requirements) are mishandled on both sides of the Atlantic. A classic I've mentioned before - I overheard a young lady on a bus from Buckingham to a little outlying village discussing a friend's party "I wouldn't 'a' went even if I 'ad 'a' been asked!" 


wandle said:


> What is not clear is why he made the mistake. Did he honestly think that 'didn't act' was a correct way to express an unreal past hypothesis, or was he (consciously or unconsciously) mixing up his grammar ...


I doubt if he could tell you what an "unreal past hypothesis" was - and "an irrealis condition" would probably be grounds for arrest


sunyaer said:


> Would it surprise you if he says he did?


Very much so.  I was not taught these various conditional structures, I just "know" them as a native speaker and I doubt if he was taught them either.  I also do not teach English and have not had a burning need to get familiar with all the (technical) terms first, second, unreal etc but I have a very good grasp of the structures.  That's probably from the company I keep/kept, the reading I have done and a good ear for words/grammar in general.  I doubt Wilson had any one of these, then his grasp of "correct" is likely somewhat shaky.  I still have not completely grasped the fine points of the structure used by AE speakers (it comes up later in the interview I think) "If I would have Xed ..." when I grew up with (BE) "If I had Xed ...".  I am therefore a little surprised the discussion presents only two choices for Wilson:
"If I didn't act ..."
"If I hadn't acted .."
"If I wouldn't have acted ..."
Number 3 would be the one I would have  expected if "hadn't" was (were?) not "available"


Forero said:


> Context is very important in English, so I have just watched the unpleasant interview in question all the way to the point where the policeman says sentence 2. In the interview, the policeman is speaking mainly in historical present tense with a few past tenses.
> 
> In context, I believe the policeman is reporting that he thought something like "If I don't shoot this dangerous suspect first, I won't live to tell the tale."
> 
> Sentence 2, then, is an example of "reported speech". "Don't" backshifts to "didn't", and "won't" backshifts to "wouldn't". "Shoot this dangerous suspect" (or whatever he really thought) becomes "act that way", and "live to tell the tall" becomes "be sitting right here" (on the ABC News set, telling the tale) for rather obvious reasons.



Unless the whole thing is contrived by the lawyer (based on Zimmermann's "mistake") I agree this is likely why he used the form he did.


----------



## wandle

wandle said:


> What is not clear is why he made the mistake. Did he honestly think that 'didn't act' was a correct way to express an unreal past hypothesis, or was he (consciously or unconsciously) mixing up his grammar in the course of making a false statement? We do not know.





JulianStuart said:


> I doubt if he could tell you what an "unreal past hypothesis" was


It would be surprising if he could describe it in those terms.
However my quote above was merely another way of expressing the same point as I had made earlier:


wandle said:


> Perhaps this policeman is careless about grammar, or feels that what he said was correct.
> Another possibility is that people sometimes fudge their grammar or mode of expression when they are fudging the facts.


The issue is not whether he could use the grammatical terminology: many people lack that vocabulary, but still form their conditionals correctly.


----------



## JulianStuart

wandle said:


> The issue is not whether he could use the grammatical terminology: many people lack that vocabulary, but still form their conditionals correctly.


Indeed. (I noted that I am among them). And there are people (on both sides of the Atlantic) who not only lack the vocabulary but also do not always from their conditionals correctly


----------



## Thomas Tompion

xiaokyao said:


> Hi, TT! I have a question.
> 
> If this sentence is a conventional 2nd conditional, shouldn’t it be involving an unlikely consideration in the present, rather than the past?
> 
> I’d help you with your homework if I had time.
> 
> An unlikely consideration in the present, (I had time) with present consequence (I can’t help you).
> 
> Why did “my acting this way” suggest a habitual action?


You may well be right about this, Xiaokyao.

Certainly in BE is would have that force.  I can't remember what made me say that, maybe just foolishness, maybe something someone else had said.


----------



## siares

Thank you all for this discussion.

I could hardly follow it at all until wandle used an example with a different verb: to go (to work). Many thanks for that, wandle.




Thomas Tompion said:


> we are NOT guessing what the words mean, and you asked what they mean.
> 
> For some reason, which is unclear to me, you want them to mean something else.



I have a lot of sympathy (if this fits, of which i am not convinced) and I too possess a Humpty-Dumpty-esque attitude. The reason is unclear to me too. I just feel so naturally in some meanings, that it becomes an existential battle to abandon them. And I never really do; I hear echoes, and I keep pictures..

I wonder whether you have ever experienced something similar, a jamais vu, in your own language - when words are there, but all of a sudden, and only for a moment, they are not there for you? I have, and as disconcerting as the experiences were, I long for them but cannot will them. 



wandle said:


> when people lie, they sometimes use expressions which are false in grammar as a well as false in fact: a kind of conscious or unconscious camouflage to make it difficult for other people to pin down their meaning.



This is the first time I hear about this and agree with it instantly with no evidence or conscious observation of my own whatsoever. Do you know who wrote about this, or what the phenomenon is called so i can google it?

Thanks again to all.


----------



## RM1(SS)

Thomas Tompion said:


> What I wonder is whether an American would say _"If I didn't act that way, I wouldn't be sitting right here_" to mean what British people would express as_"If I hadn't acted that way, I wouldn't be sitting right here_".


It doesn't strike me as all that unusual.  I might even say it myself.


----------



## wandle

siares said:


> Do you know who wrote about this, or what the phenomenon is called so i can google it?


No; it is just the result of my own observation. I would be surprised if it were not mentioned in psychological studies of lying.


----------



## Wordsmyth

JulianStuart said:


> _[...] _However, I don't think the "error" is solely an AE vs BE thing but that complex concepts (or at least complex verb requirements) are mishandled on both sides of the Atlantic. A classic I've mentioned before - I overheard a young lady on a bus from Buckingham to a little outlying village discussing a friend's party "I wouldn't 'a' went even if I 'ad 'a' been asked!" _[...]_


 Hi, JS. You're absolutely right, of course. Gems like that can be heard on both sides of the Atlantic, and indeed all round the English-speaking world, with all sorts of different muddlings of compound tenses.

This particular phenomenon (using the simple past in place of the present perfect or the past perfect) is one that I've noticed being more frequent among some AmE speakers than among BrE speakers. As I said earlier:


Wordsmyth said:


> _[...] _I'd just add that this isn't a clear-cut case of AE vs BE. In both of them, the established (correct?, normal?) usage is as you _[that was TT]_ excellently explained in #4. It's just that many (but certainly not all) AE speakers habitually use the simple past in place of the past perfect (and also in place of the present perfect). Many educated AE speakers object to this trend, but it's become common enough that others accept it. _[...] _


Boozer also mentioned that he's noticed it; and the trend has been documented by linguists:


Wordsmyth said:


> This research paper by Aarts, Close, Leech and Wallis (University College London) shows that the use of the English perfect construction has been decreasing in American English since around 1800, whereas in BrE the change in frequency (if any) is less marked. _[...] _


What I find interesting is that that usage is an over-simplification (simple past as a sort of catch-all for anything with a past sense) — whereas your Buckingham bus example is the opposite, an over-complication: fleshed out, it's "I would not have went even if I had have been asked".

I'm beginning to wonder whether the form "even if I would have been asked" (which can be heard in both AmE and BrE, but more often, I think, in AmE) might have been derived over time from that "had have" misuse, via the contraction *'d*:
- "if I *had* been asked"   >> "if I *had have* been asked" >> "if I*'d have* been asked" >> "if I *would have* been asked" ...?
... Just a wild theory.

Ws


----------



## Thomas Tompion

siares said:


> Sorry Thomas, I should have made it clear that question was directed at wandle, regarding his mention of psychological studies of lying.


Sorry, Siares.

It never crossed my mind that you could be doing such a thing.


----------



## Englishmypassion

Sir Thomas Tompion, I am unable to understand clearly your definition and explanation of the second conditional in post #4. Would you please make these points clear? 
A. I can't get why you say *'perfect' *in the brackets, though the verb used is in the simple past.
B. You say the second conditional shows an unlikely consideration in the past with its effect in the present. Then you say the second conditional shows a habitual action in the past. Does it mean *second conditional* usually show that? Doesn't second conditional (as a proper grammar concept) show an unlikely situation in the present (or future)?  Thanks.


----------



## xiaokyao

Wordsmyth said:


> (b) "I wouldn't see him if he didn't come" (but he does come _[habitually or repeatedly]_, so I see him _[habitually or repeatedly]_)



1. Can’t this structure mean “he’s here (one occasion), so I see him (one occasion)”?

Does the use of “would” in the sentence make it mean an habitual or repeated action? For instance, when I was a boy I would walk to school. And the “if clause” has nothing to do with this sense of habitual actions. If can also be replaced by “when or whenever”.

2. "I wouldn't see him if he didn't come.” In this case, does “If he didn’t” express a hypothesis about a present or future event?

I found it really hard to define the present and the future strictly in the conditional 2.

I wouldn’t buy this toy if I didn’t like it. (a speaker is shopping at a store)

Does the speaker suggest that he’ll buy it later (in the future) or he’ll buy it right away (the present)?


----------



## Wordsmyth

xiaokyao said:


> 1. Can’t this structure mean “he’s here (one occasion), so I see him (one occasion)”?


No. That would correspond to "I wouldn't see him if he weren't here". For him to be here now, he has to have already come: "I wouldn't see him if he hadn't come."


xiaokyao said:


> Does the use of “would” in the sentence make it mean an habitual or repeated action?


No. As you can see in my post #70, all the examples contain "would", but not all refer to habitual or repeated actions.


xiaokyao said:


> For instance, when I was a boy I would walk to school. And the “if clause” has nothing to do with this sense of habitual actions. If can also be replaced by “when or whenever”.


No. In "when I was a boy I would walk to school", "would" is not a conditional form: it simply expresses a factual habitual action in the past; (it's the same as "used to").
But "I wouldn't see him if he didn't come” is a conditional statement; you can't replace "if" by "when" or whenever".    


xiaokyao said:


> 2. "I wouldn't see him if he didn't come.” In this case, does “If he didn’t” express a hypothesis about a present or future event?


 A present habitual action, as I said in #70.


xiaokyao said:


> I wouldn’t buy this toy if I didn’t like it. (a speaker is shopping at a store)
> 
> Does the speaker suggest that he’ll buy it later (in the future) or he’ll buy it right away (the present)?


 He's suggesting that he does like it, and so he might buy it (if liking it is the only condition influencing his decision to buy). The sentence says nothing about when he might buy it.

Ws


----------



## sunyaer

JulianStuart said:


> sunyaer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did he honestly think that 'didn't act' was a correct way to express an unreal past hypothesis ...
> 
> 
> 
> Would it surprise you if he says he did?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Very much so. ... I am therefore a little surprised the discussion presents only two choices for Wilson:
> 
> "If I didn't act ..."
> 
> "If I hadn't acted .."
> 
> "If I wouldn't have acted ..."
> 
> Number 3 would be the one I would have expected if "hadn't" was (were?) not "available"
> 
> Unless the whole thing is contrived by the lawyer (based on Zimmermann's "mistake") I agree this is likely why he used the form he did.
Click to expand...


Hi Julian, by saying "very much so", do you mean "he thought 'didn't act' was a correct way to express an unreal past hypothesis" ?



JulianStuart said:


> Indeed. (I noted that I am among them). And there are people (on both sides of the Atlantic) who not only lack the vocabulary but also do not always form their conditionals correctly


What is meant here is that even native speakers would produce errors in using conditionals, isn't it?




RM1(SS) said:


> Thomas Tompion said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I wonder is whether an American would say _"If I didn't act that way, I wouldn't be sitting right here_" to mean what British people would express as _"If I hadn't acted that way, I wouldn't be sitting right here_".
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't strike me as all that unusual.  I might even say it myself.
Click to expand...

Would you (or would you be understood to) mean habitual action when saying _"If I didn't act that way, I wouldn't be sitting right here_" to mean _"If I hadn't acted that way, I wouldn't be sitting right here_"?


----------



## JulianStuart

sunyaer said:


> Hi Julian, by saying "very much so", do you mean "he thought 'didn't act' was a correct way to express an unreal past hypothesis" ?


No. 
Wandle had said:"Did he honestly think that 'didn't act' was a correct way to express an unreal past hypothesis, ..."
Then you said: "Would it surprise you if he says he did?"
My response was to your question - I would be "very much" surprised if he knew the term "unreal past hypothesis" so I would be suprised if he used the term, either in thought or word.


sunyaer said:


> What is meant here is that even native speakers would produce errors in using conditionals, isn't it?


Yes - as I elaborated above - such complexity can be the cause of such "errors" on both sides of the Atlantic.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

If this means that you think we should avoid using such expressions, Julian, I agree with you.


----------



## JulianStuart

Thomas Tompion said:


> If this means that you think we should avoid using such expressions, Julian, I agree with you.


I think it is ony a small fraction of native speakers who understand these grammar terms - the ones who have studied grammar and are familiar with the terms and structures referred to. However, non-native speakers are taught these terms and ask about them, so someone here needs to be able to use them


----------



## Thomas Tompion

As I see it, a difficulty which we encounter frequently here is that the people who use these terms, both learners and native speakers, have often no very clear understanding of what they are trying to say.

For this reason, when they use them, I feel a few words of explanation of what is intended or understood would help.

It might stop the frequent disagreements which occur because people are arguing from different premises.


----------



## RM1(SS)

sunyaer said:


> Would you (or would you be understood to) mean habitual action when saying _"If I didn't act that way, I wouldn't be sitting right here_" to mean _"If I hadn't acted that way, I wouldn't be sitting right here_"?


No, I would be referring to that one single action.


----------



## Wordsmyth

sunyaer said:


> Would you (or would you be understood to) mean habitual action when saying _"If I didn't act that way, I wouldn't be sitting right here_" to mean _"If I hadn't acted that way, I wouldn't be sitting right here_"?


 Well, RM has told you what he would mean. As for how he might be understood: if he said it to me I would understand it to refer to a present habitual action ... unless the context made it blatantly clear that it was a single past action: then I'd think 'Ah, I guess he means "if I hadn't"'.

Ws


----------



## sunyaer

RM1(SS) said:


> No, I would be referring to that one single action.



But the problem is that you would be understood by some listeners (if not all) to mean habitual action, resulting in the intended meaning failing to come across. It's quite confusing there, isn't it?


----------



## Glasguensis

sunyaer said:


> But the problem is that you would be understood by some listeners (if not all) to mean habitual action, resulting in the intended meaning failing to come across. It's quite confusing there, isn't it?


Yes it is. But this thread would not have run this long if it didn't be confusing (that's a joke  ) I think all the angles have now been exhausted though. The simple truth is that not all English speakers are consistent in their use (and understanding) of conditionals, in the same way that certain words can have widely different meanings depending on who is using them ("wicked", for example).


----------



## xiaokyao

Wordsmyth said:


> But "I wouldn't see him if he didn't come” is a conditional statement; you can't replace "if" by "when" or whenever"


Hi Ws, verbs like come are referring to those acts which don’t extend through time. 
So I’ve been wondering if is the nature of verbs the reason why this sentence refers an habitual or repeated action?




Wordsmyth said:


> He's suggesting that he does like it, and so he might buy it (if liking it is the only condition influencing his decision to buy). The sentence says nothing about when he might buy it.



So sometimes people won’t indicate time when they use conditional2 or 3?

If I were to buy a toy, I would buy some toy I like.  (an unlikely consideration in the future with its future consequence)

If I had one million dollars, I would buy a house.  (an unlikely consideration in the present with its present consequence)

If I had had one million dollars, I would’ve bought a house. (an unlikely consideration in the past with its past consequence)

I feel the all sentences above indicate time, or maybe I’m wrong.


----------



## xiaokyao

RM1(SS) said:


> No, I would be referring to that one single action.



Hi RM1(SS) I wonder what AE speakers would say when you want to refer to an habitual action in the unreal situation?


----------



## Wordsmyth

xiaokyao said:


> Hi Ws, verbs like come are referring to those acts which don’t extend through time.
> So I’ve been wondering if is the nature of verbs the reason why this sentence refers an habitual or repeated action?_ [...]_


I can't see any connection there. Consider "I wouldn't spend time with him if I didn't like him".  "Like" is a verb that, as you put it, extends through time; "if I didn't like him" and "if he didn't come" both have a habitual (present) sense.



xiaokyao said:


> _[...] _So sometimes people won’t indicate time when they use conditional2 or 3?
> 
> If I were to buy a toy, I would buy some toy I like.  (an unlikely consideration in the future with its future consequence)
> 
> If I had one million dollars, I would buy a house.  (an unlikely consideration in the present with its present consequence)
> 
> If I had had one million dollars, I would’ve bought a house. (an unlikely consideration in the past with its past consequence)
> 
> I feel the all sentences above indicate time, or maybe I’m wrong.


 The first two are effectively the same in terms of the timeframe of the consequence.

- "If I were to buy a toy (alternatively "If I bought a toy"), I would buy a toy I like _[now or in the future]_."

- "If I had one million dollars, I would buy a house _[now or in the future]_."

It's similar for your earlier sentence, "I wouldn’t buy this toy _[now or in the future]_ if I didn’t like it". That's why I said that the sentence doesn't tell you when he might buy it.


xiaokyao said:


> Hi RM1(SS) I wonder what AE speakers would say when you want to refer to an habitual action in the unreal situation?


 In my experience, both AE and BE speakers use "If I didn't act that way" (or "If I acted that way") to refer to a hypothetical habitual present action. It's just that some people (and there's evidence that it's rather more common in AE) also use the same form to refer to a hypothetical single past action (in place of "If I hadn't/had acted ...").

Ws
_[Edit]: Added last parenthesis_​


----------



## sunyaer

Wordsmyth said:


> ...
> In my experience, both AE and BE speakers use "If I didn't act that way" (or "If I acted that way") to refer to a hypothetical habitual present action. It's just that some people (and there's evidence that it's rather more common in AE) also use the same form to refer to a hypothetical single past action (in place of "If I hadn't/had acted ...").
> 
> Ws
> _[Edit]: Added last parenthesis_​



Do these same people sometimes use  "If I didn't act that way" (or "If I acted that way")  to refer to a hypothetical habitual present action, while other times use the same form  to refer to a hypothetical single past action (in place of "If I hadn't/had acted ...")? If so, how do they distinguish their intended meaning? By context?


----------



## Wordsmyth

sunyaer said:


> If so, how do they distinguish their intended meaning? By context?


 Well, *they* shouldn't have any problem distinguishing *their *intended meaning, because *they* know what they mean.

What's of more concern is what meaning other people might understand as being intended. Context might help. If it doesn't, then there will probably be a misunderstanding (as this thread has shown, regarding Darren Wilson's statement ... remember Darren Wilson? ).

Ws


----------



## Glasguensis

sunyaer said:


> Do these same people sometimes use  "If I didn't act that way" (or "If I acted that way")  to refer to a hypothetical habitual present action, while other times use the same form  to refer to a hypothetical single past action (in place of "If I hadn't/had acted ...")? If so, how do they distinguish their intended meaning? By context?


Almost everything in English is determined by context. It's one of the reasons variations like this exist - those of us who use a different pattern can still understand the officer, and he would be able to understand us. And the more we talked to each other the less we'd have to think about it.


----------



## Wordsmyth

Glasguensis said:


> those of us who use a different pattern can still understand the officer


 ... except that what we understand may not be what he meant. If he said "If I didn't act that way" at a disciplinary hearing, or in court, it might well be understood that he habitually acts that way — which would create a vastly different impression from "If I hadn't acted that way" (on one, perhaps exceptional, occasion).

Ws


----------



## sunyaer

Wordsmyth said:


> ...
> What's of more concern is what meaning other people might understand as being intended. Context might help. If it doesn't, then there will probably be a misunderstanding (as this thread has shown, regarding Darren Wilson's statement ... remember Darren Wilson? ).





Glasguensis said:


> Almost everything in English is determined by context. It's one of the reasons variations like this exist - those of us who use a different pattern can still understand the officer, and he would be able to understand us.



Glasguensis, as Wordsmyth says, there is a misunderstanding regarding Darren Wilson's statement. Can we say those of us who use a different pattern can still understand the officer? I'm afraid we can't. (We don't really know what he was trying to say).


----------



## Glasguensis

None of us can ever be sure what someone else is intending to convey. I wasn't talking about this particular sentence - I think it has already been well established that there is some ambiguity, although personally I believe that the context is sufficient for us to be fairly confident about what he meant (since we know that he *can't* have been referring to a habitual action because it was the first time he'd shot anyone). As I said, the more we hear someone speak, the more we get to know their particular habits and grammar, so we get (hopefully) better at identifying their intent.


----------



## Forero

sunyaer said:


> Glasguensis, as Wordsmyth says, there is a misunderstanding regarding Darren Wilson's statement. Can we say those of us who use a different pattern can still understand the officer? I'm afraid we can't. (We don't really know what he was trying to say).




I really don't think "If I didn't act that way" has to suggest something habitual. As I mentioned before (many posts ago), it could be about a possible course of action comtemplated before the fact and reported after the fact. (In present tense, contemplating "If I do act that way, I won't ..." is not wondering whether I make a habit of acting that way, and the same goes for past tense "If I didn't act that way, I woudn't ...".)


----------



## sunyaer

Forero said:


> _[...]_ I really don't think "If I didn't act that way" has to suggest something habitual. As I mentioned before (many posts ago), it could be about a possible course of action comtemplated before the fact and reported after the fact. _[...]_



Where is that post? I could only find the following one, which seems to have different point of view, doesn't it?



Forero said:


> As I see it, the form the officer used is correct but terribly ambiguous. I think it is probably meant as a counterfactual, but beyond that I really don't know what he meant. I will guess he probably meant "Had I not pulled the trigger, I might not be here" but felt compelled to exaggerate the potential danger to himself. I will also guess his emotions interfered with his ability to communicate effectively.


----------



## Forero

sunyaer said:


> Where is that post? I could only find the following one, which seems to have different point of view, doesn't it?


#71


----------



## Wordsmyth

Forero said:


> #71


But as I pointed out in #75, backshifting tenses in conditional sentences doesn't have the same significance as in non-conditional sentences. "Would" is the past tense of "will". And as a simple future-in-the-past, "would" does express a past sense of "will" (= was going to). But in a 2nd-conditional construction, "would" doesn't have a past sense: it expresses a present or future consequence of meeting a given present condition (and that present condition is also expressed using the past tense!)

Actually, that all appears so illogical that it's not surprising that people mix up tenses in conditional sentences. I'm sure that if a language were invented _(past tense expressing a present hypothesis)_ from scratch, a more sensible solution would be _(past of "will be", expressing a possible future consequence)_ found.


----------



## Forero

Wordsmyth said:


> But as I pointed out in #75, backshifting tenses in conditional sentences doesn't have the same significance as in non-conditional sentences. "Would" is the past tense of "will". And as a simple future-in-the-past, "would" does express a past sense of "will" (= was going to). But in a 2nd-conditional construction, "would" doesn't have a past sense: it expresses a present or future consequence of meeting a given present condition (and that present condition is also expressed using the past tense!)


I prefer not to limit statements with "if" clauses to ordinal-numbered conditionals. The sentence is question is not necessarily a "2nd-conditional construction".





> Actually, that all appears so illogical that it's not surprising that people mix up tenses in conditional sentences. I'm sure that if a language were invented _(past tense expressing a present hypothesis)_ from scratch, a more sensible solution would be _(past of "will be", expressing a possible future consequence)_ found.


I don't know how many numbered conditionals you believe in, but the fact is that for example, "If an apple is red, it will be ripe" is about the present, "If an apple was red, it would be ripe" is about the past, and "If an apple were red, it would be ripe" is about a hypothetical, imaginary time, neither present nor past.

But whereas "If an apple was" and "If an apple were" are recognizably different, "If I didn't" looks the same whether meant as indicative, about the past, or subjunctive, about a hypothetical, imaginary time.

What I think I am saying is that the sentence in question looks on the surface like a contrafactual (a "second conditional"), but it is not necessarily meant that way at all. It may have been meant as a statement about the past, like "If an apple was red, it would be ripe."

Paraphrasing: "I did not really have a choice about what I was going to do", the speaker says, "because, as I thought to myself at that time, if I did not do that (if my choice was to do something other than what we now know I did), I was not going to stay in one piece."


----------



## panjandrum

_[[ Moderator note.  I believe it is time to let this discussion come to an end.  It may be an untidy end.  But after 116 posts I wonder if the discussion has anything at all to do with the original question?  If it hasn't, then it has wandered off topic.  If it has, then it is never going to come to a conclusion.  Either way, it is now closed.
panjandrum ]]_


----------

